HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 2003/11/04 CIIY OF
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003 CHULA VISi'A COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4:00 P.M. PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING
(immediately following the City Council meeting)
JOINT MEETING Of THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Agency/Council Members Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas; Chair/Mayor Padilla
CONSENT CALENDAR
The staff recommendations regarding the following item(s) listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the
Agency/Council by one motion without discussion unless an Agency/Council member, a member of the public or City
staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action items. Items pulled
by the public will be the first items of business.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 30, 2003; October 14, 2003
2. REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA ON OUTDOOR STORAGE AND RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT
STAFF TO DEVELOP AN OUTDOOR STORAGE STRATEGY CONSISTENT WITH
THE FINDINGS THEREIN AND INCLUDING A COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND
PARTICIPATION COMPONENT - On 5/29/01, Council adopted an ordinance as an
interim measure prohibiting new outdoor storage uses and the expansion of
existing outdoor storage uses in the Redevelopment Project Areas, and directing
staff to conduct the necessary studies and development appropriate policies to
address outdoor storage uses and their impacts. The interim ordinance was
subsequently extended for two years to allow the necessary studies and analyses
to be completed and to allow adequate public participation and input. This report
summarizes the findings and recommendations resulting from these studies and
consultation with City departments, consultants, and community stakeholders.
[Community Development Director]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council/Agency accept the report.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency/City Council on any subject matter
within the Agency/Council's jurisdiction that is no~t an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the
Redevelopment Agency/City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish
to address the Agency/Council on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give
your name and address for record purposes and follow up action.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the
Council/Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the
Council/Agency and staff recommendation 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 Secretary to the
Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting.
3. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH KAMPGROUND ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR A PERIOD OF ONE
YEAR, WITH AN OPTION FOR A SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
A TOURNAMENT SOCCER FACILITY AND LODGE ON APPROXIMATELY 38
ACRES IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY - The owners of the KOA
campground on Second Avenue in the Lower Sweetwater Valley are proposing to
expand the existing campground and to develop a tournament soccer facility and
hotel/lodge. Approval of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement would provide a
timeframe within which to obtain stakeholder involvement and to plan a
development proposal. [Community Development Director]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council/Agency adopt the resolution.
4. REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF REVIEW OF REDEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES - Last year, a group of Chula Vista business
leaders formed an organization, known as the Chula Vista Urban Development
Committee (UDC) for the purpose of exploring the benefits of creating a public-
private redevelopment corporation for Chula Vista. The UDC hired a consultant,
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to prepare a study to examine alternative
redevelopment management structures and to provide to the Council their
recommendation on a preferred redevelopment structure. On May 13, staff
provided an update report to the Agency/Council, recommending that the Council
direct staff to cooperate with KMA on the study. During discussion, Council
directed staff to work with the UDC consultant, and to coordinate a future Council
Workshop on this issue. [Community Development Director]
Carried over from the cancelled meetinq of 10/28/03
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed Scope of Work for Analysis of
Redevelopment Organizational Structures, and direct staff to enter into a contract
with Rosenow & Spevacek (RSG) and Kane, Ballmer & Berkman to review and
expand on the KMA UDC Study, and to produce specific recommended alternative
redevelopment structures for City Council consideration.
5. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR THE 2003
AMENDMENT TO THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
TO AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TRANSMIT THE
REPORT TO SAME AS REQUIRED BY LAW - In November 2002, the
Redevelopment Agency initiated the process to amend the Merged Chula Vista
Redevelopment Plan to facilitate extension of redevelopment and economic
development tools throughout commercial and industrial areas in the western
portion of the City. As part of the 2003 Amendment process, the Redevelopment
Agency is required by the California Community Redevelopment Law to prepare
Redevelopment Agency, November 4, 2003 Page 2
and submit to affected taxing agencies a preliminary report that describes the
reasons for the 2003 Amendment, describes the physical and economic conditions
in the Added Area, determines whether the Added Area is predominantly urbanized
as defined by Law, preliminarily assesses the proposed method of financing
redevelopment, describes the projects proposed by the Agency and how such
projects would alleviate blight in the Added Area. [Community Development
Director]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the resolution.
6. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
7. CHAIR/MAYOR REPORT(S)
8.AGENCY/COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to a closed session and thence to a special meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency on November 11, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the
City Council meeting in the City Council Chambers.
CLOSED SESSION
Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency/City Council states otherwise at this
time, the Agency/Council 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/Council is advised should be discussed in closed
session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency/Council 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/Council's return from closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped.
Nevertheless, announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made by Noon on Wednesday following the
meeting at the City Clerk's office in accordance with the Ralph Brown Act (Govt. Code ~ 54957.7)
9. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.8
Property: Assessor Parcel No. 624-060-4500 (5 acres net usable
land) located on Main Street immediately east of 1-805
Negotiating Parties: Laurie Madigan, Elizabeth Wagner Hull, and Linda Bartz
(Agency/City)
Leonard Tessier (Property Owner)
Under Negotiations: Instructions to negotiators price and terms for
acquisition
10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF LITIGATION--
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c)
One Case
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chura Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require
special accommodates to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such
accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please
contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at (619) 691-5047 or Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
Redevelopment Agency, November 4, 2003 Page 3
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
September 30, 2003 6:00 p.m.
Adjourned Regular Meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista were called to order at 7:31 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public
Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers: Davis, Salas, and Chair/Mayor
Padilla
ABSENT: Agency/Councilmembers: McCann, Rindone (both excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/City
Attorney Moore, and City Clerk Bigelow
CONSENT CALENDAR
Item No. 3, requiring a 4~5tbs vote, was continued to October 7, 2003.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 16, 2003
2. AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1843, RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDED AND
RESTATED OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH HERCAB LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 11,702 SQUARE FOOT
CONCRETE BUILDING FOR A WAREHOUSE, RESEARCH, OFFICE, AND
DISTRIBUTION CENTER AT 725 MAIN STREET WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND AUTHORIZING CHAIR TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT
Hercab Limited Liability proposes an 11,702 square-foot, industrial, concrete tilt-up
building at725 Main Street for use as a warehouse, research, office, and distribution
center. The site is in the Otay Valley redevelopment project area. If approved, Industrial
Automation and Control, which has signed a long-term lease with Hercab, would develop
the property for its business in accordance with the approved plans. Industrial
Automation and Control specializes in the design of control panels for the food industry.
(Community Development Director)
Staff recommendation: Agency adopt the resolution.
3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE 2003 HOLIDAY LIGHTING
PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING WAIVING THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AND
AWARDING A SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO DEKRA-LITE;
APPROPRIATING FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE RCT FUND
($54,000) AND TCI FUND ($17,400); AND DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT
THE 2003 HOLIDAY LIGHTING PROGRAM
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
The holiday lighting program is a continued effort undertaken by the City to celebrate the
holiday season. Since the program's inception in 1999, Dekra-Lite has decorated the
downtown area with a variety of colorful holiday lights, displays, and thematic banners,
and has also lighted three freeway overpasses. The 2003 holiday lighting program will
officially commc~nce following the conclusion of the downtown starlight Yule parade,
which usually takes place on the first Saturday of December. Part of the program
involves installing tree lights in the downtown area in mid-October and keeping them up
until April to correspond to daylight savings time. (Community Development Director)
Staffrecommendation: Council/Ag~ncy continue this item to October 7, 2003.
ACTION: Chair/Mayor Padilla moved to continue Item 3 and approve staff
recommendations on Items 1 and 2, headings read, texts waived. The motion
carded 3-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
OTHER BUSINESS
4. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
There were none.
5. CHAIR/MAYOR REPORTS
There were none.
6. AGENCy/CouNCIL COMMENTS
There were none.
CLOSED SESSION
7. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
a. Property: Assessor Parcel Nos. 619-121-01 and 619-121-02
(approximately 0.14 acres) located at Third and Naples
Negotiating Parties: Laurie Madigan, Byron Estes, Elizabeth Wagner-Hull,
Linda Bartz, (Agency/City), and Mrs. Elisa Flores and Mrs.
Raquel Ruelas
Under Negotiation: Instructions to negotiators
ACTION: Direction was given to staff.
Page 2 Council/RDA Minutes 09/30/03
CLOSED SESSION (Continued)
8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF
LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(C)
One case
ACTION: Direction was given to staff.
9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A)
City/Agency vs. IT Group, Inc, et. al. [Case No. 02-10118 (MFW)]
No reportable action was taken on this item.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:30 p.m., Chair/Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency on October 7, 2003, at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City
Council meeting.
Susan Bigelow, CMC, City Clerk
Page 3 Council/RDA Minutes / 09/30/03
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
October 14, 2003 6:00 p.m.
Adjourned Regular Meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista were called to order at 7:12 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public
Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers: Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and
Chair/Mayor Padilla
ABSENT: Ageney/Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/City
Attorney Moore, and City Clerk Bigelow
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. CONSIDERATION OF (A) A PARCEL REZONE FROM THE THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL PRECISE PLAN (C-T-P) ZONE TO THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
PRECISE PLAN (C-C-P) ZONE; AND (B) PRECISE PLAN (PCM~03-21) TO ALLOW
FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT INCLUDES: 1) 41 APARTMENTS
AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME SENIOR CITIZENS; 2) ONE
MANAGER'S APARTMENT; AND 3) 2,219 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE
Public hearing to consider a mixed use project, including 41 rental units for very low
income seniors, one manager's unit, 2,219 square feet of retail space, and 6,100 square
feet of community space (Community Development Director)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the heating was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Mayor Padilla opened the public heating.
Senior Community Development Specialist Do reported that this item was last discussed at the
meeting of June 10, 2003, and since that time, staff has worked diligently with the school district,
the community, and the developer to address the issues.
Associate Planner Walker spoke to the issues of the June I0, 2003 meeting that included:
insufficient notice to nearby residents, insufficient parking for the residential component of the
project, concerns regarding the building setback, and traffic. He reported that the noticing
requirement was increased fi:om a 500-foot radius to a 1,000-foot radius; the parking ratio was
proposed to be mended to require 42 residential spac.es, with three commercial, on-site,
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued)
employee parking spaces and off-site retail parking of up to 11 spaces. The proposed project
consists of a 10-foot sidewalk with a building mass that includes a six-foot setback. The
balconies would start on the second level and would project out four feet or have a two-foot
setback that would not overhang the public sidewalk. Regarding the issue of traffic, Deputy
Director of Engineering A1-Agha explained that since the June 10, 2003 meeting, staff has been
working with the school to come up with a revised traffic control plan to close the gate on Sierra
Way, eliminate traffic congestion during peak drop off and pick-up times; and establish a traffic
pattern that enters from Broadway and loops to the back playground of the school with another
loop system on K Street. The school district has worked extensively with the public to assign
timeframes for pick-up and drop-off. In addition, a proposed option to provide site access to the
project f~om Broadway would eliminate conflicts with school traffic.
Sid Morris expressed concern regarding the location of the proposed project, stating that the plot
of land is too small and is not zoned correctly. He stated that the location on Broadway, between
J and L Streets, is always congested during peak traffic hours, since both have entrances and
exits to Interstate 5, and he believed that the proposed development would increase traffic on
Broadway. He also felt that the proposed balconies were too close to the public sidewalk and
suggested that the street be kept for residential rather than for commercial use.
Bobby Morris spoke on behalf of neighbors Art Busse, Stan Spicer, Ronald Wiotte, and George
Turner, thanking staff for working to resolve the traffic problems at the back gate of the charter
school. She stated that the existing charter school is almost at student capacity, and she felt that
the proposed project site would be better utilized for additional classrooms. She suggested that
the retail stores continue to be built facing Broadway and that the adjoining building be utilized
for classrooms, which she believed would not affect existing traffic patterns. She also expressed
concern that, due to fair housing laws, the lottery system would prevent local residents from
being given priority for the proposed low-cost housing units.
Peter Warty spoke in support of the proposed project, stating that it would be attractive for
Broadway and a good start towards urbanization, which he believed was inevitable.
Tris Hubbard endorsed the proposed project and encouraged the Council to approx, e staff's
recommendation. He stated that there is an increasing need for senior, low-income housing and
for the oppommity for senior citizens to continue to be productive in the City as mentors for the
youth in the community.
Norma Chavez spoke in support of the proposed project, stating that it would complement the
City's goals; She also emphasized the importance of inter-generational activities for schools in
the community. Regarding traffic issues, she thanked staff for working with the school district to
close the gate and for providing alternate mutes.
Susan Fahle, Assistant Superintendent for the school district, addressed the issue regarding the
pedestrian access gate, explaining that the gate would remain closed permanently in an effort to
move school drop-off and pick-up traffic onto school property through the Broadway and K
Street access points. Ms. Fahle submitted, for the record, a letter dated October 10, 2003,
regarding action taken by the Chula Vista Elementary School District to modify the traffic
patterns at the school.
Page 2 Council/RDA Minutes '- ~ 10/14/03
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued)
There being no further members of the public wishing to speak, Chair/Mayor Padilla closed the
public hearing.
Agency/Councilmember McCann asked if priority could be given to residents of Chula Vista.
Lee Bates, Project Manager for the Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC), responded
that they could focus their advertising in Chula Vista but could not exclude non-residents from
applying. Mitch Thompson, Sen/or Vice President of the MAAC Project, confirmed that it was
their intent to utilize resources that target the Chula Vista population, but that, in accordance
with fair housing laws, non-residents could not be excluded fi.om applying.
Agency/Councilmernber McCann believed that the issues raised at the previous meeting had
been sufficiently resolved and that the proposed project would provide much needed senior
affordable housing in the community. He spoke in support of the intergenerational program,
stating that the program would be invaluable in providing mentorship opportunities between
seniors and youth.
Agency/Councilmember Salas also supported the project and spoke of the value of mentorship.
She stated that the developer had a strong background in mixing social service programs along
with housing, and she believed that the entire community would embrace the proposed project.
Agency/Councilmember Davis commended staff on working with the neighbors to resolve the
traffic issues. She stated that the future of Chula Vista is in the west, with smart growth and high
density.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone questioned the assignment of the three designated retail
spaces. Assistant Planning and Building Director Hemandez responded that 42 spaces are
dedicated to the residential units, and employees of the commercial project could utilize the three
additional on-site parking spaces. Agency/Councilrnember Rindone stated that he would like to
see flexibility in the three additional spaces for either employee or commercial use. He also
asked why the setback in a Central Commercial Zone is 25 feet. Mr. Walker responded that the
current Central Commercial regulations require a 25-foot setback. Acting Planning and Building
Director Sandoval stated that the issue of setbacks would be addressed in the General Plan
Update.
Chair/Mayor Padilla spoke in support of the proposed project, stating that it is one that fills a
community housing need for seniors, and he congratulated the applicant and staff in working in
cooperation with the elementary school district to resolve a number of issues.
ACTION: Agency/Councilmember McCann and offered the following ordinances for first
reading and Agency Resolution No. 1847 and Council Resolution No. 2003-442
for adoption, headings read, texts waived:
a. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-03-008)
AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY SECTION
19.18.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE KEZONING A 1-ACRE
PARCEL LOCATED AT 825 BROADWAY FROM THE C-T-P
(THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, PRECISE PLAN) ZONE TO THE
C-C-P (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL, PRECISE PLAN) ZONE
Page 3 Council/RDA Minutes / ' ~'~ 10/14/03
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued)
b. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING PRECISE PLAN (PCM-03-21) FOR A MIXED-
USE RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT
825 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
c. RESOLUTION NO. 1847, RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE
MIXED-USE PROJECT AND ENTERING INTO AN
OWNER/TENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE
METROPOLITAN AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL
DEVELOPMENT AT 825 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
d. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-442, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, SUBJECT TO FUTURE
APPROPRIATION, IN THE FORM OF A RESIDUAL RECEIPTS
LOAN FROM HOME FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED
$300,000 TO THE METROPOLITAN AREA ADVISORY
COMMITTEE PROJECT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PROPOSED 42 UNIT PROJECT LOCATED AT 825 BROADWAY
The motion carried 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
2. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
There were none.
3. CHAIR/MAYOR REPORTS
a. Appointment of Urban Development Coranaittee Working Committee
ACTION: Chair/Mayor Padilla moved to appoint Chair/Mayor Padilla and
Agency/Councilmember McCann, as well as invite a delegation from the Chula
Vista Urban Development Committee, to work in concert with city staff and the
City's retained experts on an analysis and options for various redevelopment
structures for the City, to be presented at a future community workshop.
Agency/Councilmember Davis seconded the motion and it carried 5-0.
4. AGENCY/COUNCIL COMMENTS
There were none.
Page 4 Council/RDA Minutes 10/14/03
CLOSED SESSION
7. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.8
a. Property: Agency-owned parcels at the northwest comer of
Third Avenue and H Street
NegofiatingParties: Redevelopment Agency (Laurie Madigan) and
Gateway Chula Vista, LLC (Jim Pieri)
Under Negotiations: Terms of lease and DDA revisions
No reportable action was taken on this item.
ADJOLrRNMENT
At 8:30 p.m., Chair/Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of the
Redevelopmcmt Agency on October 21, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City
Council meeting.
Susan Bigelow, CMC, City Clerk
Page 5 Cotmcil/RDA Minutes /-- ~
10/14/03
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: c~
MEETING DATE: 11/4/2003
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: REPORT TO AGENCY/COUNCIL ON OUTDOOR STORAGE AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP AN OUTDOOR
STORAGE STRATEGY CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS THEREIN
AND INCLUDING A COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION
COMPONENT
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ~,.~
4/5THSVOTE: YES ~NO ~
On May 29, 2001, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2836-A as an interim urgency measure
prohibiting new outdoor storage uses and the expansion of existing outdoor storage uses in the
Redevelopment Project Areas. The ordinance directed staff to conduct the necessary studies and
develop appropriate policies to address outdoor storage uses and their impacts.
The interim ordinance became effective for 90 days from the date of adoption and was
subsequently extended for two years to allow the necessary studies and analyses to be completed
and to allow adequate public participation and input. The interim urgency ordinance expired on
August 27, 2003.
Staff has completed a review of the City's existing policies, conducted several special studies, and
solicited public input. And based on this, staff has determined that there are adequate regulatory
tools in place that can be applied to outdoor storage uses and that a set of new regulations is not
necessary at this time. A strategic approach should be developed that coordinates the use of
these existing tools in a comprehensive manner to deal with the issues related to outdoor storage
uses. An important component of the development and implementation of the strategy will be
community outreach and participation.
The attached report (Attachment A) summarizes the findings and recommendations resulting from
these studies and consultation with City departments, consultants, and community stakeholders.
RECOMMENDATION
Agency/Council accept and issue the report.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 11/4/2003
DISCUSSION
Based on an evaluation of land use data and field assessments, the maiority of outdoor storage
uses were identified along the Main Street corridor in fha Montgomery area and in the Southwest
and Of ay Valley Road Redevelopment Proiecf Areas. This is consistent with the historical uses of
land in these areas, especially in those areas that were subsequently annexed to the City.
The nature of outdoor storage is such that the use could result in physical and economic blight,
soil and ground water contamination, fire and safety hazards, noise and of her environmental
impads, and incompatibility with other land uses. The h/pical charaderisfics of outdoor storage
uses can be generally in conflict with many Ci~/goals and obiectives, unless adequate policies
are in place and implemented.
Initially, staff prepared a draft ordinance to require new and existing outdoor storage uses to
obtain conditional use permits fo regulate the uses. However, upon further evaluation and
community input, staff has determined that existing policies and programs would be sufficient to
address outdoor storage uses. As outlined in the affoched report, staff recommends that a
comprehensive outdoor storage strategy be developed to more effectively use existing policies
and staff resources. A successful strategy will require that an interdepadmental team be aligned
to inventor,/and prioritize the scope of code enforcement issues associated with some existing
outdoor storage uses. The code enforcement process should be emphasized as a key component
of the strategy, when adequately funded, staffed, and supported by policy. Another integral
component of the strategy will include community and business owner involvement in issue
resolution. It is anticipated that staff will return to Council with an overall outdoor storage
strategy within the next three to five months.
Any newly proposed outdoor storage uses would be evaluated under the City's existing permiffing
process. Attachment "B" outlines the overall review process as it applies to existing and new
outdoor storage uses.
FISCAL IMPACT
The acceptance of the attached report will not result in significant fiscal impacts at this time.
However, staff resources will be used to develop the outdoor storage strategy, which will be
brought to Agency/Council for consideration within the next three to five months. The
implementation of the strategy could result in fiscal impacts that will be quantified and reported
to Agency/Council at the time the strategy is considered along with recommended funding
sources if applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Report on Outdoor Storage and Outdoor Storage Strategy
Attachment B: Existing Permitting Process - Outdoor Storage Uses
J:\C OMMD EV~STAFF.RF P~I 1-04 -03\OutdoorStorageRepodRev2.doc
ATTACHMENT A
REPORT ON OUTDOOR STORAGE
BACKGROUND
Many City policies refer to and address outdoor storage; however, the term, "outdoor storage" is
not explicitly defined in any of these policies. However, its meaning is made clear by its use and
context in these policies. A definition was drafted by staff in the preparation of proposed policy
recommendations: "Outdoor storage is the keeping of any goods, products, merchandise,
inventory, stock, materials, supplies, cargo, freight, equipment, vehicles, trailers, containers,
salvage, scrap, or junk outside of an enclosed building." Although this definition is not proposed
to be adopted, it illustrates the types of storage that were the subject of the recent moratorium
and subsequent studies.
The City's redevelopment proiect areas were formed in order to eliminate various conditions of
blight, including the blighting influences of outdoor storage uses. The establishment of new outdoor
storage uses or the expansion of existing uses in the redevelopment project areas could result in the
further reduction of land that is available for redevelopment and hinder the implementation of the
various redevelopment plans and the achievement of their goals and objectives.
The typical characteristics of outdoor storage uses can be generally in conflict with many City goals
and objectives, unless adequate policies are in place and implemented. The nature of outdoor
storage is such that these uses could result in visual and economic blight, soil and ground water
contamination, other environmental hazards, and incompatibility with other land uses.
Based on an evaluation of land use data and field assessments, the majority of outdoor storage uses
were identified along the Main Street corridor in the Montgomery area and in the Southwest and
Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Areas. This is consistent with the historical uses of land in
these areas, especially in those areas that were subsequently annexed to the City.
The 2000-2004 Implementation Plan for the Otay Valley Road (OVR) Redevelopment Project Area
includes a program to review and evaluate the continued operation of auto recyclers in the project
area. Auto recycling essentially involves the outdoor storage and dismantling of inoperative
vehicles--typically, the outdoor storage component of the use physically occupies most of the site.
The outdoor storage component of these operations is problematic with regard to the goals and
obiectives of the OVR Redevelopment Project Area and as well as other redevelopment project areas.
The Montgomery Specific Plan and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan identify outdoor storage uses
as blighting influences. Outdoor storage uses are described as over abundant in the area and
negatively affecting the community. Policies in these plans discourage new outdoor storage uses
and encourage their redevelopment to higher and be~ter uses.
There has been interest expressed by businesses to establish or expand auto recycling uses or to
extend the operating period for such uses in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area.
There are approximately 17 auto recycling businesses in the OVR Project Area with special use
permits that will expire by the year 2006. These businesses have and will continue to file requests for
extensions of time to continue their operations. There has also been interest expressed by businesses
to establish or expand outdoor storage uses in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. These
businesses include equipment rental yards, outdoor public storage, towing yards, and auto
wrecking.
The interim ordinance was necessary in order to allow adequate time for staff to conduct studies and
develop appropriate policy recommendations for the Ci~, Council to consider. Furthermore, the
filing of pending and potential applications for outdoor storage uses would have required extensive
staff resources for processing and timely action by the Redevelopment Agency. Without the interim
ordinance, the establishment and expansion of outdoor storage uses would have interfered with the
City's efforts to study the issue and implement any land use policies resulting from the process.
On May 29, 2001, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2836-A as an interim urgency measure
prohibiting new outdoor storage uses and the expansion of existing outdoor storage uses in the
Redevelopment Project Areas. The interim ordinance became effective for 90 days from the date
of adoption and was subsequently extended for hvo years. The interim urgency ordinance
expired on August 27, 2003.
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
Council directed staff to conduct the necessary studies and develop appropriate policy
recommendations to address outdoor storage uses and their impacts. After reviewing existing
City policies on outdoor storage, staff initially prepared a draft ordinance intended to
comprehensively address the goals of these various policies. A workshop was held on January
23, 2003 to receive public input on a proposed draft ordinance for the regulation of outdoor
storage uses. Staff also a~tended meetings in the community on April 3, 2003 and on August 7,
2003 to afford additional opportunities for the public to provide input on issues related to
outdoor storage uses.
After working with inter-departmental staff on various revisions of the ordinance and considering
community input, it was concluded that additional regulations and permit requirements would not
necessarily achieve the City's policy objectives. Staff determined that a comprehensive approach
at implementing existing policies could accomplish these objectives. The following is a summary
of the review and evaluation of the policies and studies relative to outdoor storage as well as a
summary of the public input.
General Plan Update
Subsequent to the adoption of the interim urgency ordinance, the General Plan Update (GPU)
has been initiated. The GPU will provide a long-term vision for the City over the next 15-20
years. Draft land use alternatives are currently being developed for areas within the City,
including the southwest area, which historically has provided a variety of industrial uses and
associated outdoor storage uses. A range of alternatives will be identified by the end of the year.
The General Plan is a comprehensive general policy document, and therefore specific policies
and programs directed at outdoor storage uses should be developed only after the General Plan
policies are established for the affected areas.
Montqomery Specific Plan
The Montgomery Specific Plan includes policies, standards, and conditional use permit
requirements for outdoor storage uses in the Montgomery area. These policies supercede those
of the underlying zones in the Montgomery area. Consequently, most outdoor storage uses in
Montgomery are now subject to review and approval of a conditional use permit. This process
should be maintained as part of the outdoor storage strategy.
Title 19 - Zoninq Code
Development and Performance Standards
Outdoor storage uses that are permitted by right by the Zoning Code are required to comply with
development and performance standards of the underlying zone and other applicable
regulations. Zoning code requirements include minimum setbacks, screening walls and fences,
height restrictions, landscaping, and other standards that would minimize or eliminate the
impacts of outdoor storage uses. Other regulations that would insure the proper design and
operations of outdoor storage uses include building, fire, health, and safely codes; grading and
drainage requirements; runoff pollution prevention; stormwater management, and property
maintenance requirements.
Conditional Use Permits
Many uses that involve outdoor storage are conditionally permitted by the Zoning Code and must
obtain a conditional use permit under the zoning ordinance. If a conditionally permitted use
proposes outdoor storage, the use can be evaluated and appropriate conditions applied if the
CUP is approved. These conditions of approval can include screening, landscaping, design, and
operating standards to reduce or eliminate any potential impacts of the outdoor storage use.
Most auto recyclers in the City are operating under conditional use permits that will expire
between the years of 2004 and 2006. To continue operating beyond their expiration dates, these
businesses would need to obtain approval of extensions of their existing CUPs or obtain approval
of new CUPs. This process insures that the City will have the discretion to review the operations
of those auto recyclers that desire to continue operations. At such time, the City may approve
extensions subject to conditions, including time limits for their continued operation or deny
extension requests. Furthermore, existing auto recyclers must continue to be in compliance with
the conditions of their CUPs or be subject to revocation.
Design Review
The design review process is required for the establishment, expansion, or alteration of uses or
structures in all commercial and industrial zones and for all development and redevelopment
within redevelopment project area boundaries. This allows the City to review and consider the
design of uses that may include outdoor storage. Appropriate screening, landscaping, and
design requirements can be required to reduce or eliminate any impacts of outdoor storage uses.
Illegal and Non-Conforming Uses
Uses that were not lawfully established and uses that have not lawfully complied with the
provisions of the Zoning Code are declared to be public nuisances and subject to abatement and
removal. Lawfully established, non-conforming uses may not be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered.
Redevelopment Plan and Special Studies
Auto recycling uses have been identified as contributing to blighting conditions in the Otay Valley
Road Redevelopment Project Area because of the storage and dismantling of inoperative vehicles
on large tracts of industrial land. The 2000-2004 Implementation Plan for the project area
includes a program to review the continued operation of auto recyclers located on Energy Way
and to evaluate the potential for alternative uses for these properties. The objective of the
program is to determine if some or all of the properties can be redeveloped to a higher and
better use that is consistent with the goals of the project area.
In April of 2002, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. completed the feasibility study for the
redevelopment of auto recycling land uses along Energy Way. The report concluded that there is
a current surplus of available industrial lands that did not warrant the immediate conversion of
the Energy Way lands for industrial park uses. The report also recognized that the auto recycling
industry is a necessary and beneficial land use. The report recommended that the auto recycling
uses be phased out over several years in coordination with the remaining Iifespan of the adjacent
Otay Landfill (2024). The study found that there was an ample supply of industrial lands that
could be absorbed during this transition period and that the relocation of the recyclers, the
remediation of the properties, and marketing of the Energy Way area would require this
transition period.
In addition, Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. completed an economic, land use, and zoning study
for the Southwest Redevelopment Projed Area in 1999. The study concluded that improving the
study area's aesthetic character would be a major benefit to the area and community. The study
recommended fac;ade and landscape improvement programs; screening of outdoor uses; and
the enforcement of standards to address maintenance needs and code violations. Furthermore,
the study recommended the strict review of conditional use permits (for outdoor storage) when
being renewed or extended.
Public Input
A workshop was held on January 23, 2003 to receive public input on a proposed draft ordinance
for the regulation of outdoor storage uses. Staff also aHended meetings in the community on
April 3, 2003 and on August 7, 2003 to afford additional opportunities for the public to provide
input on issues related to outdoor storage uses. In general, the public indicated a willingness to
comply with existing regulations. Others expressed the need for more actions on the City's part
to address related quality of life issues in the community, such as providing basic infrastrudure
(e.g. sidewalks) in some areas, landscaped medians and parkways, etc. Some community
members felt that existing outdoor storage regulations and conditional use permits should be
enforced, instead of creating more regulations. Most opposed additional regulations or
requirements that would result in more burdens on businesses. Many felt that existing regulations
were adequate and that the enforcement of these provisions was all that was needed to improve
the aesthetics and minimize the impacts of outdoor storage uses.
Staff also received correspondence from the public that generally articulated the same ideas
expressed at the meetings with the community. The overall consensus from the public was that
the City should work within the existing regulatory framework rather than creating additional
regulations that could exacerbate code compliance issues.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that a comprehensive outdoor storage strategy be developed to more
effectively use existing policies and staff resources. A successful strategy will require that an
interdepartmental team be aligned to inventory and prioritize the scope of code enforcement
issues associated with some existing outdoor storage uses. The code enforcement process should
be emphasized as a key component of the strategy, when adequately funded, staffed, and
supported by policy. An integral component of the strategy will include community and business
owner involvement in issue resolution. Any newly proposed outdoor storage uses would be
evaluated under the City's existing permitting process. The draft strategy will be presented to
Council for consideration and action within the next three to five months.
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: ~
MEETING DATE: 11/4/03
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA S?ATEMEN?
ITEM TITLE: JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH KAMPGROUND
ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, WITH AN
OPTION FOR A SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A
TOURNAMENT SOCCER FACILITY AND LODGE ON APPROXIMATELY
38 ACRES IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ~~
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ~ ~/~, ~/
4/5THS VOTE: YES [] NO ~
BACKGROUND
The owners of the KOA campground on Second Avenue in the Lower Sweetwater Valley are
proposing to expand the existing campground and to develop a tournament soccer facility and
hotel/lodge. If ultimately developed, land for the project would come from the current owner (the
Bell family), the Redevelopment Agency and, as currently proposed, another adjoining property
owned by Mrs. Mayfair Mross. Mrs. Mross has provided the City/Agency a letter stating she has no
objection to explorafion of the development proposal that could include her property. Since the city
has long hoped to improve this vacant area, staff is recommending approval of an Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Kampground Enterprises, Inc. to provide a timeframe within
which to obtain stakeholder involvement and to appropriately plan a development proposal for the
Council/Agency's consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Kampground Enterprises, Inc. for a period of
one year, with an option for a six month extension for development of a tournament soccer
facility on approximately 38 acres in the Lower Swee~water Valley.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 11/4/03
DISCUSSION
History: The KOA campground was originally built in 1968 and expanded to its 24-acre current
size (owned by Kampground Enterprises, Inc.) in 1979. The Bell family, operators of the KOA,
purchased an additional adjacent 18 acres in 1997. The Redevelopment Agency owns the
immediately adjacent 14 acres. The 6 acres east of lands owned by the Redevelopment Agency
is owned by Mrs. Mayfair Mross. The Agency acquired its 14-acre site in t986 using Low and
Moderate Housing funds as a potential mobilehome and trailer park relocation site. The overall
site abuts the Swee~,vater River and SR-54 on one side, with single family housing on the other
three sides.
Various development proposals have been entertained over the last 20 years however none has
come to fruition. Vehicular access and lack of community support have been key issues
preventing development to date.
Project Proposal: The current proposal, which has been developed with former City Parks and
Recreation Director Andy Campbell, as the staff lead, includes three distinct elements:
1. A soccer field complex
2. A hotel/lodge
3. An expansion to the campground/RV park
The Soccer facility will include six fields suitable for tournament play at the college level, a
parking area and a 3,000 square foot administrative building, plus restrooms. Two of the soccer
fields will be lighted for play in the evening by adult leagues - a need currently unmet in the City.
The fields, while designed primarily for soccer, would be useable for certain other sports and
competitive activities. The soccer complex improvements ore anticipated by the Developer to cost
$1.53 million and utilize 17 acres, most of which is on Agency and Mross owned lands.
The Hotel/Iod.qe will consist of 50-60 rooms in a three-story building. A second phase, housing
an additional 50-60 rooms, may be added in the future. The design will focus on family-oriented
accommodations in the mid-price range. It is intended to be used by those attending
tournaments at the sports complex but rooms can also be rented by local groups and tourists.
There are no plans to open a restaurant in the facility. It will be built on 2-3 acres owned by the
Bells. The Improvements are estimated by the Developer to cost $2.15 million.
The KOA campflround currently consists of 200 RV sites, 43 tent sites and 26 log cabins. The
proposed expansion will add approximately 80 campsites of all the above varieties. Additionally,
new recreational facilities, restrooms and showers will be built. A one-acre pond for fishing and
paddle boats is planned, along with a 7,000 square foot meeting/activity building designed for
groups up to 200 people. This phase of the project would be built on the 18 acres owned by the
Bell family adjacent to the existing campground. The Developer's estimated cost of all the
renovations and additions is $2.84 million.
The proposal also requests the incorporation of a house and parcel owned by the Bell's north of
the current KOA entrance and is referenced in the ENA.
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 11/4/03
Not included in the ENA is the possible consideration of incorporating another parcel between
the existing KOA campground and the SR-54 overpass to accommodate improved access to the
projed. A traffic analysis will be conducted to determine the best means of accessing the project.
With or without this additional parcel, public access will continue to be exclusively from Second
Avenue through the KOA entrance.
The EHA: The agreement sets forth a one-year period in which the applicant and City will work
in good faith to further define the project, to determine the public benefit to be derived from it, to
determine which parcels are required for the project and, if the project proves feasible, to
negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for City Council/Agency
consideration. Depending on progress, a six-month extension to the ENA can be made at a staff
level.
Deliverables:
· Immediately upon approval, the parties shall establish a negotiation and development
schedule and a mutually agreeable public outreach process. The City has provided to
the applicant a mailing list for all property owners and tenants within a 1000-foot
radius around the project. The Applicant will lead the public outreach portion of the
project, with City oversight.
· Within 10 days, the applicant will deposit $5,000 to be utilized by the City/Agency for
third party consultants required to analyze the project.
· Within 60 days, the applicant shall provide the City a progress report including
refinements to the project description
· Within 120 days, the applicant will submit a preliminary Master and Phasing Plan
including a site plan, conceptual elevations and a landscape plan, a market feasibility
study, and a report on the status of negotiations with other property owners.
· Within 150 days, the applicant shall provide the City requested economic data
including project costs and revenue and cash flow analysis for each component of the
project, preliminary proposed sources of acquisition financing, preliminary proposed
sources for initial phase development, and a proposal regarding City and public
access to the facilities.
City/Agency responsibilities: · Coordination of the CEQA process, at developers' cost
· Upon receipt of necessary project financial and other information, the City/Agency
shall expeditiously endeavor to determine the necessity for, as well as legal and
financial feasibility of, the transfer of the Agency owned acreage into the project
· To work cooperatively with the Developer to determine all on-site and off-site public
improvements required (both traffic and non-traffic).
· To provide an estimate of all City exactions and fees
· To work with the developer on project proposal preparation and issues
· To cooperate with the developer regarding negotiations with other properly owners
and governmental agencies
PAGE 4, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 11/4/03
· To proceed with land use entitlements for the applicant once a project is formally
submitted and fee deposits paid (General Plan consistency would be incorporated into
the General Plan update)
· To facilitate federal approval of a revised demarcation of the current flood plain
desig nation
· To facilitate negotiations between the applicant, City and Caltrans regarding
incorporation of a trail currently in Caltrans right of way into the City's Greenbelt
Master Plan, reducing the size of the Caltrans right of way and, if successful,
expanding the allowable area for site access
Early termination ri.qhts: The City/Agency has the right to early termination of the ENA should the
project be determined to be infeasible or provide no public benefit. This includes any instance in
which a considerable lack of public support shows the project is not consistent with community
interests. If this conclusion is reached during the public outreach, staff will return to the
City/Agency to recommend early termination.
Inclusion of Aflency ~)ro~)erty: The FNA presumes inclusion of acreage owned by the Agency in
the development of these facilities. The parcel in question was acquired through the Low-Mod
Housing Fund, which must be made whole financially (Health & Safety Code Section 33334.16).
Though owned by the Agency, the parcel is not currently in a Redevelopment Project Area. It is in
the "Added Area" under consideration for the upcoming Redevelopment Plan Amendment to be
presented for Agency consideration before year-end. If the area is added, the inclusion of the
parcel in the project and at what, if any, cost, as well as the reimbursement to the Low-Mod
Housing Fund, will be determined via a Disposition and Development Agreement for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The ENA has no immediate fiscal impact. The Developer's estimate of fiscal impact of the
project, if found feasible and ultimately developed, is roughly $100,000/year increase in
Transient Occupancy Tax and $11,000/year in tax increment benefit. These figures will be
analyzed and refined as the Proiect develops.
ATTACHMENTS
A- Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
B - Site Iocator map
C - Parcel map
D - Conceptual project map
E - Letter from Mayfair Mross
J:\COMMDEV~STAFF.REP~I 0-14-03\koa-ena.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH
KAMPGROUNDS ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR A PERIOD OF ONE
YEAR, WITH AN OPTION FOR A SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A TOURNAMENT SOCCER FACILITY AND
LODGE ON APPROXIMATELY 38 ACRES IN THE LOWER
SWEETWATER VALLEY
WHEREAS, Kampgrounds Enterprises, Inc. ("Developer") is proposing to develop the Lower
Sweetwater Valley property with a 38 acre mixed use project adding to the existing campground a
tournament soccer facility and a hotel; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project area is comprised of multiple parcels, including at least two
parcels owned by Developer, one parcel owned by the Mross Family Trust and one parcel owned by
the Redevelopment Agency; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with
the Agency for one year, with an option for a six-month extension, in order to develop plans, pursue
entitlements, secure financing, and negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA); and
WHEREAS, the City and Agency are willing to enter into the ENA due to the high quality of
the proposal, its potential to eliminate blighting conditions in the Lower Sweetwater Valley area by
developing an area long underutilized and vacant, and the fact that the proposed project would add
needed recreational facilities and visitor serving accommodations in the community; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that because
the ENA is an agreement to negotiate terms for disposition of land, and to analyze a project
proposal, the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA
Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines no
environmental review of the Project is necessary at this time;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Chula Vista do hereby approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Kampground
Enterprises, Inc regarding the proposed development of a tournament soccer facility, lodge, and
campground expansion on a portion of the Lower Sweetwater Valley on the terms presented and
authorize and direct the Mayor/Chairman to execute the Agreement in a final form approved by the
City/Agency Attorney.
PRESENTED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
Director of Community Development
J:\COMMDEV\RESOS\koa ena.doc
ATTACHMENT A
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
[Lower Sweetwater Valley]
This EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into
effective as of November 4, 2003, ("Effective Date") by and between the
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political subdivision of the
State of California ("Agency"), and THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation
("City") (collectively, "City/Agency"), on the one hand, and KAMPGROUNDS
ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Corporation ("Developer") on the other hand, with
reference to the following facts:
A. Developer is proposing the development of a sports field complex,
hotel/lodge facility, and campground RV park expansion and enhancement as more
particularly described in Section 2.2 hereof ("Project"), upon certain real property
comprised of approximately 38 acres of unimproved real property located within the City
of Chula Vista, California, as more particularly described in Section 2.1 hereof
("Property").
.B. City/Agency owns certain parcels comprising approximately 14 acres of the
Property. The remainder of the property is owned by Developer (approximately 18 acres),
and Mayfair Mross, Trustee of the Mross Family Trust ("Mross Family Trust')
(approximately 6 acres).
C. In order to facilitate the development of the Project on the Property,
Developer and City/Agency desire to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement.
D. Due to the high quality nature of the Project, its potential for eliminating
blighting conditions on and around the Property, the Mross Family Trust support of the
Project and the public benefits arising from the proposed public access to the Project,
City/Agency is willing to enter into such an arrangement on the terms and conditions set
forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the mutual covenants
contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby
acknowledge as satisfactQry, CITY/AGENCY AND DEVELOPER HEREBY AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. NATURE OF AGREEMENT.
1.1 In General. The general purposes of this Agreement are to facilitate the
processing of land use entitlements and environmental impact analysis for the Project; and
to establish an exclusive negotiation period during which the parties agree to attempt, in
good faith: (a) to further define the Project; (b) to determine Project feasibility and
marketability; (c) to determine the extent to which implementation of the Project will result
in public benefit; (d) to determine the extent to which the various parcels herein described
are necessary for the Project; (e) to determine the amount, if any, of warranted
City/Agency participation in the Project, and (f) in the event the parties are mutually
satisfied with the outcomes of the matters described in (a) through (e) above, to negotiate
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~ ~ ~¢~ Page I of 1 9
the terms and conditions of a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA"), which,
subject to the terms of this Agreement, at City/Agency's sole discretion, shall be
presented to the Agency Board/City Council for their consideration. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, City/Agency each reserves the right to approve or reject a DDA, the Project, or
any disposition of the City Parcel, as more particularly set forth in Section 4 of this
Agreement, below.
1.2 Exclusivity. During the term of the Agreement, City/Agency agrees not to
solicit alternative development proposals for the Property, or to negotiate with any other
person or entity regarding the acquisition and development of the Property, For purposes
of this Section, "negotiate" shall mean to conduct communications or conferences of any
kind with a view to reaching a preliminary or final settlement or agreement with respect to
the disposition or development of all or any portion of the Property. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, Developer acknowledges that (a) City/Agency may receive from time to time,
unsolicited alternative proposals for the development of the Property, and (b) City/Agency
reserves the right to conduct a preliminary evaluation and factor in alternative proposals
when considering whether or not to approve, and/or the terms and conditions upon which
to approve, final agreements with Developer for the actual disposition and development of
the Property. City/Agency shall endeavor to notify Developer within ten days after
receiving an unsolicited alternative development proposal for all or any portion of the
Property. In the event an unsolicited proposal is received Developer reserves the right to
submit an alternative proposal to match or improve upon the terms and conditions of the
unsolicited alternative. To the extent any non-City/Agency owned parcel(s) are included
as part of the Project, however, City/Agency reserves the right to extend owner
participation rights to the owner(s) of such parcel(s) and to consider alternative proposals
from prospective owner participants. To the extent an alternative owner participation
proposal is accepted by the City/Agency, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to
the affected parcels owned by the third-party owner-participant(s).
1.3 Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective
Date and terminate on November 4, 2004, unless earlier terminated in accordance with
the provisions hereof (the "Initial Negotiation Period"). At the end of the Initial Negotiation
Period, the City Manager/Executive Director, in his sole discretion, on behalf of the
City/Agency, is authorized to extend the term of this Agreement for up to an additional
one hundred eight (180) days (the "Extended Negotiation Period") provided that at the end
of the Initial Negotiation Period, the City/Agency has not exercised its right to terminate as
herein provided, the Developer is in full compliance with all terms and conditions hereof,
the Developer concurs with such extension of the negotiation period, and the City
Manager/Executive Director has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
Developer will agree to ter~s and conditions for the disposition of the parcels of the
Property required for the development of the Project that City/Agency staff will be able to
recommend to City/Agency prior to the expiration of the Extended Negotiation Period.
2, DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND PROJECT,
2.1 Property Description. Unless additions or deletions are approved or required
by City/Agency, for purposes of this Agreement, the parcels comprising the Property, and
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~,~ '"'7 Page 2 of 19
each parcel's approximate acreage shall be as follows (a map showing the parcels
comprising the Property is attached hereto as Exhibit A.):
2.1.1 Parcels Owned by Developer (collectively, the "Developer Parcels")
Assessor Parcel Nos. 563-330-4900, 563-330-4800 (approximately 18
acres) shown on Exhibit A as Parcel A.
2.1.2 Parcels Owned by City/Agency ("City/Agency Parcel")
Assessor Parcel Nos. 563-350-13-00; 566-131-01-11 (approximately 14
acres) shown on Exhibit A as Parcel B.
2.1.3 Parcels Owned by Mross Family Trust
Assessor Parcel Nos. 563-350-12-00; 566-I 32-55-00 (approximately 6
acres shown on Exhibit A as Parcel C.
2.1.4 Developer may explore acquisition of one or more parcels located
adjacent to the Property if necessary or appropriate for the development of the
Project. Upon written approval of the City Manager/Executive Director and the
waiver or exhaustion of applicable owner-participation rights, such parcel(s} may be
added to the Property.
2.2 Project Description. Unless otherwise approved or required by City/Agency,
the Project will include the following components:
2.2.1 Sports Field Complex. The Sports field complex will be a tournament
quality facility consisting of six fields suitable for college level soccer, a paved area
for parking, an approximately 3000 sq ft administration building, satellite restroom,
and lighting for 2 fields. Fields would be constructed of natural turf with state:of-
the-art irrigation systems. The fields will be designed primarily for soccer, but will
also be able to accommodate other field sports that require a high quality, grass
playing surface. Lighting for two fields is planned using professionally designed
sports lighting to minimize light spill into the neighboring properties. This will allow
for use in the evenings for adult leagues or large-scale tournaments. The
administration building will consist of offices, limited to meeting space, retail, food
concession and restrooms. This building is planned as single story and construction
type is to be determined. The complex, as proposed, would use approximately 17
acres.
2.2.2 Hotel/Lodge Facility. The Hotel/Lodge Facility would consist of one
building with 50-60 rooms in a three-story configuration. Pre-planning for a second
unit in a later phase will add an additional 50-60 rooms. Design will focus on
family-oriented, high quality accommodations in the mid-price range, There are not
plans to include restaurant facilities in the hotel in order to encourage visitors to
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~ -~ Page 3 of 1 9
patronize local eateries in the cityl Estimated cost of the first phase is $2.15 M.
The Hotel/Lodge Facility, as proposed, would utilize roughly 2-3 acres.
2.2.3 Expanded/Enhanced Campground/RV Park. The KOA campground
currently consists of 270 camping sites, a combination of 200 RV sites, 43 Tent
sites, and 26-cabins. After expansion and modernization, the park will offer
approximately 350 camp sites. Additional facilities within the park will include:
Expanded retail, administrative offices, recreation room, additional restrooms and
showers, one acre pond offering fishing and paddle boats, water play area, grassy
open space for recreation & day use, and s 7,000 sq. ft. meeting/activity building
that is designed to accommodate groups up to 200 people. Estimated cost of
campground expansion and upgrades is $2.84 M As proposed, the meeting/activity
building and major recreational facilities described in the campground will be
strategically placed adjacent to the Lodge and sports field to allow for joint
use/alternate use under appropriate circumstances.
A preliminary concept plan for the Project is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Agency/City and Developer acknowledge that this plan is schematic and subject to change
as the Project definition is refined. Developer acknowledges and agrees that Agency may
require or impose additional material obligations on the Project either in the negotiation of
a DDA, or in the entitlements process. If Developer does not agree to any such condition,
Developer reserves the right to terminate this Agreement and not to proceed with the
Project. The City Manager/Executive Director may require or approve minor modifications
to the proposed Project during the term hereof; material modifications to the Project must
be approved by the City Council/Agency Board.
3. DUTIES DURING NEGOTIATION PERIOD,
3.1 Developer's Obligations.
3.1.1 Immediately upon approval of this Agreement, Developer shall (a)
meet and confer with City/Agency staff to develop (i) a mutually
agreeable negotiation and development schedule, (ii) a mutually
agreeable public outreach program to obtain neighborhood and other
public input on the project prior to proceeding with project
processing, and (iii) to agree upon the required forms of Project plans,
pro forma, marketing and feasibility studies, and evidence of
financing that are required by the City/Agency per the milestones set
forth below; and (b) commence good faith negotiations with the
Mross Family Trust for the acquisition of its property.
3.1.2 Within ten (10) days after the Effective Date, Developer shall deposit
with City/Agency $ 5,000 in immediately available funds (the "ENA
Deposit") to be utilized by City/Agency to conduct the Project
analysis described in Section 3.2(a)-(i) hereof. Concurrently,
City/Agency shall provide Developer with a preliminary budget for
City/Agency's completion of such analysis. City/Agency shall have
J:\COMMDEV\AGR£EMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~ "~ Page 4 of 19
the right to draw down on the ENA deposit as necessary to pay third
party consultants, and other reasonable costs incurred by the
City/Agency in conducting such analysis. City/Agency shall request
additional deposits if the initial deposit is exhausted and further
analysis is required. Expenditures exceeding, or outside the scope of,
the City/Agency's initial budget shall be subject to Developer's
reasonable approval. Any deposit balance remaining upon the
termination of the Agreement shall be returned to Developer.
3. 1.3 Within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date Developer shall provide
City/Agency with a progress report and information including: (a)
refinements to the Project description and costs; (b) revised concept
plans; and (c} status updates on information required below in
Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5.
3.1.4. Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the Effective Date,
Developer shall provide City/Agency with:
(a) a preliminary Master and Phasing Plan for the Project including
a site plan, conceptual elevations, and landscape plan,
(b) market feasibility study for the Project; and
(c) a report on the status of negotiations with owners of any
parcels that may be necessary for the development of the
Project.
3.1.5 Within one hundred fifty (150) 120 days after the Effective Date,
Developer shall provide City/Agency with the following information,
which, together demonstrate the feasibility of each of the Project
components:
(a) requested economic data including, but not limited to, project
costs, revenues and cash flow analysis for each component of
the Project and each Project phase;
(b) preliminary proposed sources of acquisition financing for the
Project;
(c) preliminary proposed sources for the development of the
Project's initial phase
(d) proposal regarding City and public access to the Sports field
Complex and community space, if any, at the Hotel/Lodge
Facility With respect to information provided by Developer that
is marked "confidential", the provisions of Section 6.7 hereof
shall apply.
J:\COMMDEV~AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~,~" ~' O Page 5 of 19
3.1.6 Throughout the Negotiation Period, the Developer shall make periodic
oral and written progress reports to City/Agency on all matters
requested thereby. As City/Agency deems reasonably necessary or
appropriate, presentations may be requested at public forums to
solicit input from citizens, businesses, stakeholders and relevant
interest groups.
3.2 Agency Obligations.
a. City/Agency shall coordinate the CEQA process and prepare, or
cause the preparation of all required CEQA documents at Developer's
cost as more particularly provided in Section 3.3.2, below.
b. Upon receipt from Developer of necessary Project financial and other
information, City/Agency shall expeditiously endeavor to determine
the necessity for, as well as legal and financial feasibility of the
transfer of the City/Agency Parcel and other parcels described in
2.1.1 to the Developer.
c. City/Agency shall work with Developer to cause the preparation of
preliminary title reports (PTRs) for the Property within 15 days after
the Effective Date of the Agreement. The PTR's shall be issued by
Chicago Title Company, or another title company mutually
satisfactory to the parties.
d. City/Agency shall work with the Developer to determine all on-site
and off-site public improvements (both traffic and non-traffic)
necessary for the development of the Project.
e. City/Agency shall provide Developer an estimate of all governmental
fees, charges and other exactions required to implement the Project
f. City/Agency staff shall meet with representatives of the Developer to
provide information on required traffic improvements and site design
issues and costs.
h. City/Agency shall cooperate with Developer's negotiations with
prospective owner-participants or other third parties with property
interests necessary for the development of the Project.
i. City/Agency staff is currently processing a General Plan update that
includes a land use designation for the Property consistent with the
proposed project. In the event that Developers proceed with Project
land use entitlements processing, this process will be continued, at
City's cost.
J:\COMMDEV~AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~ '- f ~ Page 6 of 19
j. City/Agency shall cooperate with Developer in its efforts with other
governmental agencies to obtain any and all other permits or
entitlements necessary for Project development.
3.3 Entitlement Processing
3.3.1 Developer is authorized to submit an application for land use
entitlements with respect to the development of the Property with
the Project. City/Agency shall process Developer's application in
accordance with existing City/Agency policies. The entitlement
process will address all applicable land use issues including, without
limitation, affordable housing requirements, schools, parks, transit,
public facility/open space financing, sensitive habitat, etc. In addition
to the monies for Project analysis required under Section 3.1.2,
above, except for City's cost described in Section 3o2(i), above,
Developer shall be responsible for payment of all standard City
entitlement processing fees as and when incurred in accordance with
City requirements.
3.3.2 It shall be the responsibility of the Developer, after early consultation
with the City/Agency as the lead agency, to fund the preparation and
legal review, if necessary, of appropriate environmental document(s)
that will analyze the environmental impacts of the Project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
all of its provisions. The Developer shall initiate early coordination
with the City/Agency, and any other appropriate agencies, in order
to determine the type of environmental document required, the
scope of the document, the level of analysis, and related
environmental requirements. Any contract for CEQA consultant
services shall be substantially in the form of the City's standard
three-party agreement. Developer shall provide all necessary
information, funds and agreements necessary to complete the
required CEQA process for the Project prior to or concurrent with any
proposed adoption of a DDA or entitlements for the Project.
3.4 Terms and Conditions for a DDA
Upon City/Agency staff's preliminary approval of Project concept plans, feasibility,
marketability and public benefit, City/Agency staff and Developer shall in good faith
attempt to negotiate the terms and conditions of an agreement ("Disposition and
Development Agreement", or alternatively "DDA"). If the terms of a DDA can be
negotiated at a staff level, City/Agency staff shall present same to the City
Council/Agency Board for its review and consideration. Any negotiated DDA shall, contain
substantially the following terms, plus others to be negotiated by the parties.
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~-- ~' ~.. Page 7 of 19
a. Disposition of the City Owned Parcels.
The City/Agency shall convey to Developer those parcels of
the City Parcel, determined to be necessary for the Project, and the
Developer shall acquire such property on such terms as may be
agreed upon by the parties. The City Parcel and any other
City/Agency acquired parcels shall be transferred in an "AS IS"
condition with no representations and warranties as to its physical
condition or its suitability for Developer's intended use.
Responsibility for environmental conditions arising before and after
transfer shall be negotiated. Agency will agree to provide Developer
with all information in its possession regarding the physical condition
of the Property. The purchase price, rental and/or other consideration
will be based upon such factors as market conditions, scope of
development, cost of development, cost of environmental remediation
(if any), risks incurred, estimated or actual profit, estimated or actual
rates and charges for the facilities to be developed, public purpose,
extent of public and City access to and potential uses of the Project,
and other matters relevant to establishing the fair market value for
the uses permitted to be developed thereon.
b. City/Agency Acquisition of Property.
The Developer shall own or acquire control of all parcels
comprising the Property, in such a way and at such times as to
permit the development of the Project. In the event after good faith
best efforts, Developer has been unable to acquire one or more
parcels necessary for the development of the Project, City/ Agency,
to the extent allowed by law, after exercising its own best efforts to
voluntarily acquire such parcels, may agree to schedule and deliberate
upon the acquisition of all or some of the non-City/Agency owned
parcels in the Property by the exercise of eminent domain. Nothing
herein shall obligate the City/Agency to exercise eminent domain
except as it deems consistent with the public interest and the
requirements of the law. City/Agency shall retain full discretion to
reject the use of eminent domain as it deems appropriate and
consistent with the public interest.
c. Development of the Project.
The Developer shall develop the Property with the Project, or a
reasonably similar variant of the Project as approved by the Agency
Board/City Council in accordance with an agreed upon schedule.
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley,doc ~ --~ ~ Page 8 of 1 9
d. Security for Developer's Performance.
Developer shall provide security for its performance under the
DDA. Security measures may include one or more of the following:
(1) a conveyance of a conditionally defeasible fee title with right of
reverter; (2) a performance trust deed; and/or (3) guarantees, bonds,
letters of credit, cash deposits or other similar instruments. Any such
measures shall take into consideration any Project lender's need to be
secured and, prior to City/Agency's exercise of its enforcement
rights, shall give such lender adequate notice and an opportunity to
cure any Developer defaults.
e. Economic Risk.
Except as expressly agreed by CityAgency, Developer shall
absorb all economic risks and costs associated with the acquisition of
the Property and the completion of the Project and Developer shall
pay the full cost of all improvements to be constructed on the
Property and any required public off-site improvements including the
cost of all normal City fees and permits applicable to completion of
the proposed improvements.
f. Approval Rights.
City/Agency, and other public agencies with jurisdiction, shall
have reasonable approval rights over the construction and permanent
lenders for the Project to ensure their quality and ability to fund the
project, and over major users and tenants of public and commercial
Project components. Specific standards and the process for obtaining
City/Agency approval shall be negotiated by the parties.
g. Restrictions A~lainst Discrimination.
The DDA shall contain the constraints against discrimination in
the form and manner required by law.
h. Assi~lnment.
Under specified circumstances, Developer may assign its rights
and obligations under the DDA provided, however, Developer shall
first obtain Agency approval. Specific standards and the process for
obtaining City/Agency approval shall be negotiated by the parties.
i. Indemnity.
Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless
City/Agency, its ejected officials, employees and agents against (a)
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~ ... /' ~,~ Page 9 of 19
any and all challengers to the DDA, the Project, or the related
entitlements, and (b) any losses, damages, liabilities, costs (including
attorneys fees or court costs) or claims therefore arising, directly or
indirectly, from actions, errors or omissions of Developer, Developer's
employee's or agents in connection with Developer's processing,
development, financing, transfer or operation of the Project, except to
the extent caused by City/Agency's sole negligence or sole willful
misconduct and to the extent of hazardous materials liability
expressly assumed by City or Agency pursuant to Section 3.4.a.
Developer's obligation under this Section shall survive the termination
of the DDA.
j. Restrictions on Speculation and Excess Profit Takin~l.
In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section
33437, the DDA shall include appropriate covenants and restrictions
to be negotiated by the parties to prevent speculation or excess profit
taking.
k. Covenants and Restrictions.
The parties shall negotiate appropriate covenants and
restrictions designed to assure the long-term existence and success
of the Project.
I. Public Access.
The DDA shall contain provisions for City use and/or public
access to the Sports Field Complex and/or community facilities, if
any, at the Hotel/Lodge Facilities
3.4.1 No Pre-Commitment.
The inclusion of the basic DDA terms set forth above shall not be deemed to
be acceptance of such items by either party until such time as both parties
approve, and then execute a DDA.
3.4.2 Right to Ne~]otiate for Cost Subsidy.
Developer reserves the right to request City/Agency consideration of
a Project subsidy or other form of participation to the extent necessary for the
redevelopment of the Property with the Project. City/Agency reserves the right to
approve or disapprove such a request in its sole discretion in accordance with
applicable laws.
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~=~,~- Page 10 of 19
4. RETENTION OF DISCRETION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AND DDA
This Agreement contemplates that the Project and a DDA providing for its
implementation may be presented to the City Council/Agency Board for approval. The
parties understand that City/Agency is reserving the right to exercise its discretion as to all
matters which it is, by law, entitled or required to exercise its discretion, including, but not
limited to the following:
4.1 Approval by the A~lency of the final Project as contained in the DDA. The
parties understand that City/Agency has the complete and unfettered discretion to reject
a DDA without explanation or cause. The risk of loss of all processing, design and
developmental costs incurred by the Developer prior to DDA approval shall be absorbed
entirely by Developer except unless expressly assumed, by the terms of this Agreement.
4.2 Review and approval by City/Agency of all discretionary findings and
conclusions. The duty of the City/Agency to dispose of the City Parcel or other
City/Agency acquired parcels shall be conditioned upon the successful review and approval
of all necessary findings and conclusions which the City Council/Agency Board is required
to make, including all necessary findings and determinations required under CEQA, state
and local land use provisions and the California Community Redevelopment Law. As to
any matter which City/Agency may be required to exercise its unfettered discretion in
advancing the Project to completion, nothing herein, nor to be contained in the DDA shall
obligate City/Agency to exercise its discretion in any particular manner, and any exercise
of discretion reserved hereunder or required by law, shall not be deemed to constitute a
breach of City/Agency duties under this Agreement.
5. TERMINATION RIGHTS
Notwithstanding the nominal Initial or Extended Negotiating Periods hereinabove set
forth, either party may terminate this Agreement if the other party has materially defaulted
in its obligations herein set forth, and the terminating party has provided defaulting party
with written notification of such determination, and the defaulting party has refused to
cure same. The written notification shall set forth the nature of the actions required to
cure such default if curable. Defaulting party shall have 30 days from the date of the
written notification to cure such default. If such default is not cured within the 30 day,
the termination shall be deemed effective. For purposes of this paragraph, the parties
hereby acknowledge that time is of the essence. Each party shall aJso have the right to
terminate this Agreement in the event that City/Agency or Developer determines that (a)
the Project is infeasible, based on financial or environmental impact considerations, or not
in the public interest; or (b) the parties reach an impasse in their negotiation of the DDA
which cannot be resolved after good faith' efforts. Upon termination, City/Agency shall
return any unspent and uncommitted ENA Deposit monies.
J:\COMMDEV~AGRE~:MENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~1~" f ~ Page 1 1 of 19
6. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS
6.1 No Competin~l Development.
Developer shall not commence the construction of any parcels comprising the
Property owned or controlled by the Developer until this Agreement has been properly
terminated according to its terms. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer reserves the
right to pursue development on adjacent parcels provided that such development is
compatible with the Project.
6.2 City/Agency Right to Acquire Developer Acquired Parcels.
If Developer shall have acquired any parcels adjacent to or part of the Property not
owned by the Developer as of the Effective Date hereof by voluntary acquisition, and this
Agreement is properly terminated without an approved DDA, City/Agency shall have the
option, notice of exercise of which is to be given within 120 days after receipt of written
notice of termination, to acquire such parcels for the actual cost incurred by Developer in
its acquisition. Such costs shall include, but not be limited to, third party fees incurred in
the acquisition, and a reasonable charge for time spent on the acquisition by Developer
representatives prior to the sale to the Agency in an amount not-to-exceed $5,000 per
parcel acquired by Developer.
6.3 Developer's Findin~ls, Determinations, Studies, Reports, and Financing.
As requested by City/Agency, from time to time, the Developer agrees to make
periodic oral progress reports and periodic written reports advising City/Agency on all
matters and all studies being made to the extent that they do not include confidential
matters. All such matters shall be deemed to be the joint property of City/Agency and
Developer, and may be used by either party without reimbursement to the other.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that City/Agency enters into an agreement for
the redevelopment of the Property within one year after the termination of this Agreement
for a reason other than Developer's default, Developer shall be entitled to reimbursement
of its out-of-pocket costs incurred with respect to those studies and reports that it
provided to the City/Agency and are utilized by the subsequent developer for development
of the Property. Developer shall not warrant or guaranty the accuracy or completeness of
any study or report provided; City/Agency and any third party that uses such studies and
reports does so at their own risk.
6.4 Real Estate Commissions.
Neither City/Agency nor Developer shall be liable for any real estate commission or
brokerage fees which may arise here from. City/Agency and Developer represent that they
have engaged no broker, agent or finder separately in connection with this transaction and
each party agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other against claims for
commissions or fees made through such party.
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~,~" ~' ~7 Page 12 of 19
6.5 Each Party to Bear its Own Cost.
Each party shall bear its own costs incurred in connection with the negotiation of a
DDA, and the implementation of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided
herein or expressly agreed in writing.
6.6 Confidentiality.
Developer acknowledges and agrees that City/Agency is a public entity with a
responsibility and, in many cases, legal obligation to conduct its business in a manner open
and available to the public. Accordingly, any information provided by Developer to
City/Agency with respect to the Property, the Project or Developer may be disclosed to the
public either purposely, inadvertently, or as a result of a public demand or order. With
respect to any information provided that Developer reasonably deems and identifies in
writing as proprietary and confidential in nature, City/Agency agrees to exercise its best
efforts to keep such information confidential. Upon Developer's request, City/Agency
agrees to negotiate the terms for a Confidentiality Agreement with respect to such
information.
7. NO PRE-COMMITMENT
By its execution of this Agreement, City/Agency is not committing itself or agreeing
to undertake any activity requiring the subsequent exercise of discretion by City/Agency,
or any department thereof including, but not limited to, the approval and execution of a
Disposition and Development Agreement; the proposal, amendment, or approval of any
land use regulation governing the Property; the provision of financial assistance for the
development of any public or private interest in real property; the authorization or
obligation to use the Agency's eminent domain authority; or, any other such activity.
This Agreement does not constitute a disposition of property or exercise of control
over property by City/Agency and does not require a public hearing. City/Agency
execution of this Agreement is merely an agreement to enter into a period of exclusive
negotiations according to the terms hereof, reserving final discretion and approval by
CityAgency as to any proposed Disposition and Development Agreement and all
proceedings and decisions in connection therewith.
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~ _ ~ ~ Page 1 3 of 19
8. GENERAL PROVISIONS
8.1 Address for Notice.
Developer's Address for Notice:
111 N. 2nd Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Mike Bell
Telephone: 619-427-3601
Fax: 619-427-3601
With a copy to:
Mr. David Lane
Hinchy, Witte, Wood Anderson & Hodges
525 B. Street, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 92101
Agency's Address for Notice:
City and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
ChulaVista, CA 91910
Attn: Patricia Beard, Senior Community Development Specialist
Andy Campbell, Director of General Services
Telephone: {619) 691-5047
Fax: (619) 476-5310
With a Copy to: Glen Googins, Senior Assistant City Attorney
8.2 Authority.
Each party represents that it has full right, power and authority to execute this
Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder, without the need for any further
action under its governing instruments, and the parties executing this Agreement on the
behalf of such party are duly authorized agents with authority to do so.
8.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in multiple copies, each of which shall be deemed
an original, but all of which shall constitute one Agreement after each party has signed
such a counterpart.
8.4 Entire Agreement.
This Agreement together with all exhibits attached hereto and other agreements
expressly referred to herein, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~ *- ,/ ~ Page 14 of 19
respect to the subject matter contained herein. All prior or contemporaneous agreements,
understandings, representations, warranties and statements, oral or written, are
superseded.
8.5 Further Assurances.
The parties agree to perform such further acts and to execute and deliver such
additional documents and instruments as may be reasonably required in order to carry out
the provisions of this Agreement and the intentions of the parties.
8.6 No Third Party Beneficiaries.
There are no other parties to this Agreement, express or implied, direct or indirect.
City/Agency and Developer acknowledge that it is not their intent to create any third party
beneficiaries to this Agreement.
8.7 Exclusive Remedies.
Termination of the Agreement pursuant to Section 5 above and the limited
monetary damages remedy set forth herein shall be the sole and exclusive remedies of a
non-defaulting party with respect to any default hereunder, and neither party shall be liable
to the other party for additional losses or damages suffered by the other party as a result
thereof. Without limiting the foregoing, in no event shall either party or its respective
officers, directors, partners, shareholders, agents or employees be liable to the other party
hereunder for special, indirect, consequential, punitive or exemplary damages of any
nature or kind whatsoever except as expressly provided herein, including loss of profits or
revenue, lost business opportunity, lost contracts or loss of use, and each party hereby
releases the other therefrom. The parties intend that the waivers and disclaimers of
liability, releases from liability, limitations of liability, and exclusive remedy provisions
expressed in this Section shall apply, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, even in the
event of the fault, negligence (in whole or in part), strict liability or breach of contract of
the party released or whose liability is waived, disclaimed, limited or fixed by such
exclusive remedy provision, and shall extend to such party's affiliates and contractors, and
to its and their partners, shareholders, directors, officers, employees and agents. The
parties also intend and agree that such provisions shall continue in full force and effect
notwithstanding the expiration or earlier termination of the Agreement. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, in the event of a default hereunder, the non-defaulting party reserves the
right to pursue the other for monetary damages in an amount limited to the out-of-pocket
costs incurred by the non-defaulting party in connection with the Agreement, not to
exceed a maximum damages recovery of $20,000. This limitation on damages shall not
operate to limit Developer's right to the return of any unexpended ENA Deposit funds
pursuant to Section 3.1.2, nor Developer's right to reimbursement for certain out-of-
pocket costs pursuant to Section 6.3, which shall be Developer's rights in addition to any
claim for monetary damages up to $20,000 under this Section.
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~? ,- ~, ~) Page 15 of 19
8.8 Indemnity.
Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City/Agency, its
elected officials, employees and agents from and against any and all challenges to this
Agreement, or any and all losses, liabilities, damages, claims or costs (including attorneys'
fees) arising from Developer's negligent acts, errors, or omissions with respect its
obligations hereunder or with respect to Developer's (or its agents or contractors)
negligent acts, errors or omissions with respect to the Property, excluding any such losses
arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of City/Agency or the conduct
of third parties outside the control of the Developer. This indemnity obligation shall
survive the termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of
a third party challenge to the validity of this Agreement, Developer shall have the option to
terminate this Agreement in lieu of its indemnity obligation.
8.9 Assignment.
City/Agency would not have entered into this Agreement but for Developer's
unique qualifications and experience. Therefore, Developer's rights and obligations under
this Agreement may not be assigned without the prior written approval of City/Agency in
its sole discretion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, subject to the reasonable prior written
approval of the Executive Director, Developer may assign its rights hereunder to a new
entity comprised of the Developer for purposes of developing the Project. Such new entity
may include additional parties provided that the Developer retains responsibility for
fulfilling its obligations hereunder and Developer retains management control and authority
over the entity and the Project.
8.10 Time is of the Essence.
Time is of the essence for each of Developer's obligations under this Agreement
[ NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE ]
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~ - ~ ~ Page 1 6 of 19
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
[Lower Sweetwater Valley]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date
set forth above, thereby indicating the consent of their principals,
"City/Agency .... Developer"
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY CAMPGROUNDS ENTERPRISES, INC.,
OF CHULA VISTA a California Corporation
By:
Stephen C. Padilla
Chairman .~..
By:
Michael T. nt
CITY OF CHULA VISTA By:
By: Teddy E. Bell, Vice President
Stephen C. Padilla
Mayor
Approved as to form:
By:
Ann Moore
Agency Attorney / City Attorney
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc Page 17 of 1 9
EXHIBIT A - PROPERTY
[ TO BE INSERTED ]
USE MAP
J:~COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ~"e~,.~ Page 18 of 19
EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN
[ TO BE INSERTED ]
TO BE PROVIDED BY DEVELOPER
J:\COMMDEV\AGREEMENTS\ENA Lower Sweetwater Valley.doc ,,~'~11~ ~1~ Page 19 of 1 9
T
ATTACHMENT
OhO
09/04/2003 11:31 FA~ 16193976250 CITY OF CV [~no~
ATTACHMENT E
o.~ General Services Department
o~utavb-ra Fax Cover £ettqr
NO. OF PAGES INCLLIDING COVER: 3
TO: Glen Googins
DEPT: Attorney's Office
FROM: Michele Robinson for Andy Campbell
PHONE: 619-397-6067
FAX: 619-397-6250
SUBJECT: KOA
MESSAGE:
Enclosed, per your request, is the signed letter from MayfaLr Mross.
1800 MAXWELL ROAD CI-IULAVISTA, CA 91911
09/04/2003 11:31 FAZ 16193976250 CITY OF CV ~002
CHULAVISTA
BUILDING AND PARK CONSTRUCTION
Mrs. Mayfair Mross CITY OF eHULA VISTA
$0§ Che. z~ Cou~t ~ BL~. & PARK C~RU~ION
C~u!aV{st~ CA 91910
RE: Proposed Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the City and Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista and the Bell Family for a Soccer Tournament
Facility on Lower Sweetwater Valley Property
Dear Mrs. I(~6'ss: i .... ' -- ' ,
As.you know, the Bell fsmlty is proposing to develop a tournament soccer facility aud
l~)dge (the '~';P;f6ject")'on approximately 38 acres of property adjacent to the existing ICOA
campgrotmd:in Chula Vista (the "Property"), The Property include~ parcels oWned-by
the Bells (approximately 18 acres), the Redevelopment Agency of the Cffy of Chula ¥ista
(approximately 14 acres), and the Mross F~m{]y Trust (approximately 6 acres), A
description of the proposed Project and a map of the Property are attached for you
information.
Thc Bells have proposed that thc City and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
Vista ("City'~) enter into a~ Exc. l_u. $!ye Negotiating Agreement (a.!s__o_k~_own_~.aq_"E_N. _A'.~) ................
· with respect to their proposed development of the Project on the Property. The zurrea~t
draft of the proposed ENA is attached for your information. The purpose of the ENA in
this case would be to establish a period of time during which the Bells and the City would
focus their combined resources on exploring the overall feasibility of the Project_ If it
were determined at any time that the Project is not feasible, the ENA could be terminated.
If the Project were found to be feasible, the pm'ties could then seek to negotiate the terms
and conditions ora Disposition and Development Agreement (commonly known as a
"DDA~):' --The proposed time frame for the determination of Pr0ject feasibility and DI)A
ueg0ti'aridn~.f~:bne year fi:om ~tial approval of the ENA.' '
Before it finally considers whether or not to enter into the ENA with the Bells, the City
~ould lille.to obtain your acknowledgement and consent to having your Property
included as part of the ENA. In order to indicate your cousenL please sign and date the
1800 MAXVVELL ROAD - CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91911-6158 - PH (619) 397-6070 - FAX (61 9) 3~17-6250
09/04/2003 11:31 FAY/ 161939752S0 CITY OF CV ~003
enclosed original copy of this letter and return it to my attention in the ,'nclosed stamped,
addressed cmvelope. If instead you would like to propose your own Project or use for
your property, the City requests that you do so within 45 days of the date of this letter.
If you hav~ any questions regarding tlfis letter or the Project, please do not hesitate to call
me at (619) 397-6064 or (530) 964-2705. If you, or your lawyer, have any legal
questions, please contact Glen Googins, Senior Assistant City Attorney at (619) 691-
5037.
Very Truly Yours,
Director'General Ser.cices .......
The Mross Family Trust owns approximately six acres of unimproved real approximately
38 acres of property located adjacent to the existing KOA cmnpground in Chula Vista
(Assessor's Parcel No. 563-350-12-00; 566-132-55-00) (the "Mross Property"). As
Trustee o£the Mross Family Trust I h~reby acknowledge and consent to the inclusion of
the Mmss Property as part of the Property doscribed in the proposed ENA (described
above') between the Bell family and the City and Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chu/a Vista. By signing this letter I am not offering for sale or consenting to the sale of
the Mross Property and I reserve the right to approve or disapprove any such sale or other
disposition of the Mross Property in my sole discretion. I am authorized to act on bel~alf
of the Mr?ss Family Trust with regpe~t to this matter.
May~ross Tru~ee of the Mross Fmmly Trust
....
cc: Glen ~. ~Joogins, Senior Assistant City Attom y
CITY OF CHULAVISTA 2
,.g-So
PAGE 1, iTEM NO.: ~
MEETING DATE: ~
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF REVIEW OF REDEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ~
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR~,,~~''
4/5THS VOTE. YES ~ NO
BACKGROUND
Last year, a group of Chula Vista business leaders formed an organization, known as the Chula
Vista Urban Development Committee (UDC) for the purpose of exploring the benefits of creating a
public-private redevelopment corporation for Chub Vista. The UDC hired a consultant, Keyser
Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to prepare a study to examine alternative redevelopment
management structures and to provide to the Council their recommendation on a preferred
redevelopment structure. On May 1 3, staff provided an update report to the Agency/Council,
recommending that the Council direct staff to cooperate with KMA on the study. During discussion,
Council directed staff to work with the UDC consultant, and to coordinate a future Council
Workshop on this issue.
Since the May 13 Council meeting, staff has cooperated with KMA, and KMA has completed the
UDC Study. We have retained the services of Kathleen Rosenow, with Rosenow & Spevacek, and
Murray O. Kane, with Kane, Ballmer & Berkman to provide additional analysis and assist staff in
preparation of a Council Workshop, and at the joint City/Agency meeting of October 14 a
committee was appointed by Mayor Padilla to work with staff on this issue.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve th'e proposed Scope of Work for Analysis of P, edevelopment Organizational Structures
(Attachment A), and direct staff to enter into a contract with R, osenow & Spevacek (I~SG) and
Kane, Ballmer & Berkman to review and expand on the KMA UDC Study, and to produce specific
recommended alternative redevelopment structures for City Council consideration.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: ~
MEETING DATE: 10/28/03
DISCUSSION
Last year, a group of Chula Vista business leaders formed an organization, known as the Chula
Vista Urban Development Commiffee (UDC) for the purpose of exploring the benefits of creating a
public-private redevelopment corporation for Chub Vista. The UDC hired a consultant, Keyser
Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to prepare a study to examine alternative redevelopment
management structures and to provide to the Council their recommendation on a preferred
redevelopment structure. On May 13, staff provided an update report to the Council,
recommending that the Council direct staff to cooperate with KMA on the study.
During Council discussion, staff was directed to work with the UDC consultant and to coordinate a
future Council Workshop on this issue. Since the May 13 Council meeting, staff has cooperated with
KMA, and KMA completed its' study, "Comparative Analysis of Redevelopment Organizational
Structures" in September. Copies of the KMA report were forwarded by the UDC to the Mayor and
each of the Council members. The study provides an overview of redevelopment structures and
recommends the formation of a non-profit development corporation in Chula Vista.
In order to assist in staff analysis of the final UDC study, Community Development engaged the
services of Kathleen Rosenow and Murray O. Kane. Ms. Rosenow is a pan~ner in Rosenow &
Spevacek (RSG), a consulting firm that specializes in providing financial and policy guidance to
redevelopment agencies throughout the State. Mr. Kane, with Kane Ballmer & Berkman, is well-
known throughout California as a pre-eminent redevelopment attorney, with clients throughout the
State and including the Center City Development Corporation (CCDC) in San Diego. Ms. Rosenow
and Mr. Kane have reviewed the UDC study and met with staff on ~vo occasions to discuss
preliminary impressions and to develop a strategy that will provide complete and unbiased analysis
of the subject and a format for presentation to the Council that will facilitate informed debate and
decision-making. The result of the meetings is a proposed Scope of Work, included herein as
AItachment A.
As noted in the Scope of Work, Ms. Rosenow and Mr. Kone will build upon the information in the
KMA report and will:
(i) focus on the various goals of the City relating to redevelopment
(ii) review the efficiencies and areas for improvement in the ability of the current
organizational structure to meet these goals
(iii) analyze how the goals could best be realized in the City of Chula Vista under various
alternative organizational structures, and
(iv) include specific recommendations for alternative organizational structures
Based upon our discussions with Ms. Rosenow and Mr. Kane, their extraordinary experience in the
field of redevelopment, and their understanding of the issues as they relate particularly to Chula
Vista as clarified in the Scope of Work, staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: ~
MEETING DATE: 10/28/03
retain the consultants to complete the analysis as detailed in the attached Scope of Work and
schedule a Council Workshop upon completion of the Rosenow/Kane analysis.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost to complete the Kane/Rosenow Analysis of Redevelopment Organizational
Structures is $20,000.
ATTACHMENTS
1 - Scope of Work for Analysis of Redevelopment Organizational Structures
J :\COMMD EV~STAFF.RI: P~I O-28-03\UDC.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
SCOPE OF WORK
FOR ANALYSIS OF
REDEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Chula Vista is involved in a review of the organizational structure of
its Redevelopment Agency. The Chula Vista Urban Development Committee was
formed by persons interested in pursuing alternative redevelopment agency structures,
and has, together with the City, obtained a report, entitled "Comparative Analysis of
Redevelopment Organizational Structures," dated September 15, 2003, prepared by
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
The City has hired Kathleen Rosenow, ofRosenow & Spevacek, and Murray O.
Kane, of Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, as consultants to review and expand on this analysis
and to produce specific recommended alternative redevelopment structures for City
Council consideration.
This Scope of Work outlines the methodology to be used by these consultants.
Building upon the information in the Keyser Marston report, the consultants will (i) focus
on the various goals of the City relating to redevelopment, (ii) review the efficiencies and
areas for improvement in the ability of the current organizational structure to meet these
goals, (iii) analyze how the goals could best be realized in the City of Chula Vista under
various alternative organizational structures, and (iv) include specific recommendations
for alternative organizations structures.
Major planning and redevelopment framework efforts are currently underway in
the City, including a major amendment of the City's General Plan, the preparation and
adoption of a Specific Plan for the Urban Core, and the expansion of the City's
redevelopment projects in the Urban Core area. There is an opportunity to use this
planning period to analyze, consider and implement a new redevelopment organizational
structure for the City of Chula Vista that could "hit the road running" at the very time the
new General Plan, new Urban Core Specific Plan and expanded Redevelopment Projects
take effect.
II. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STRUCTURAL GOALS
The organizational structure of the redevelopment agency must optimize
achievement of the following (not in order of priority as all are crucial):
A. Obtain and utilize necessary real estate, financial, fiscal, planning
and redevelopment expertise.
B. Provide a focus and an advocacy in getting redevelopment done
and in clearly sending a message to the private sector (property owners, developers,
lenders, investors, end users, tenants) that the City is ready, willing and able to get the job
done.
C. Provide a means of streamlining permitting and entitlement steps
for approved redevelopment projects.
D. Provide a forum and fi'amework to put together specific
redevelopment transactions that work in terms of planning and the environment, as well
as meeting fiscal and economic needs, and to obtain and incorporate input from all
interested persons, in advance of formal public hearings scheduled at the City Council
level.
E. Maximize returns on investment for both the City and the Agency,
taking into account the unique revenues and costs of both the City and Agency in each
particular transaction.
F. Maintain and strengthen City and Agency cooperation at all levels.
III. CONSULTANTS' SCOPE OF WORK
A. The consultants will first take each of these structural and
organizational goals and diagnose the extent to which they are and are not being achieved
under the current structure.
B. Second, each of these goals would be reviewed as to how they
might best be achieved for the City under each alternative organizational structure, with
pro's and cons identified. The alternative structures to be analyzed would be the
following:
(1) Independent Appointed Redevelopment Agency
(2) Community Development Commission
(3) Non-Profit Development Corporation
(4) Redevelopment Commission (not identified in the Keyser
Marston report)
C. Third, other organizational issues would be applied to each
structural alternative under consideration, such as:
(1) The Board
a. Who is eligible to be appointed and what if any
limitations exist?
b. What is the removal procedure and what if any
limitations exist?
(2) Staffing
a. Could existing, new City employees or non-City
employees staff the new entity?
b. What form of personnel system would be needed?
(3) Administration
a. What are the annual budget approval/oversight
procedures?
b. What financial reporting requirements would be
necessary for each organizational structure?
c. Where should the operations be located (City Hall,
off-campus)?
(4) Jurisdiction
a. What is the precise ~ea of influence and authority
of the new entity?
b. What is the relationship of the new entity to
citywide housing and economic development efforts?
c. What is the relationship of the new entity to those
responsible for implementing City planning, environmental, legal and finance
requirements, and to those requirements themselves?
d. How will the entity interface with existing boards
and commissions (Planning Commission, Project Area Committees, etc)?
(5) Costs
What is the cost to the City/Agency (initially and over
time) and how long would it take to implement each alternative structure?
D. Fourth, the consultants will utilize this scope of work to provide a
specific organizational structure for the City's redevelopment efforts.
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: --~
MEETING DATE: 11-04-03
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PRELIMINARY
REPORT FOR THE 2003 AMENDMENT TO THE MERGED CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES,,
AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TRANSMIT THE REPORT TO SAME AS
REQUIRED BY LAW
SUBM,..,) ,,Y: COMMUN,TY DEVELOP ?T D.RECTOR
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ~/rj 0~' r
4/5THS VOTE: YES ~ NO ~
BACKGROUND
in November 2002, the Redevelopment Agency initiated the process to amend the redevelopment
plans for the Town Centre II, Otay Valley and Southwest Redevelopment Project Areas to, among
other things, consolidate the Plans and incorporate additional territory. The three subject areas were
merged for financial reasons in August 2000 into the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project
Area, but their plans were kept independent of each other at that time. The proposed new
amendment (known as the "2003 Amendment") was initiated to facilitate extension of redevelopment
and economic development tools throughout commercial and industrial areas in the western part of
Chula Vista.
As part of the 2003 Amendment process, the Redevelopment Agency is required by the California
Community Redevelopment Law to prepare and submit to affected taxing agencies a Preliminary
Report that describes the reasons for the 2003 Amendment, describes the physical and economic
conditions in the Added Area, determines whether the Added Area is predominantly urbanized as
defined by Law, preliminarily assesses the proposed method of financing redevelopment, describes
the projects proposed by the Agency and how such projects would alleviate blight in the Added Area.
Attached to the accompanying resolution is the Preliminary Report prepared by consultants under the
direction of staff and legal counsel. The Redevelopment Agency is asked to authorized staff to
transmit the Preliminary Report to all the affected taxing entities.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Agency adopt the resolution authorizing transmittal of the Preliminary Report for the
2003 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Chulo Vista Redevelopment Project
Area, and directing staff to transmit same to affected taxing agencies as required by law.
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 11-04-03
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Preliminary Report is an informational document and not subject to review or approval by
the Added Area Project Area Committee or the Planning Commission. Other documents
reviewed by the PAC will be forwarded, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the
Agency and City Council at a subsequent meeting.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 33344.5 of Redevelopment Law, the Preliminary Report
consists of five sections, each addressing a particular component required by Law. State Law
requires that the Agency prepare this Preliminary Report and provide it to affected taxing agencies
(County, school districts, and special districts) as part of the Agency's ongoing consultation
process with these entities. The Preliminary Report is exactly that--preliminary in nature. The
information in the Preliminary Report will be subject to review and revision and subsequently form
the basis for part of the more comprehensive Agency's final "Report to the City Council", which
contains similar but expanded information about the reasons for the 2003 Amendment, the EIP,,
the reports and recommendations of the Planning Commission and Project Area Committees and
other information, and is presented at the joint public hearing taking place on November 11,
2003.
Below is a summary of the Preliminary Report's components:
Reasons for the Amendment (Section A of the Preliminary Report)
As described in Section A of the Preliminary Report, the 2003 Amendment is being proposed to
achieve the following:
1) Consolidate the three existing redevelopment plans into a single document to expedite
administration and implementation of redevelopment activities in the western part of
Chula Vista. The Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment Plans were
prepared at different times over a 15-year period, based on practices and legal
requirements in effect at the time. Consequently, the documents vary dramatically, and
the financial merger in 2000 has highlighted these inconsistencies. Additionally, the fact
that the Added Area would need to be incorporated into the redevelopment plan creates
an opportune time to update and consolidate the existing Redevelopment Plans.
2) To achieve a comprehensive redevelopment program, add the necessary properties along
Broadway, Third Avenue and other commercial and industrial corridors in the western
part of Chula Vista to the Project Area. The proposed Added Area consists of 529 acres
of property that is generally contiguous to the existing Project Areas. Adding this properly
enables the Agency to more effectively implement projects like revitalization of the
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 11-04-03
Broadway corridor as part of the City's overall efforts to altend to the acute needs in older
parts of Chula Vista.
3) Extend eminent domain authority~ consistent with Agency policy in its Redevelopment
Project Areas, in the Ota¥ Valley and Town Centre II constituent areas. Eminent domain
authority, though rarely used by the Agency, is an essential component of the
redevelopment program, particularly where lot assembly is needed to consolidate
undersized lots under mixed ownership. As recently as last year when it extended eminent
domain authority in the Southwest constituent area, the Agency has sought to maintain its
eminent domain authority. However, the existing Redevelopment Plan's time limit on
commencing eminent domain has expired in the Town Centre II and Otay Valley
constituent areas. Thus, in order to create uniformity among the existing and proposed
redevelopment areas and have a needed tool to facilitate redevelopment activities, the
2003 Amendment proposes to extend eminent domain in the Otay Valley and Town
Centre II constituent areas for an additional 12 years but exempts occupied residential
properly in a residential zone (note: currently, Otay Valley has no residentially zoned
property).
Though occupied residential property in residential zones would be exempt from eminent domain
by the proposed Amendment, eminent domain would be available to the Agency on residential
property in non-residential zones (commercial and industrial zones). In most cases non-
residential uses are located in non-residential zones in the Project Area. However, there are eight
trailer parks (seven in the Added Area and one in Town Centre II) and ~vo other residential
parcels within the Added Area that are located in commercial or other non-residential zones, that
could be subject to eminent domain acquisition if the Amendment is approved.
In its other redevelopment areas, the Agency's policy has been to retain eminent domain on
residential properly in areas where non-conforming residential uses exist. Though there may not
be current plans to acquire or redevelop these non-conforming residential uses over the next
several years, it is conceivable that some non-conforming residential uses could be redeveloped
in the future as the City looks to implement the General Plan goals to improve west Chula Vista.
Eminent domain is an important tool for the Agency as it seeks to address blighting conditions
such as consolidating and redeveloping parcels that are undersized, lack parking and contain
obsolete buildings that stifle economic growth in the area. Below is a list of properties that are
located within the proposed Added Area that are either residentially-zoned or residentially-used:
Address Zoninq Current Use
1034 Fourth Avenue R-1 Del Rey Adult School
782 Third Avenue R-3 Apartment Building (17 Units)
776 Third Avenue R-3 Apartment Building (38 Units)
691 E. Manor Dr. R,-1 Single Family House
617 Third Avenue C-O Condominium Complex (18 units)
590 Roosevelt Street C-T Apartment Building (3 units)
PAGE 4, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 11-04-03
These properties have been included because they are among and are an integral part of other
propedies that have the potential of being redeveloped in the future. Thus, these properties are
included in order to facilitate the assembly and consolidation of a larger area for redevelopment;
excluding them from the Added Area might hinder the construction of a beneficial redevelopment
project in the future. It should be noted, however, that the residential properties listed above that
are zoned residential cannot be acquired through eminent domain.
Physical and Economic Conditions in the Added Area (Section B of the Preliminary
Report)
Section B of the Preliminary Report contains a detailed description of the physical and economic
blighting conditions evident in the Added Area, and provides statistical and photographic data to
present evidence of these conditions. The conditions in the Added Area include the following:
· Unsafe/Unhealthy Buildinfls - Due in large part to excessive lot coverage that inhibits safe
onsite parking and circulation, over 50% of the buildings in the Added Area are unsafe,
resulting in a disproportionate number of traffic accidents and serious building code
violations. This condition is most severe in areas around Broadway and Third Avenue.
· Factors Preventing Economically Viable Use - Over 50% of the properties on Broadway
were rated fair or poor for parking availability due to insufficient lot acreage and
setbacks.
· Incompatible Uses - Approximately 60% of the residential use parcels are located
adjacent to industrial and/or commercial uses, resulting in a below market property
values of these residences.
· Abandoned Buildings and Excess Vacant Lots/Low Lease Rates - The average retail lease
rate within the Added Area is $1.32, approximately 43% lower than areas outside the
Project Area.
· Excess of Businesses Catering Exclusively to Adults - Per square mile, the Added Area has
25 times more liquor stores and 41 times more bars than the entire City.
· Hiflh Crime Rates - the Added Area accounts for approximately 8 times more crimes (all
reported crimes) than the cit,/wide average.
Determination as to Whether the Added Area is Predominantly Urbanized (Section
C of the Preliminary Report1
The Law requires that the Added Area be predominantly urbanized, generally meaning that not
less than 80% of the land within the area has been developed, is an integral part of an urban
area, or is characterized by having lots of inadequate form, shape, and size for proper usefulness
and development. The analysis in Section C of the Preliminary Report indicates that
PAGE 5, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 11-04-03
approximately 83% of the Added Area is urbanized; therefore the Added Area meets the
urbanization requirement of the Law.
Method of Financinq (Section D of the Preliminary Report)
The Preliminary P, epor¢ acknowledges that the primary method of financing redevelopment of the
Added Area would be tax increment financing, and includes a preliminary forecast of projected
tax increment revenues from the Added Area in Section D. Over the 45-year period the Agency
may collect tax increment revenue from the Added Area, the projections indicate that the Added
Area could generate approximately $188 million in gross tax increment revenue. After deducting
the mandatory payments to affected taxing agencies required by Law, approximately $88 million
could be deposited to the Agency's non-housing fund for redevelopment projects, and another
$38 million could be deposited into the Agency's housing fund for affordable housing projects.
Proposed Projects and How Projects Eliminate Bliqht (Section E of the Preliminary
Report)
As described in Section E of the Preliminary Report, the proposed Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan permits the Agency to undertake a variety of public infrastructure,
community facilities, affordable housing, and other redevelopment projects in the Project Area.
Improvements to Project Area public infrastructure are intended to alleviate traffic congestion and
improve public safety, remove costly impediments to development, and upgrade infrastructure to
contemporary standards to stimulate private development. Community facility improvements
enhance the ability of the City to provide a commensurate level of service demands of Project
Area and west Chula Vista residents and businesses. Improved service levels can elevate the
appeal of Project Area real estate, thereby positively affecting property values. Other Project Area
blighting conditions that can be addressed through community facility improvements include
reduction of crime rates by expanding the availability of facilities for after-school programs.
Affordable housing projects funded by Project Area tax increment revenue will result in improved
housing conditions and expanded availability of affordable housing, addressing dire needs for
both in the Project Area. Finally, other redevelopment projects, including assisting private
properly owners with renovations or redeveloping their parcels, enable the City to undertake a
comprehensive effort to expand parking and make more efficient use of Project Area parcels to
eliminate safety and other physical and economic constraints to private redevelopment.
Approval of the resolution is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations including Section 15060 (c) (2), as the
approval of the resolution will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment, and Section 15004 (b) (2) (B), in that adoption of the resolution does
not foreclose alternatives or mitigation measures.
PAGE 6. ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 11-04-03
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs associated with the 2003 Amendment have been included in the Agency's budget, and
involve consultant and legal services, direct and indirect costs of publishing and mailing public
hearing notices, and other incidental staff and overhead costs. These costs could be offset by
future tax increment revenues from the Added Area if the 2003 Amendment is adopted by the
City Council in November 2003.
As mentioned on page 4, a portion of the gross tax increment revenue generated by the Added
Area is required to be shared with affected taxing agencies that levy taxes in the Added Area.
These payments are mandated by Section 33607 of the Redevelopment Law, and equal
approximately 34% of the gross tax increment revenue generated over the 45-year time period
the Agency may collect tax increment revenue from the Added Area.
J:\COMMDEV~STAFF.REP\I 1-04-03\Staff Report - Agency Preliminary Repod - November 4 2003.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR THE 2003
AMENDMENT TO THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO
AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TRANSMIT THE REPORT TO
SAME AS REQUIRED BY LAW
WHEREAS, on August 15, 1978, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council") adopted
Ordinance No. 1827 approving a redevelopment plan for the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project and has
subsequently amended said redevelopment plan on May 19, 1987 by Ordinance No. 2207, on July 19, 1988 by
Ordinance No. 2274, on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2610, and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2817
("Town Centre II Plan"); and
WHEREAS, on December 29, 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2059 approving a
redevelopment plan for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project and has subsequently amended said
redevelopment plan on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2611 and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2818
("Otay Valley Plan"); and
WHEREAS, on November 27, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2420 approving a
redevelopment plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project and has subsequently amended said redevelopment
plan on July 9, 1991 by Ordinance No. 2467, on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2612, and on August 22, 2000
by Ordinance No. 2819 ("Southwest Plan"); and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 2819, the Town Centre II Plan, Otay Valley Plan, and Southwest Plan
were merged to establish the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan to facilitate the sharing of financial resources
pursuant to Sections 33485 through 33489 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety
Code Section 33000 et se~. ("Law"); and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") is proposing to amend
the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan to consolidate the constituent redevelopment plans into a single
redevelopment plan document, add property to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area boundaries,
and, subject to certain limitations, extend eminent domain authority in the Town Centre II and Otay Valley constituent
project areas ("2003 Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, Section 33344.5 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (California Health
and Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq.) provides that the Agency shall prepare and send to each affecting taxing
entity a preliminary report which shall include the information contained in Section 33344.5; and
WHEREAS, a Preliminary Report has been formulated and received by the Agency in the form
submitted herewith as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, approval of this resolution is not subject to review under the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations including Section 15060 (c) (2), as the
approval of the resolution will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment, and Section 15004 (b) (2) (B), in that adoption of the resolution does not foreclose alternatives or
mitigation measures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
hereby authorizes transmission of the Preliminary Report for the 2003 Amendment to the to the Merged Chula Vista
Redevelopment Project Area, as submitted herewith as Exhibit A to affected taxing agencies and directs staff to
transmit the Preliminary Report to same as required by Law.
Presented by Appro~ze~d as to form by
Laurie M. Madigan
Community Development Director Ci y
EXHIBIT A
PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR THE AMENDED AND
RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AS AMENDED BY THE 2003 AMENDMENT
Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area
October 30, 2003
Redevelopment Agency of Chula Visla
276 FourlhAvenue
Chula V'~la, California 91910
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
217 North Main Street, Suite 300
Santa Aha, Califomia 92701-4822
Phone: (714) 541-4585
Fax: (714) 836-1748
E-Mail: info@webrsg,com
Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................... i
Amendment Process .............................................................................................. ii
Reasons for the Amendment ............................................................ A-1
Geographic Boundaries ...................................................................................... A-1
Existing Project Area ...................................................................... A-1
Proposed Added Area .................................................................... A-1
Background ......................................................................................................... A-3
Consolidate Redevelopment Plans ................................................. A-4
include Added Area ........................................................................ A-5
Reestablish Eminent Domain in Otay Valley and Town Centre Il.... A-7
A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in
the Added Area ................................................................................. B-'I
Legal Contex~ of Blight ........................................................................................ B-1
Physical Blight ................................................................................ B-2
Economic Blight ............................................................................. B-2
Inclusion of Non-Blighted Areas if Necessary for Effective
Redevelopment .............................................................................. B-3
Blighting Conditions in the Added Area .............................................................. B-3
Unsafe and Unhealthy Buildings .................................................... B-5
Factors Preventing Economically Viable Use ............................... B-14
Incompatible Uses ........................................................................ B-18
Vacant and Abandoned Buildings ................................................. B-23
Low Lease Rates ......................................................................... B-24
Excess of Businesses Catering Exclusively to Adults ................... B-27
C:/DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS/MIGU ELT~LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK12\REPORT21 .DOC
High Crime Rates ......................................................................... B-29
Properties Included for Redevelopment Purposes .......................................... B-31
Effective Planning and Implementation of the Project ................... B-31
Impact of Conditions on Ajacent Properties .................................. B-31
Imposition of Uniform Requirements over Geographically Defined
Area ............................................................................................. B-31
Properties Share in the Benefits of Redevelopment ..................... B-32
Properties are Part of a Blighted Area .......................................... B-32
A Determination as to Whether the Added Area is Predominately
Urbanized .......................................................................................... C-1
A Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Method of Financing,
Including the Economic Feasibility and the Reasons for the Division
of Tax Increment .............................................................................. D-1
Financial Assistance from the City, County, State, and/or the Federal
Government ................................................................................... D-1
Property Tax Increment .................................................................. D-2
Bondend Debt ................................................................................ D-3
Lease or Sale of Agency-Owned Property ...................................... D-3
Participation in Development .......................................................... D-3
Other Available Sources ................................................................. D-3
Projected Tax Increment Revenues ................................................................... D-4
Reasons for the Provisions of Tax increment in the Added Area ......................D-7
A Description of the Projects Proposed by the Agency and How They
Will Improve or Alleviate Physical and Economic Conditions of Blight
Public Infrastructure Projects .......................................................... E-1
Community Facilities ......................................................................
Other Potential Redevelopment Projects ........................................ E-2
Photo Survey ..................................................................... Appendix A-1
C:\DOCU MENTS AND SE~INGS\MIGUELT~LOCAL SETTiNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES/OLKI 2\REPORT21 DOC
Introduction
In an effort to improve its efforts to revitalize west Chula Vista, the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") has proposed an
amendment to the previously merged Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and
Southwest Redevelopment Plans ("Amendment"). If adopted by the City Council
(after a public headng scheduled for November 11, 2003), the Amendment would
accomplish the following:
l) Consolidate the Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment
Plans into a single amended and restated redevelopment plan document to
be known as the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan ("Plan"), including
updating the public improvement and facility projects list in the Plan;
2) Add approximately 529 acres of property located throughout the western part
of Chula Vista to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area
("Added Area"); and
$) Reestablish eminent domain authority for a period of 12 years on all properly
(except for residentially-occupied property in a residential zone) in the Town
Centre II constituent area of the Project Area.
As a part of the Amendment process, this Preliminary Report ("Report") has been
prepared in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law,
Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ("Law"). This Report describes
the purpose of the Amendment, and the implications of the proposed Plan, and
the Agency's proposed overall redevelopment program. Pursuant to the
information required by Section 33344.5 of the Law, this Report has been divided
into the following sections:
SECTION A The Reasons for the Amendment.
SECTION B A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions
Existing in the Added Area.
SECTION C A Determination as to Whether the Added Area is
Predominantly Urbanized.
SECTION D A Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Method of
Financing, Including the Economic Feasibility and the
Reasons for the Division of Tax Increment.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - I - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
SECTION E A Description of the Projects Proposed by the Agency and
How the Proposed Projects Will Improve the Project Area and
Alleviate Blight.
The Law permits redevelopment agencies to amend redevelopment plans to
modify limitations and expand boundaries to facilitate the elimination of blighting
conditions. The Law prescribes a specific process involving preparation of
various documents, including this Report, consultation with affected taxing
agencies, and participation and input from affected residents, business owners,
properly owners and other stakeholders.
The Plan is scheduled for consideration by the Agency and City Council at a joint
public headng scheduled for November 11, 2003. All Project Area property
owners, business owners, and other governmental agencies will receive notice of
this joint public hearing by mail.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - II - CNULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Reasons for the Amendment
The majodty of Added Area is located within the corporate boundaries of the City
of Chula Vista, San Diego County ("County"), Califomia. (A small 35-acre portion
of the proposed Added Area west of Interstate 5 is located in the City of San
Diego, which would be formally added upon adoption of an ordinance by San
Diego to delegate redevelopment authority of this area to Chula Vista.)
Chula Vista is located in the South Bay area of the greater San Diego
metropolitan area, 7 miles south of the City of San Diego Downtown and 7 miles
north of the US-Mexico border. Chula Vista covers an area of approximately
32,572 acres, contains 64,440 housing units, and the City's population in 2002
was estimated at 191,090, making Chula Vista the second largest city in the
County, according to reports from Geographic Applied Solution.
The existing Redevelopment Project Area consists of the previously merged
Town Centre Ii, Otay Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment Project Areas. The
total acreage of the existing Project Area is 1,896 acres, or 5.8% of the City; most
of this property is in commercial and industrial use.
Proposed Added Are~
The Amendment proposes to incorporate additional territory (known as the
"Added Area") to the existing Redevelopment Project Area. The Added Area
would increase the size of the merged Project Area by 529 acres (approximately
28%), bringing the total to 2,425 acres. The parcels that comprise the Added
Area lie along the major commercial and industrial roadways in the western part
of Chula Vista (Broadway, Third Avenue, E Street, H Street, and other pocket
areas in the northern part of the City) that is not already in the existing
Redevelopment Project Area. A few residential properties are also included in
the Added Area, in order to potentially consolidate the necessary land assembly
and effectuate future redevelopment projects. A more thorough description of
these properties is provided below. By including all the proposed properties,
redevelopment efforts such as infrastructure and capital project improvements will
be effective in developing the entire Project Area. The Added Area is comprised
of commercially and industrially zoned property, though not all property in the
Added Area is currently used for these purposes. The major land uses in the
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - A-1 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Added Area include commercial, industrial, and residential. Other land uses
include vacant, recreational, institutional, and public right of way. Table A-1
presents a land use breakdown of the Added Area.
ADDED AREA
Land Use Count of Parcels Parcel Acreage
Commercial 385 64.71% 305.84 57.79%
Industrial 58 9.75% 76.57 14.47%
Institutional 7 1.18% 7.39 1.40%
Recreation 2 0.34% 1.04 0.20%
Residential 54 9.08% 30.44 5.75%
Miscellaneous 49 8.24% 48.65 9.19%
Vacant 40 6.72% 33.09 6.25%
Subtotal 595 100.00% 503.02 95.05%
Public/Right of Wa)/ 0.00% 26.21 4.95%
Total 595 100.00% 529.23 100.00%
Source: Metroscan
The boundaries of the Project Area are illustrated on Exhibit A-1.
R~3SENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - A-2 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
The City of Chula Vista ("City") currently has five redevelopment constituent
areas, which were legally established between 1974 and 1990. Unlike the
neighboring cities of National City, Imperial Beach and Coronado that have
virtually their entire city within a redevelopment project area, only 10% of the City
of Chula Vista is currently located within a redevelopment project area. These
five existing constituent Redevelopment Project Areas comprise approximately
3,257 acres of property. The Amendment affects three of these five constituent
areas--Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and Southwest, which as described in the
next paragraph, were previously merged to form what is known as the Merged
Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area. The Amendment proposes a modest
increase in the total amount of property within the City that would be included in a
redevelopment project area, while reinstating eminent domain (except for
residentially occupied property in a residential zone) within the Otay Valley and
Town Centre II constituent areas.
What is now the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area (Town Centre
II, Otay Valley and Southwest) originated on August 15, 1978, when the Chula
Vista City Council approved a redevelopment plan for the Town Centre II
Redevelopment Project Area. The original Town Centre II Project Area was
enlarged on May 19, 1987 to include several noncontiguous areas in west Chula
Vista. The Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan underwent additional
amendments in 1988, 1994, and most recently in 2000, though none of these
added territory to the Town Centre II Project Area. Major land uses in the Town
Centre II are the Chula Vista Shopping Center regional mall, the Civic Center,
and other commercial and residential uses.
The Otay Valley Redevelopment Plan was adopted on December 29, 1983 and
includes commercial, industrial, and vacant properties along the south side of
what is now referred to as Main Street, east of Interstate 805. The Otay Valley
Redevelopment Plan has been amended twice since its adoption, though none of
these amendments modified the boundaries of the original Otay Valley Project
Area.
The Southwest Redevelopment Project Area includes industrial, commercial, and
residential properties in the southern part of the City, along Main Street (west of
Interstate 805), Broadway and Third Avenue. The Southwest Redevelopment
Plan was originally adopted on November 27, 1990, and amended shortly
thereafter on July 9, 1991 to include a small amount of additional area. Several
other amendments occurred between 1994 and 2002, though none of these
modified the boundaries of the Southwest Project Area.
On August 22, 2000, the City Council merged the Town Centre II, Otay Valley,
and Southwest redevelopment areas by adopting a series of plan amendments.
The area merger did not alter the existing redevelopment plans themselves, but
authorized the use of tax increment funds throughout the three merged project
areas. The proposed Amendment is intended to consolidate the three separate
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. EDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - A-3 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELQPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
redevelopment plans into a single document for streamlined administration and
consistency with current Law.
The Added Area adjoins much of the existing merged Project Area and
incorporates the majodty of the remaining commercially zoned property along
major west Chula Vista arterials like Broadway and Third Avenue. Though
currently outside the existing merged Project Area, the Added Area faces many of
the same hand use problems of the existing Project Areas, such as obsolete stdp
commercial development that lacks parking and contains several incompatible
land uses. These and other physical problems, coupled with serious economic
problems including high crime rates and Iow lease rates, forestall revitalization of
these areas. Section B of this Report elaborates on the specific blighting
conditions in the Added Area.
The members of the Agency Board are responsible for oversight and
implementation of redevelopment programs in the Town Centre II, Otay Valley,
and Southwest constituent redevelopment project areas that form the Merged
Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area. The Agency's redevelopment
successes during the past years include rehabilitation of older commercial
buildings in downtown, major renovations at the Chula Vista Shopping Center,
streetscape and public infrastructure improvements along Main Street and
Broadway, construction of new public facilities and development of affordable
housing.
At the same time, the Agency's efforts are increasingly becoming insufficient to
meet the magnitude of the problems in the older parts of the City. With the
development of new, contemporary neighborhoods and commercial
developments east of Interstate 805, residents in the western part of Chula Vista
face a lower standard of public infrastructure, obsolete and deteriorating retail
neighborhood retail areas, concentration of car accidents, and higher crime rates.
The City is investing a significant amount of resources in the western part of
Chula Vista beyond redevelopment resources. The ongoing General Plan update
places a high pdodty on establishing a new vision for older parts of the
community, while the recent Chula Vista Economic Development Strategy
delineates opportunities to enhance industrial and retail areas in the City.
However, for the General Plan and the Economic Development Strategy to be
successful, financial and land acquisition resources will be needed because the
private sector alone has not demonstrated an ability to remedy the physical and
economic conditions. Governmental assistance is necessary to remove major
impediments to development and trigger projects that will remove blighting
influences and improve the affected areas.
The specific goals of the Amendment are described below.
Consolidate Redevelolxnent Plans
The Amendment would enable the Agency's redevelopment work in the western
part of Chula Vista and the existing redevelopment project areas in particular.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. EDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - A-4 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
The three existing constituent redevelopment plans, Town Centre II, Olay Valley
Road and Southwest were adopted between 1978 and 1991, and each plan was
prepared by different staff and consultants and based upon the practices and
statutes at that time. As a result, the policies and language within these plans
differ dramatically. As a result, administration of the plans can be difficult due to
these inconsistencies. For example, implementation of a project on Broadway or
Third Avenue could involve review of two or three different redevelopment plans,
a confusing and unnecessary process for staff and potential private sector
developers and property owners.
By consolidating the three separate redevelopment plans into a single plan, the
Agency would be able to more efficiently administer project implementation, and
provide the general public one relatively concise redevelopment plan (instead of
three very different documents).
Include Added ~
The Amendment also allows the expansion of redevelopment tools into 529 acres
of property that currently does not fall within the existing Project Area.
Incorporating these additional properties in the western part of Chula Vista into
the redevelopment program provides incentives to property owners to renovate
and redevelop their properties, while enabling the Agency to more consistently
implement improvements along all of Broadway, Third Avenue and other blighted
areas in the City where redevelopment tools do not exist. In some cases,
inclusion of these additional parcels is necessary to effectively implement
redevelopment programs in the existing Redevelopment Project Area.
The Added Area is generally characterized by blighting conditions such as unsafe
and unhealthy buildings, incompatible uses, factors that hinder the economically
viable use, abnormally Iow lease rates and excess vacant lots and abandoned
buildings, excess of businesses catering exclusively to adults, and high cdme
rates. Section B demonstrates in detail the physical and economic blighting
conditions in the Added Area.
The Added Area also includes property in the West Fairfield area currently in the
jurisdiction of the City of San Diego. Staff is currently working with the City of San
Diego representatives to obtain San Diego's delegation of redevelopment
authority of this area to the Agency.
Exhibit A-2 displays the boundaries for the Added Area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, iNC. EDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - A-5 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. EDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - A-~ - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Reestablish Eminent Domain in Otay Valley and Town Centre II
The Amendment also proposes to reestablish eminent domain authority in the
Otay Valley and Town Centre II constituent areas (except for residential uses on
residentially zoned property). Though rarely used, eminent domain is an
essential tool when the Agency participates in projects involving assembly of
property, particularly in areas like Otay Valley and Town Centre II where
assembly of parcels undersized and in mixed ownership by today's standards
frustrates efforts to develop contemporary uses. In addition, the ability to
condemn property is one practical way to compel owners to redevelop their
property through the owner participation process.
At the time of their adoption, both the Town Centre II and Otay Valley constituent
areas permitted the use of eminent domain on all property. Consistent with
statutory limitations, the time limit to commence eminent domain expired 12 years
following their adoption in 1990 in Town Centre II and 1995 in Otay Valley. The
Law permits Agencies to extend this time limit by a plan amendment,
Accordingly, the proposed Amendment would establish a new 12-year time limit
to commence eminent domain in the Otay Valley and Town Centre II constituent
areas, commencing from the date the Amendment is adopted oxcept that
condemnation authority would not apply to occupied residential uses located on
residentially zoned property. (Note: the Otay Va[~ey constituent area currently
has no residentially zoned properly.) Extension of this time limit provides the
Agency the option to use eminent domain in the future, though there are no plans
to acquire any property at this time. The Amendment would also establish
eminent domain authority for 12 years in the Added Area, but again this authority
would not apply to occupied residential uses located on residentially zones
property in the Added Area.
Though residential property in residential zones would be exempt from eminent
domain by the proposed Amendment, eminent domain would be available to the
Agency on residential property in non-residential (commercial and industrial)
zones. In most cases non-residential uses are located in non-residential zones in
the Project Area. However, there are eight mobile home parks (seven in the
Added Area and one in Town Centre II) and two other residential parcels within
the Added Area that are located in commercial or other non-residential zones,
that could be subject to eminent domain acquisition if the Amendment is
approved.
In its other redevelopment areas, the Agency's policy has been to retain eminent
domain in areas where incompatible residential uses exist; though there may not
be plans to acquire or redevelop these residential uses today, over the next
several years, it is conceivable that some residential uses could be redeve(oped
in the future as the City looks to implement the General Plan goa[s to improve
west Chula Vista. Eminent domain is an important tool for the Agency as it seeks
to address blighting conditions such as consolidating and redeveloping parcels
that are undersized, lack parking and contain obsolete buildings that stifle
economic growth in the area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. EDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - A-7 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELiMiNARY REPORT
A Description of the Physical and Economic
Conditions Existing in the Added Area
This Section describes the blighting conditions that exist within the Added Area.
The Added Area is characterized by both physical and economic blighting
conditions as defined by Law.
The conditions found in the Added Area include the following:
· Unsafe/Unhealthy Buildings - Due in large part to excessive lot coverage
that inhibits safe onsite parking and circulation, over 50% of the buildings in
the Added Area are unsafe, resulting in a disproportionate number of traffic
accidents and serious building code violations. This condition is most severe
in areas around Broadway and Third Avenue.
· Factors Preventing Economically Viable Use - Over 50% of the properties
on Broadway were rated fair or poor for parking availability due to insufficient
lot acreage and setbacks.
· Incompatible Uses - Approximately 60% of the residential use parcels are
located adjacent to industrial and/or commercial uses, resulting in a below
market property values of these residences.
· Abandoned Buildings and Excess Vacant Lots/Low Lease Rates - The
average retail lease rate within the Added Area is $1.32, approximately 43%
lower than areas outside the Project Area.
· Excess of Businesses Catering Exclusively to Adults - The Added Area
has 25 times more liquor stores and 41 times more bars per square mile than
the City as a whole.
· High Crime Rates - the Added Area accounts for approximately 8 times
more crime (all reported crimes) than the dtywide average.
This Section of the Report describes the preliminary findings of blight in the
Added Area.
Sections 33030 through 33039 of the Law describe the conditions that constitute
blight in a redevelopment project area. A blighted area is one that necessitates
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-I - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
the creation of a redevelopment project area, because the combination of
conditions in an area constitute a burden on the community, and cannot be
alleviated by private enterprise, governmental action, or both. Section 33030 of
the Law defines a blighted area as one that contains both of the following:
An area that is predominantly urbanized and is an area in which the
combination of physical and economic blighting conditions is so prevalent
and so substantial that it causes "a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization
of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and
economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected
to be reversed or alleviated by pdvate enterprise or governmental action, or
both, without redevelopment."
To be blighted a project area (in this case the "Added Area") must have at least
one physical blighting condition and at least one economic blighting condition, as
defined in Section 33031(a) and (b), respectively.
Section 33031(a) of the Law describes physical conditions that cause blight as
one or more of the following:
· Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work.
Serious building code violations, dilapidation and deterioration, defective
design or physical construction, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar
factors can cause these conditions.
· Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or
capacity of buildings or lots. This condition can be caused by substandard
design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack
of parking, or other similar factors.
· Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which
prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of a
project area.
· The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate
size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership.
Economic Blight
Section 33031(b) of the Law describes economic conditions that cause blight as
one or more of the following:
· Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including,
but not necessarily limited to, those properties containing hazardous wastes.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-2 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
· Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally Iow lease rates, high
turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an area
developed for urban use and served by utilities.
· A lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in
neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other
lending institutions.
· Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other
businesses that cater exclusively to adults, which has led to problems of
public safety and welfare.
· A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and
welfare.
Section 33030(c) of the Law also states that a blighted area may be one that
contains inadequate public improvements, facilities, or utilities when other
blighting conditions are present.
Inclusion of Non. Blighted Areas if Necessary for Effeclive Redevelopment
Section 33321 of the Law states that non-blighted areas can be included if they
are necessary for effective redevelopment, the law defines as follows:
A project area may include lands, buildings, or improvements which are not
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found
necessary for effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part.
This section presents a detailed analysis of blighting conditions within the Added
Area. RSG documented current conditions based on interviews with Community
Development, Code Enforcement, Public Works, Fire, Building, Planning, and
Police Department, and discussions with local realtors, analysis of local real
estate and economic data, and review of various reports and studies. The
following Table B-1 lists the individuals consulted.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-3 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Bart Benjamin Chula Vista Police Department
Tracy C. Clark Retail Broker Voit Commercial Brokerage
Xavier Del Valle Community Development Specialist Chula Vist~ Community Development
David Eisenber~c Sergeant Chula Vista Police Department
Jim Geering Fire Marshal Chula Vista Fire Department
Lupita Lopez Residential Broker Century 21 All Real Estate
Nancy Ross GIS Specialist Chula Vista Technology Information
Lucianda Smith Lead ProgrammedAnalyst Chula Vista Business License
In addition, RSG conducted a parcel-by-parcel field survey of the Project Area in
February 2003 and again in October 2003. The purpose of the field survey was
to locate and evaluate the exterior blighting conditions in the Added Area. Each
parcel was evaluated based on the physical condition of the structure, the
condition of the lot, the land use and the land use compatibility with surrounding
uses. The following criteda were included in and evaluated during the survey:
· Damaged/deteriorated wall materials
· Damaged/deteriorated roofing
· Damaged/deteriorated foundation
· Damaged/deteriorated overhangs/posts
· Damaged/deteriorated porch/stairs
· Damaged/deteriorated rafters/framing
· Damaged/deteriorated doorsAMindows
· Damaged/deteriorated wiring/utilities
· Conditions that resulted in safety hazards
· Lack of parking
· Inadequate setbacks causing land use conflicts
· Insufficient loading areas
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-,4 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
· Ingress/egress problems
· Vacancies exceeding 20% of the gross building area
· Abandoned buildings
· Incompatible uses
Only serious physical or economic conditions were noted; properties needing
repainting, new signage, or general cleanup, while prominent within the Added
Area, were not identified as a part of the field survey because these conditions
were not deemed to be a reliable and consistent measure of physical or
economic blighting conditions. A property was considered blighted if some or all
of the above criteria were present.
The types of blighting conditions noted within the Added Area include unsafe and
unhealthy factors that hinder the economically viable use, incompatible use,
abandoned buildings and excess vacant lots, Iow lease rates, excess adult
businesses and cdme rates.
Unsafe and Unhealthy Buildings
Background
Prior to the construction of Interstate 5, Broadway was the pdmary north-south
route between Mexico and Southern California. The commercial corridors and
trailer home parks on Broadway and Third Avenue evolved in the early 1960 from
the demand of increasing travelers and vehicle transportation to the Mexican
border. Serving as transit corridors, the building size and site layout of the
commercial stores supported travelers with small lots and setbacks. At about the
same time, mobile home parks developed along Broadway and Third Avenue.
When the City emerged into a bedroom community and experienced rapid
population growth, Broadway and Third Avenue became increasingly well-
traveled and denser commercial uses moved into the area. The density resulted
in tighter spacing between buildings especially in and around the mobile home
parks. The increase in population also resulted in the surge of number of
passenger vehicles, which escalated the demand for parking. Coupled with the
growth factor and demand for parking, the existing commercial areas lacked the
lot size to accommodate contemporary building development standards such as
setbacks and parking, and consequently, resulted in unsafe conditions today.
The mobile home parks also pose a safety concern as the growth of population
and housing costs conflict with the physical constraints of the site, jeopardizing
setbacks and fire truck access.
Defective Design
The primary problem with Added Area properties is the fact that approximately
50% of the parcels are not designed in such a way to leave enough space around
the building for parking and onsite circulation. So while the buildings themselves
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-5 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
may not be deteriorating in every case, the defective design of the buildings,
including the excessive lot coverage and positioning of the building on the lot,
results in serious safety hazards. These problems include a high concentration of
car accidents and code violations in Added Area properties. Due to insufficient
setbacks, parking is limited and vehicles are frequently observed parked on
sidewalks and ingress/egress areas, posing serious hazards to other drivers as
well as pedestrians. During the survey, RSG noted at least 50% of the
commercial properties on both Broadway and Third Avenue contained one or
more vehicles parked on portions of the sidewalks or in circulation paths.
The correlation between the lack of circulation and parking is evident as business
owners and residents must make compromises between parking and safe
circulation. Without proper circulation space, drivers are forced to maneuver
through narrow lanes, creating a higher tendency of traffic accidents. Due to the
highly subdivided nature of properties in these areas, many parcels have
separate ingress/egress to Broadway or Third Avenue. This compounds the
problems in these areas. Not only do these conditions on many parcels, but also
the relative excessive numbers of curb cuts for ingress/egress reduce the
availability of street parking. Without sufficient parking spaces, customers leave
the area to shop elsewhere where parking is readily available or are forced to
park on circulation access or sidewalks.
Another design deficiency that is common along Broadway and Third Avenue
occurs when a car is forced to reverse to exit, and is blinded on cars parked on
the street. As an existing car attempts to reverse into the traveling lane and is
blocked by parked cars, this creates opportunities for car accidents to occur. The
following illustration demonstrates this traffic hazard:
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-6 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
CA~
¥1~W ~LOCK~D
CAR.
~ MOVING
CAP,
The lack of access space and shortage of parking both contribute and impact
traffic conditions. The following table indicates that Broadway is the street with the
highest traffic accident occurrence in the city based on the number of accidents
per Linear foot.
SELECT ADDED AREA LOCATIONS
Total Total Average Ratio to
Accidents Distance Ft/Accident City
(Feet)
Cit~vide 831 856,327 1030.48 1.00
Streets with Highest # of Accidents
Broadway 108 24,728 228.96 4.50
Palomar Street 31 12,176 392.77 2.62
H Street 90 42,954 477.27 2.16
1/Traffic accidents reported from July 1,2002 through December 31, 2002
Chula Vista Police Department
The number of traffic accidents on Broadway is 4.5 times higher than the citywide
average. Exhibit B-1 shows the location of the traffic accidents from July 1, 2002
through December 31, 2002. The number of traffic accidents is also
concentrated on E Street, between Fourth and Second Avenue as shown in the
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-7 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
exhibit. This condition persists in all parts of the Added Area, particularly along
Broadway and Third Avenue.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-8 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-9 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Building Code Violations and Deteriorated Structures
The number of serious building code violations per parcel in the Added Area is
more than nine times higher than the average dtywide, according to recent data
procured from the City's Code Enforcement Department, More than one out of
every five parcels in the Added Area had a code violation cited in 2001,
More than 75% of the building code violations in the Added Area are
concentrated along the Broadway corridor, Within the Added Area, parcels on
Broadway alone had 113 of the 139 code violations within the Added Area dudng
2001, In total, 107 (18%) of the Added Area's 595 parcels had one or more of
these code violations during 2001, By contrast, less than 2% of all parcels
citywide had a code violation that same year,
The density of code violations is attributed to its lack of parking and physical lot
constraints that entices property owners to over utilize their property, thereby
violating municipal code. According to Teresa Broussard, a Specialist at the
City's Code Violation Department, one of the most common violations in the
Added Area is building without permit. Attempting to operate a business
effectively despite lot size limitations, business owners construct structures
illegally knowing that they otherwise would not be approved. These conditions
also exist in mobile home parks, where occupants are skirting building codes in
an attempt to make their space livable in the face of costly housing prices. Ms.
Broussard indicates that the types of code violations found in mobile home parks
include building without permit. The conflict between the property owners' desire
to improve the buildings and to meet today's building codes is evident from the
high concentration of code violations. The number of code violation occurrences
in subareas C-12, C-9, A, C-2, C-9, C-10, C, C-15, C-11, B-2, and C-7 is greater
than 5 times the dtywide average based on the number of code violations to the
number of parcels. A summary of building code violations is presented in the
Table B-3 below.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-10- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Subarea Occurrences of Parcels to Parcels to City
Citywide Average 1,123 471923 2.34% 1.00
(Subareas A-l, A-2)
(Subareas B-l, B-2)
(Subareas B, C, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-6)
Exhibit B-2 presents the location of the code violation occurrence within the
Added Area the year 2001, provided by Chula Vista Code Enforcement
Deparb-nent.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-11 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
LEGEND j~ Me~ged Chula Vista Redevelopment Pr~e~
· Code V~olat,on OccurenceT Exhibit ~2 C~e ~olati~
Within the Added Area
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Of THE CITY Of CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-12 - CHULA VISta REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Structural deterioration is also evident in some portions of the Added Area,
according to field inspections conducted by RSG over the past 10 months. The
photo survey contained in the Appendix of this Report includes specific examples
of buildings in disrepair that pose safety risks to occupants, including buildings on
Trousdale Drive and Press Lane, the 200 block of Broadway, the 300 block of
Broadway, the 400 block of Broadway, the 1100 block of Broadway, Bay
Boulevard, Third Avenue, and GIover Avenue. Common structural problems
included weathered and neglected building exterior materials such as siding,
roofing, window frames, and other cdtical structural elements. Prolonged decay
of these conditions can lead to a weakening of structural integrity, increased fire
susceptibility, weather-induced damage, and wood infestation.
Fire Hazards
Commercial and mobile home properties in the Added Area lack sufficient space
for parking, which forces customers and residents to congest parcels with parked
vehicles. This circumstance creates serious safety dsks due to impaired access.
Without proper access, firefighters and emergency equipment cannot fight the fire
effectively and waste valuable time when forced to extend the fire hose.
For example, a commercial medical office building on Third Avenue had cars
parked on both sides of the on site circulation area, limiting the width of the
throughway to less than ten feet. According to Jim Geedng, the Fire Marshall at
the Chula Vista Fire Department, the minimum fire truck circulation width is 20
feet. Thus, parking deficiencies can pose serious safety risks to building
occupants when emergency vehicle access is limited.
For mobile home parks that were developed decades ago, an increased demand
for parking and additional improvements have resulted in shortage of space and
sac~ces buffering space between each unit and fire truck access. Trained RSG
field surveyors visited each mobile home park in February 2003 and assessed
the throughway width between mobile homes. RSG estimates that nearly 75% of
the throughways in the Added Area's seven mobile home parks have less than
20 feet width as cars are parked on the side(s) of the street, limiting the width of
the access. This condition is found in subareas A, B, C, and C-13. The pictures
from the field survey in Appendix A exhibit this condition.
The construction material and the distance between the mobile home park units
are also more susceptible to the spread of fire. Mr. Geedng also indicated that
lightweight construction material is more susceptible to fire damage and spread of
fire. The closer the structures are located next to each other, the faster the fire
will spread. Since the mobile home units were not built with fire rated walls, the
units will bum faster than other types of residential units. In some cases,
occupants have worsened the fire safety of buildings by using highly flammable
material like plywood to make exterior repairs. The combination of the lack of
sufficient space for fire truck access, lightweight construction material, and the
close proximity of the mobile home park makes the area more vulnerable to fire
damage in the event of a fire.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-13 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Why Redevelopment?.
Thus far, the efforts of pdvata enterprise and government agencies have been
unable to sustain a widespread effort to correct unsafe and unhealthy conditions
in the Added Area. The cost to redesign the layout of the buildings in the Added
Area is difficult to overcome because it often requires acquisition and redesign of
properties in mixed ownership. Property owners do not have the financial power
to acquire neighboring sites for expansion purposes especially when retail
commercial lease rates on Broadway and Third Avenue are 43% below the city
average retail rents, suggesting that there is insufficient revenue set aside for
capital improvements or an incentive to undertake a small scale redevelopment
effort in the face of depreciated market values.
By expanding the Plan's authority to the Added Area, the Agency would have
many tools to repair or redevelop unsafe and unhealthy conditions in the Added
Area. For example, the Agency could also work with property owners to create
shared parking areas where feasible, or redevelop blighted properties. The
Agency could also research and identify traffic accident hot spots and invest in
capita] improvement projects that will decrease traffic problems such as adding
signals or signage.
Factors Preventing Economically Viable Use
According to the Law, factors such as a lack of parking, inadequate size, and
substandard design can be an indication of blight in a project area if such
conditions prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use of buildings
or lots. Based on RSG's t~eld survey and other studies conducted by the City, the
Added Area contains many parcels that have serious parking and design
problems that significantly hinder their economically viable use.
The Added Area consists mainly of retail and commercial land uses, many of
which lack off street parking and are difficult to access from the busy streets,
especially along Broadway, Third Avenue, and Trousdale Drive. RSG estimates
that over 50% of the parcels have insufficient lot size and/or setback to support
onsite parking and rely on street parking. This condition is evident in subareas A,
A-l, B, C, C-12, and C-13. The lack of setbacks constrains the expandability of
the building, pedestrian improvements, and other infrastructure improvements.
When parking is not readily available, potential customers are forced to spend
more time locating a space, creating inconvenience and loss of sales. Generally,
consumers look at convenience as an attribute when deciding if he/she will shop
there. With the emergence of large retail centers with accessible parking in other
parts of the City, retail shops on Broadway and Third Avenue cannot compete
effectively in the City.
Most of the lots within the Added Area cannot accommodate contemporary retail
development without first consolidating ownership of existing parcels. According
to the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Center (2002), the median building size of
the smallest anchored tenant was 17,640 square feet. Taking into account space
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-14- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
for onsite parking and other setbacks, this translates into a minimum lot size of
0.81 acres. The median size of commercial lots within the Added Area is 0.31
acres, approximately 38% of the lot requirement for an anchor tenant. In fact, the
overwhelming majority of the Added Area's commercial lots (79%) do not meet
this minimum standard. Consequently, without incentives to consolidate
ownership and create larger parcels of contiguous ownership, the Added Area
stagnates and provides only a limited range of retail needs. As described later in
this Report, the limited range of retail in the Added Area is disproportionately
shifted towards liquor stores and bars that further undermine the character of the
Added Area as a retail destination.
Broadway
The majodty of the buildings on Broadway were constructed around 1969, thus
prior to today's retail standards. Therefore, many of the buildings' layouts do not
accommodate for parking or traffic access. As Broadway evolved into a
prominent retail corridor, many of the buildings became retail use to
accommodate the demand despite the fact that many of the lots have no or little
front setback for parking and ingress/egress. However, with the population
growth in the city, parking demand spilled over onto and overcrowded the streets.
The reliance on street parking and the lack of onsite parking continues to be
problematic. Street parking alone cannot sustain the continuous growth of the
city. In 2000, the City performed a survey of Broadway's parking condition. As
Table B-4 indicates, approximately 50% of the sites rated either fair or poor,
indicating lack of available parking on Broadway.
ADDED AREA
Total Rated Parking Availability Rating Percent
Subarea Parcels Good Fair/Poor FaidPoor
A 243 187 56 23.0%
C-7 8 3 5 62.5%
C-8 2 1 1 50.0%
C-10 13 7 6 46.2%
Total 266 198 68 25.6%
Source: Broadway Revitalization Study, City of Chula Vista
A parcel is rated fair when the property lacks on-site/oft-site parking for business
type; parking lots that are not adequately landscaped or maintained; parking lots
that are beginning to deteriorate (asphalt) while poor rating represents no on-
onsite parking and relies only on street parking. Exhibit B-3 displays the parcels
that were rated either fair or poor.
ROSENQW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-15 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, iNC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY Of CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-16 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
The median lot size within the Added Area on Broadway is 0.31 acres and
including the building, limits the available size for property owner to add parking to
its business. Many owners have attempted to add parking on its front setback to
accommodate for parking demand, but the lengths of the setbacks are so short
that cars are parked on parts of the sidewalk and/or less than three feet from the
entrance of the building. The lack of buffer between the automobile and building
is a safety hazard because there is no buffer between the car and the building or
people patronizing the store. When cars are parked partially on the sidewalks,
the sidewalks are blocked and pedestrians are forced to share right of way with
automobiles. Consequently, this creates a high volume of traffic accidents. As
shown in Table B-2 eadier in this section, Broadway has the highest number of
car accidents in the City.
Third Avenue
Commercial properties on Third Avenue also suffer from inadequate parking
areas. At least 19 (25%) of the 75 of the parcels on Third Avenue were noted
during the survey for insufficient parking, as evidenced by cars double-parked
(blocking another car), parking in unmarked areas, parking on sidewalks, or
blocked or constrained ingress/egress. For example, the medical center on Third
Avenue had cars parked on both sides of the on site circulation area, limiting the
width of the throughway to less than ten feet. As previously mentioned, the Fire
Department has determined that throughways of at least 20 feet are needed for
emergency vehicle access. Thus, parking deficiencies can pose serious safety
risks to building occupants when emergency vehicle access is limited.
The insufficient designated parking areas impact the economic well being of the
businesses by creating inconvenience for customers. For example, a business
on 690 Block of Third Avenue had approximately 32 feet total from the front of the
parking space to the wall of another building. According to Architectural Graphic
Standards (a thumb of rule guide book for architects), the ideal distance is 42 feet
for a passenger vehicle to park and reverse to exit. During the survey, RSG
noted that customers would have to reverse at least three times to maneuver the
vehicle to exit.
Trousdale Drive
This street is mainly consists of auto repair shops and other industrial facilities.
During the survey, cars occupied both sides of Trousdale Drive and its
neighboring streets, and little space was available on many properties for onsite
parking and truck deliveries. Cars were also parked on pedestrian walkways or
blocked other cars, signaling the lack of sufficient onsite parking. Sidewalks and
pedestrian crosswalks were also nonexistent in many areas, which create a
safety hazard as cars are sharing the same right-of-way as pedestrians.
Why Redevelopment?.
As previously mentioned, the private sector alone cannot eliminate the blighting
conditions due to its extraordinary costs. The common problem on Broadway
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CiTY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-17- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
and Third Avenue is insufficient lot acreage that limits onsite parking and traffic
circulation space. According to recent development costs of similar projects, the
construction costs of surface or subterranean parking range from $5,000 to
$20,000 per space, demanding on the type of construction. Even if a property
owner was able to acquire and clear nearby parcels, the paving and construction
costs are expensive and infeasible. Industrial business owners cannot charge its
customers for parking and cannot generate higher rental income by providing
parking on a limited basis because the surrounding properties have a more direct
influence on lease rates.
Through the tools of redevelopment, the Agency can implement programs to
provide incentives to ensure that future development in the Added Area provides
sufficient parking and loading area. In areas such as Trousdale Drive where
sidewalks are incomplete, the Agency could invest in sidewalk projects that would
provide safer pedestrian areas.
Incompatible Uses
Incompatible uses in the Added Area were identified during the field survey and
subsequently analyzed to ascertain the extent that incompatibilities hindered the
economic development of the area. Based on field observations, some of which
are specifically documented in the photo survey in the Appendix of this Report,
incompatible uses were evident on 21 different Added Area streets, including the
following:
l) Anita Street
2) Broadway
3) Casselman Street
4) Manor Drive
8) E Street
8) Garrett Avenue
?) H Street
8) I Street
8) J Street
to) Jefferson
t~) K Street
· 12) Madison Avenue
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-18 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELQPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
13) Mankato Street
14} Mclntosh Street
15) Oaklawn Avenue
16) Quintard Street
'17) Roosevelt Street
18) Second Street
· 19) Third Avenue
2o) Vance Street
2'1) Woodlawn Avenue
Within the Added Area, incompatible uses occur between commercial uses and
adjacent residential mobile home park properties in subareas A, B, B-l, and C.
Land use incompatibilities in these areas stem from growth in west Chula Vista
that has increased the intensity of traffic and development in these areas. Lots in
these areas are undersized, so properties lot coverage is typically higher in these
areas, which reduces setbacks and space for parking and buffers to adjacent
residential uses. Because these lots were not subdivided to accommodate this
type of development, conflicts between remaining residential uses occurred.
Table B-5 lists the number of incompatible uses within the affected subareas.
Overall, 82.2% of the residential use parcels within these four subareas were
located next and/or adjacent to parcels of industrial and commercial use.
ADDED AREA
Number of
Residential Use Number of % of Incompatible
Subarea Parcels Incompatible Use Use to Parcels
A 11 8 72.7%
B 27 25 92.6%
B-1 3 1 33.3%
C 4 3 75.0%
Total 45 37 82.2%
Source: RSG Field Survey
The conflict from residential use locating on a retail corridor (Broadway and Third
Avenue) is evident among the mobile home parks. In one instance, an
automobile pads store was built so close to a mobile home park that the exterior
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CI~Y OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-~9 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
walls of the buildings neady touch each another. An example of this condition is
shown in the photo survey in the Appendix to this Report.
Exhibit B-4 locates the parcels with incompatible use.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-20- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
LEG E N D ..~ Meged Chula Vista Redevelopment project Area
~ ncompatlbleUse Exhibit B-4 Incompatible Use
within the Added Area
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-21 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Other land use incompatibilities exist between small Added Area commercial
properties and adjacent residential areas. Added Area properties generally
abut existing single-family neighborhoods, and lack proper buffers between
the residential uses. These land use patterns create additional conflicts
between Added Area and adjacent properties that affect property values.
According to a Ioca~ residential real estate agent, Lupita Lopez of Century 21
All Real Estate, financing to purchase a home that is adjacent to a non-
residential lot is more difficult as lenders are more reluctant to lend money to
those types of properties. In addition, homes that are adjacent to Added Area
commercial or industrial properties have lower values than similar homes that
are in areas further from these negative influences. Residential units
neighboring a commercial use also experience nuisance such as noise,
traffic, and fumes, which impacts quality of life and property values.
Table B-6 presents an analysis of single-family residential home sales for the
12-month period of October 2002 through September 2003. The analysis
concluded that properties closer to the Added Area sold for 18% less than
homes in the City, and 12% less than comparable homes in the same zip
code over this time period.
MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Sales Median Difference
Price from City
Avera~]e
200' from Added Area 21 $ 300,000 -18%
300' from Added Area 35 320,000 -11%
Chula Vista (Zip 91910) 646 372,000 5%
Chula Vista (Zip 91911 ) 610 335,000 -6%
City of Chula Vista (All Zip Code~ 1,256 354,000 0%
Note: Comparison based on all home sales in Zip Codes 91910
and 91911 from August 2002 through September 2003
Source: Metroscan and DataQuick Real Estate News
Why Redevelopment?.
Despite the fact that mobile home uses conflict with surrounding commercial
uses, property owners have little incentive to independently redevelop their parks
consistent with the General Plan because commercial uses permitted in the area
do not command market rents as compared to the greater Chula Vista market
area. Thus, providing economic assistance to property owners is one way in
which the Agency can facilitate redevelopment of these incompatible uses.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-22 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
The Agency would be required to set aside at least 20% of its annual tax
increment revenues from the Added Area, which can be used by the Agency to
increase the supply of affordable housing, and therefore, offer more housing
alternatives to lower income residents of the Added Area, while relieving the
pressure on residents to live among incompatible uses. The Agency could also
address land use incompatibilities by installing buffers (such as such as walls or
landscaping) to reduce nuisances between existing developed properties and
encourage development of more compatible developments in the future that
mitigate future land use conflicts.
Vacant and Abandoned Buildings
The Added Area contains several vacant or abandoned buildings, some of which
have remained unoccupied for years despite the relative affordability of Added
Area commercial rents. Table B-7 presents a list of the vacant and abandoned
buildings in the Added Area based on field observations.
ADDED AREA
Vacant Buildings Abandoned Buildings
110 Broadway 200 Broadway
600 E Street 380 Broadway
600 E Street 1400 Bay Street
470 Broadway 900 Third Avenue
390 Broadway 950 Third Avenue
600 Broadway 650 Third Avenue
530 Anita Street 360 E Street
1/ The location of the parcels are approximate address,
since some of the parcels do not have street address.
Qne block may be listed twice for having more than one
parcel qualify in that category
Source: Metroscan and RSG Survey
Abandoned buildings in the Added Area are also targets for criminal activities like
trespassing and vandalism. For example, the buildings on Industrial Boulevard
between Moss Street and Naples Street are vacant with rusting roof, patched
walls, boarded and broken windows, and showing other signs of deterioration.
The deterioration signals a lack of interest for the property and is an easy target
for trespassers and vandalism. The building is covered in graffiti on the extedor
walls and the equipment on the roof. Most of the windows on the buildings are
shattered, which poses a safety threat to trespassers. Specific examples of these
conditions throughout the Added Area are contained in the photo survey in the
Appendix to this Report.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-23 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Abandoned buildings are also a safety hazard to trespassers. For example, the
950 Block of Third Avenue contains two abandoned buildings, of which one
suffers from serious fire damage and the other one shows signs of deterioration.
The structure with the fire damage contains graffiti, which suggests trespassers'
presence even though the property is fenced in. The portion of the roof has
collapsed and foundation is missing in some areas, which questions the structural
integrity of the building.
Neglected, abandoned and vacant buildings are not only a problem for the
affected parcels, but impair investment and create problems for surrounding
properties as well. The "broken window syndrome" is evident in areas where
neglected buildings exist. Cited in many safe neighborhood programs, this
phenomenon establishes that neglected properties (including those with just one
broken window) are more likely to attract further vandalism and vagrancy as
perpetrators target neighborhoods where property owners appear to be less
concerned about what occurs in these areas. These physical conditions create
an environment that appears to be in disorder, raises fears, and demoralizes the
community, while undermining commerce. It is indeed evident that even though
not every building in the Added Area is abandoned, their presence is seen in
terms of higher cdmes, a limited appeal of the area and devalued properties.
Why Redevelopment?.
According to Glen Googins of the City Attorney's office, the City cannot compe~
properly owners to occupy vacant buildings, and often has limited means to
enforce its cedes on vandalism with disinterested or absentee landlords. When
property owners are unable or unwilling to maintain their buildings and keep them
occupied, the Agency could use the Plan's tools to provide assistance to these
owners when appropriate. In addition, the Agency could work as a conduit
between prospective tenants and the real estate community to help expedite
absorption of vacant space. In other instances, the Plan permi~ the Agency to
acquire properties, including eminent domain acquisition, as a means to remove
these blighting conditions and nuisance properties from the Added Area.
Based on leasing activities reported in the San Diego Daily Transcript for the
latter part of 2002, Added Area retail properties face dramatically lower lease
rates as compared to other retail properties in Chula Vista. The average retail
lease rate within the Added Area is $1.32, approximately 57% of the city average
(not including the existing constituent areas). Coincidently, the highest rental rate
within the Added Area is $1.80, which is the same as the lowest rental rate of
other parts of the City, as shown in the following table.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CiTY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-24 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
I :i ~ ~F_,I I l ~1 ~,_~,"'1 ~ :,,_II II ~,,'"~:~ ~ r-'~ .'~,'~ I,,'~ ~':~ :] ~1~:
ADDED AREA VERSUS CiTY
ADDED AREA OTHER PARTS OF CITY 2/
Address Lease Date Rent/SF Address Lease Date RentJSF
111 Broadway 12/18/2006 $ 1.77 601 E. Palomar Street 1/8/2007 $ 2.38
1177 Broadway 11/15/2006 1.32 601 E. PalomarStreet 1/8/2007 2.30
1172 Third Avenue 9/6/2006 1.32 601 E. Palomar Street 1/9/2007 2.54
45 N. Broadway 9/6/2006 1.80 303 H Street 10/27/2006 1.80
1172 Third Avenue 7/23/2006 1.09 563 Telegraph Canyon Rd. 9/11/2006 2.02
1655 Broadway 5/18/2006 0.99 1172 Third Avenue 9/6/2006 2.25
347 East H Street 4/19/2006 1.29 561 Telegraph Canyon Rd. 8/14/2006 2.21
1261 Third Avenue 4/3/2006 0.99 347 E. H Street 4/19/2006 3.06
Average $ 1.32 $ 2.32
1/Lease survey includes the most recent eight leases under 5,000 sq. ft. in each category
2/include areas within the City that are not part of the Constituent Areas
Source: San Diego Daily Transcript
According to Tracy Clark of Voit Commercial Brokerage, the lower lease rates
among retail properties in the Added Area are primarily due to the shallow and
small configuration of existing lots that are under mixed ownership, which
prevents the development of contemporary shopping centers that feature more
accessible parking areas and anchor tenants to attract a diverse customer base.
Generally, contemporary retail centers with anchored tenants have higher
customer draw power due to their brand recognition and retail synergy, therefore
justifying charging market rents. As stated earlier, approximately 79% of the of
the Added Area parcels do not meet the minimum lot size necessary to be
redeveloped into a contemporary retail use that can command better tenants,
parking and rents.
Michael Cullen of Walsh Financial Commercial brokerage also suggested that the
lower rents in the Added Area are a result of the crime problems evident in the
area, and speculated that redevelopment of the Added Area could counteract
criminal activities, and thereby trigger more businesses to move into the area and
increase patronage of Added Area retail properties. These changes could
positively affect lease rates in the Added Area.
As shown in Table B-9 below, depressed retail lease rates impair the private
sector to invest in Added Area properties. Table B-9 presents a real estate
construction pro forma using typical real estate market conditions in the Added
Area, including lease rates, undersized parcels and other factors. These
economic conditions create a major disincentive for the private sector to
redevelop their properties because the rents in the Added Area market area are
not high enough for an investor to realize a return on their construction costs.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-25 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
ADDED AREA
Key Assumptions
Lot Area (Acres) 1 43,560 SF
FAR 0.25
Improvement Size 10,890
Lease Rate (NNN)/SF/MO $1.32
Loan Amount 80% LTV 1,283,387
Gross Potential Income 172,498
Vacancy and Collections Loss 7.00% 12,075
Gross Effective Income 160,423
Operating Expenses
Properly Management 5.00% 8,021
Reserves 2.00% 3,208
NNN Charges 3.00% 4,813
Total Operating Expenses
(Excluding NNN charges) 16,042
Net Operating Income 144,381
Capitalization Rate 9%
Property Value $ 1,604,234
Cost Pro forma
Acquisition Costs 1/ 110 /SF 4,791,619
Hard Costs
Demolition Cost 5 /SF 217,801
Shell Construc[ion $55.00 /SF 598,952
Tenant Improvements $10.00 /SF 108,900
Site Work $3.50 /SF 152,461
Off Site 50,000
Total Hard Costs $ 1,128,114
Soft Costs
Architectural and Engineering 5.00% of hard cost 56,406
Permits and Fees $4.00 /SF 43,560
School Fees $2.10 /SF 22,869
Broker Fees $3.00 /SF 32,670
Interest 69,303
Loan Points 1.50% 19,251
Legal and Accounting 50,000
Contingency 5.00% of hard cost 56,406
Development/Management 5.00% of hard cost 56,406
Total Soft Coats $ 406,870
Total Costs $ 6,326,603
Target Profits 10.00% of Cost 632,660
Required GAP Assistance $ 5,355,030
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, iNC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-26- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Table B-9 demonstrates these problems based on a small scale prototype
development in the Added Area, using construction costs from RSG's experience
in the market area. The major development cost involves acquisition of
developed properties under mixed ownership. Unlike purchasing vacant land,
potential developers must also purchase existing nonconforming buildings on
Added Area properties. Given the high density and lot coverage among many
Added Area parcels (as shown by the lack of parking) developers are facing the
economic challenge of purchasing properties with existing structures that are two
to three times larger than what can be built at today's development standards.
There is simply not enough rent-based project value for the pdvate sector to offset
these extraordinary costs. In the example used in Table B-9, a small one acre
retail development could require a subsidy of more than $5.3 million--more than
three times the value of the project based on current rental rates. Increasing the
rent rates to cover this gap is not feasible, since redeveloping one of 529 acres in
the Added Area would not trigger an increase in Added Area lease rates overall;
rents in the market area have a significant influence on the rents that can be
charged at specific projects. Based on these difficult redevelopment economics,
it is not surprising that there has been little change to the Added Area.
Why Redevelopment?.
The lack of private investment in the Added Area has created a disadvantaged
and deteriorated retail corridor. Through redevelopment, the Agency could place
investment in areas where pdvata investment does not exist. In addition, the
Agency could engage in capital improvement projects by proving designated
parking areas and fund a Storefront Renovation Program that provides rebates to
merchants and property owners who make improvements to the extedor of their
building. These improvements would assist the commercial stores in the Added
Area to become more attractive and competitive.
Relative to the City, the Added Area contains high concentrations of businesses
that cater exclusively to adults. According to the Yellow Pages, the Added Area
contains 32 bars and 25 liquor stores, all of which occur in much higher
concentrations per square mile than the rest of the City. The number of bars per
square mile is nearly 41 times higher than the rest of the City; the number of
liquor stores per square mile is also high at 25 times the City average, as shown
in Table B-10 below.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 ~ B-27 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
A~D~D ARI~
City of Chula Vista Added Area
Area (sq. mi) 51.18 0.83
Liquor Stores
# of Liquor Stores '25 10
# of Liquor Stores per sq. mi 0.49 12.09
# of Liquor Stores Ratio to City 24.75
Bars
# of Bars 32 21
# of Bars per sq. mi 0.63 25.40
# of Bars Ratio to City 40.61
Source: Yellow Pa~es
Because the majodty of the Added Area consists of small lots that adjoin
residential neighborhoods, the high number of these establishments that cater
exclusively to adults impacts many residents. Consequently, social and
economic problems arise. According to Sergeant David Eisenberg with the
Chula Vista Police Department, the Added Area is "awash in alcohol" and he
estimates that many of the patrons are not local residents. Proliferation of these
businesses is often an unfortunate consequence of lower income areas,
according to Sergeant Eisenberg, and perpetuates the criminal and economic
problems in the Added Area.
According to the City's Police Department data for 2002, reported cdmes nearby
these properties are higher than the City average and contribute to the fact that
the Added Area has higher crime rates than the rest of the City. Evidence of the
deviant behavior that surrounds these adults-only businesses is exemplified by
comparing the location of the police "hot spots" where they receive the highest
portion of their 911 calls. The high percentage of adult businesses in the area
and the subsequent increase in crime that is associated with these types of
businesses pose serious problems for public safety and welfare.
Table B-11 shows that the crime rate with 200 feet of Added Area bars and liquor
stores is more than 16 times higher than the City crime rate and double the crime
rate in the entire Added Area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, [NC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-28- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
ADDED AREA
Total Area Crimes Ratio to
Crimes (Acre) Per Acre City
City of Chula Vista 7,180 32,572 0.22 1.00
Added Area 943 529 1.78 8.08
Within 200 Feet of
Added Area Bars
and Liquor Stores 222 60 3.70 16.79
1/Part 1 and Part 2 crime reported from July 1,2002 through December
31,2002
Source: Chula Vista Police Department
Why Redevelopment?
Redevelopment of the Added Area can address the proliferation of liquor stores
and bars in many ways. For example, the Plan enables the Agency to use tax
increment financing to partner with local investment on redevelopment projects.
Increased public and pdvate sector investment in the Added Area would indirectly
create a more desirable location over time. Consequently, a wider range of retail
and service businesses would consider locating in the Added Area and eventually
counteract the proliferation of marginal and detrimental businesses.
High C~me Rates
RSG analyzed Chula Vista Police Department crime reports from July through
December 2002 for the entire City and the Added Area. Based on this data and
interviews with Police Department officials, it is clear that the Added Area faces
severe crime problems. High crime rates are a burden on the City because they
generate calls for service and demand a disproportionate level of a~tention by the
Police Department. According to data provided by the Police Department, the
Added Area accounts for approximately 8 times more crime than the citywide
average on a square mile basis as shown on Table B-12.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-29 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
ADDED AREA AND SELECT LOCATIONS
Total Area Crimes Ratio to
Crimes (Acre) Per Acre City
City of Chula Vista 7,180 32,572 0.22 1.00
A 535 113 4.72 21.40
C-7 18 3 5.29 24.02
B 97 66 1.46 6.64
C 55 55 1.01 4.57
C-9 1 2 0.66 3.00
B-2 8 12 0.66 2.98
C-13 8 24 0.34 1.53
A-1 11 33 0.33 1.51
B-1 2 6 0.32 1.47
C-12 21 74 0.28 1.29
Entire Added Area 943 529 1.78 8.08
1/Part 1 and Part 2 crime reported from July 1, 2002 through
December 31, 2002
Source: Chula Vista Police Department
The types of crimes reported in the Added Area dudng this period include
possession of illegal substance, robbery, assault, domestic violence, burglary,
theft, and vandalism.
Sergeant David Eisenberg with the Police Department provided a detailed
description of the nature of cdminal activity in the Added Area. According to
Sergeant Eisenberg, properties along Broadway and Third Avenue are highly
impacted with crimes, in large part because the general area is surrounded by
high concentrations of parolees, sex crime registrants, and narcotics registrants.
Approximately 1,100 of these individuals reside in Chula Vista, and Sergeant
Eisenberg estimates that the vast majority resides in and around the Added Area.
Added Area businesses and residents are also affected by the presence of two
long-standing gangs, including the Otay and Barrio Chula Vista, who target
Added Area properties and patrons. These gangs and other criminals also
engage heavily in narcotics activity that occurs along these corridors in the Added
Area, and the Police Department has found some businesses in the Added Area
that operate as "fronts" for illicit activities.
Why Redevelopment?.
The Plan can be either directly or indirectly effective in improving public safety by
targeting specific "hot spots" to improve housing management, increasing
property owner attention and maintenance, and removing abandoned and
neglected buildings. The Agency can also help develop community facilities that
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-30- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
serve the needs of the Added Area and greater west Chula Vista area to provide
more after school activities as positive option to gangs and narcotics.
Conditions of blight predominate throughout the Added Area. If and to the extent
that certain properties are not individually blighted, their inclusion in the Added
Area is necessary for the following reasons and redevelopment purposes: (1) in
order to effectively plan and carry out redevelopment of the entire Added Area; (2)
because such properties are impacted by the conditions existing on adjacent
properties, and correction of such conditions may require the imposition of design,
development or use requirements on the standard properties in the event they
are rehabilitated or redeveloped by their owners; (3) to impose uniform
requirements over a geographically defined and identified area of the City; (4)
because such properties will share in the physical and economic benefits that will
accrue to the area through the elimination of substandard conditions, including
the replacement or provision of new public improvements and facilities within or
serving the Added Area; and (5) because such properties are part of a b~ighted
area.
Effective Planning and Implement~on of the Project
The development potential of certain sites within the Added Area may be limited
or infeasible because of the need for additional space, vehicular access, parking,
setback requirements, and other similar planning factors. These limitations may
be reduced or eliminated when adjacent properties are included in a proposed
development site. In some instances, however, the adjacent properties may not
evidence individual blighting conditions, but their inclusion in the Added Area is
necessary in order to effectively plan and carry out redevelopment of the entire
Added Area.
Impact of Gonditions on Adjacent Properties
On occasion, a standard building or group of buildings can be adversely impacted
by the blighting conditions existing on adjacent properties and the correction or
alleviation of these conditions may involve analyzing and treating the blighted and
standard properties as a whole.
Imposition of Uniform Requirements over Geographically Defined Area
It is good planning and economically sensible to impose uniform development
and use provisions on all properties within a geographically definable area; it also
conforms to the common notion of fair play.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-31 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Properties Share in the Benefits of Redevelopment
A very strong inducement to property owner cooperation in the redevelopment
process is the potential of substantial public involvement in the form of public
improvements. If the condition precedent to obtaining such public improvements
is for property owners to cooperate with the redevelopment agency in the
rehabilitation, development, maintenance and use of their properties, then it is
equitable that all properties sharing the public benefit from such improvements
should be required to conform to the same conditions.
Properties are Part of a Blighted Area
As reported, there are many physical and economic blighting conditions in the
Added Area, the incidences of which vary from block to block, but when the sum
effect is examined the combined impact characterizes the area as blighted, The
success of the different programs and public improvements proposed is
dependent on the inclusion of all properties that are an integral part of the whole
Added Area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - B-32 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
A Determination as to Whether the Added
Area is Predominately Urbanized
Under Section 33030 of the Law, a blighted area is one that is, at the time of
adoption, predominantly urbanized (not less than 80%), which is defined in the
Law as follows:
· Has been or is developed for urban uses; or
· Is characterized by the existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and
shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness, and development that are
in multiple ownership; or
· Is an integral part of one of more areas developed for urban uses, which are
surrounded or substantially surrounded by parcels, which have been or are
developed for urban uses. Parcels separated by only an improved right-of-
way shall be deemed adjacent for the purpose of this subdivision.
The Added Area encompasses an area of approximately 529 acres, inclusive of
public right-of-way. A total of 437 acres, or 83 % of the Added Area, is urbanized.
Urbanized areas include parcels that either have been or are currently developed
for urban uses. No part of the Added Area is characterized with irregular or
inadequately shaped parcels pursuant to the definition contained in Section
33031 (4) of the Law, nor is any part of the Added Area in agricultural use.
Exhibit C-1 depicts the specific location of nonurbanized parcels in the Added
Area; the remaining Added Area properties are urbanized.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - C-1 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
~ Non UrbanizedParcels ExhibitC-1 UrbanizarionMap
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Of THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - C-2 - CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
A Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed
Method of Financing, Including the Economic
Feasibility and the Reasons for the Division of
Tax Increment
The Agency anticipates that redevelopment of the Added Area would be financed
by the following resources:
1) Financial assistance from the City, County, State of California and/or Federal
Government;
2) Tax increment revenue;
3) Bonded debt;
4} Proceeds from lease or sale of Agency-owned property;
5) Loans from private financial institutions; and
6) Any other legally available source,
The more typical sources of redevelopment financing that may be employed with
the Added Area are described below,
Financial Assistance ~om the City, County, State, and/or the Federal Government
The Agency may obtain loans and advances from the City for planning,
construction, and operating capital for administration until such time that su~cient
tax increment revenue is raised to repay loans and provide other means of
operating capital, The City may also defer payments on Agency loans for land
purchases, benefiting the Agency's cash flow, Such assistance is anticipated to
be employed to meet shod-term cash flow needs, as the City's General Fund
cannot carry extensive levels of Agency debt at the dsk of threatening the City's
own cash balances.
As available, other funds such as state-apportioned road funds and federal
Community Development Block Grants will be appropriately used to pay the costs
of Project implementation. The Agency and City will also pursue other available
grants and loans; additionally, the City or other public agencies may issue bonds
on behalf of the Agency and provide in-kind assistance.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - D-l- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Property Tax Increment
The Agency may use property tax increment as provided for in Section 33670 of
the Law, and is authorized in the Plan to employ tax increment financing to
underwrite project costs. Tax increment revenue may only be used to pay
indebtedness incurred by the Agency; indebtedness includes principal and
interest on loans, monies advanced, or debts (whether funded, refunded,
assumed, or otherwise) incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole
or in part, redevelopment activities. Indebtedness may be incurred within time
limits prescribed by the Plan; while, the Amendment does not alter these time
limits to incur debt for the preexisting constituent areas of the Project Area (Town
Centre II Original, Town Centre II Amendment, Otay Valley, Southwest Original,
and Southwest Amendment), the Agency may subsequently rescind these time
limits in accordance with Section 33333.6 of the Law. As for the Added Area, the
Agency may incur debt for a period of 20 years following adoption of the
Amendment.
Project Area tax increment revenues are statutodly required to meet specific
statutory obligations, as well as discretionary projects. As required by the Law,
not less than 20% of the annual gross tax increment revenue is set aside into the
Agency's affordable housing fund for the purposes of increasing, improving, and
preserving the community's supply of Iow and moderate-income housing.
The remaining 80% of the tax increment revenue will be used to pay for taxing
entity obligations (pursuant to fiscal mitigation agreements as applicable to the
preexisting constituent areas of the Project Area, and separately, statutory taxing
agency payments required by Section 33607.5 of the Law), debt service costs,
and other program expenditures. Program expenditures include commercial
fac~ade programs, infrastructure, capital facility, and economic development
programs throughout the Project Area.
Tax increment revenue may be collected for a period of 45 years following
adoption of the Amendment within the Added Area, and for a shorter time period
for the various preexisting constituent areas of the Project Area. In addition,
these preexisting constituent areas of the Project Area are also subject to a limit
on the amount of tax increment revenue the Agency may collect; these tax
increment limits remain unchanged by the Amendment.
The chart below summarizes the various time and financial iimits in the Plan
affecting the collection of tax increment revenue:
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - D-2- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
T
Constituent Area Time Limit to Time Limit to Cumulative Tax
Incur Debt Collect Tax Increment
Increment Revenue Limit
Revenue (As Applicable)
Otay Valley 1/1/2004 12/29/2033 $115,000,000
Town Ceni~e II Odginal 1/1/2004 8/15/2028
$100,000,000
Town Centre II Amended 7/19/2008 7/19/2038
Southwest Odginal 11/27/2010 11/27/2040
$150,000,000 ~
Southwest Amended 7/9/2011 7/9/2041
Proposed Added Area 20 Years Following 45 Years Following
Adoption of AdoptJea of Not Applicable 2
Amendment Amendment
1/ Adjusted annually by the consumers' idea index.
2/ NO tax increment revenue limit r'equired for amendments to project Areas after January 1, 1994.
Note: Time limits to incur debt for all but the Added Area may be resdnded subseduentiy by the Agency pursuant
to Section 33333.6 of the Law.
Under the Plan, the Agency would have a capacity to issue bonds and/or notes
for any of its purposes, payable in whole or in part from tax increment revenue.
Many redevelopment agencies in the state employ bond financing as an integral
component of their overall redevelopment-financing program.
The Plan permits the Agency the ability to incur such bonded debt, and contains a
$175 million limit on the amount of bonded debt principal which may be
outstanding at any one time.
Lease or Sale of Agency-Owned Property
The Agency may sell, lease, or otherwise encumber its property holdings to pay
the costs of project implementation.
Participation in Development
If the Agency enters into agreements with property owners, tenants, and/or other
developers that provide for revenues to be paid or repaid to the Agency, such
revenues may be used to pay project implementation costs.
~ Available Sources
Any other loans, grants, or financial assistance from the federal government, or
any other public or private source will be utilized, as available and appropriate.
The Agency will also consider use of the powers provided by Chapter 8
(Redevelopment Construction Loans) of the Law to provide construction funds for
appropriate projects. Where feasible and appropriate, the Agency may use
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - D-3- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
assessment distdct and/or Mello-Roos bond financing to pay for the costs of
public infrastructure, facilities, and operations.
The primary source of project financing is anticipated to be tax increment
revenue. This Report contains a preliminary forecast of tax increment revenues
from the Project Area, based on several assumptions noted below:
'1) 2003-04 Base Year Value for Added Area: Assuming the Agency adopts
the Amendment as scheduled in November 2003, the Added Area would
receive tax increment revenue beginning in December 2004 based upon the
incremental growth in assessed values above the 2003-04 base year value.
On October 16, 2003, the County Auditor Controller provided the Agency a
base year report indicating that the 2003-04 local secured and unsecured
values for the Added Area totaled $434,196,652. In September 2003, the
State Board of Equalization reported to the Agency that the Added Area had
no nonunitary utility value in 2003-04.
The base year values of the preexisting constituent areas of the Project Area
are unaffected by the Amendment.
2) Assessed Value Growth Rates: RSG conservatively applied a 3% annual
growth rate to secured assessed values, and no increase on unsecured or
utility assessed values.
If the Amendment is adopted, the Agency would collect gross tax increment
revenue from the Added Area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Redevelopment
Law for a 45-year period. The Law requires that the Agency deposit 20% of this
gross tax increment revenue into the Agency's housing fund. In addition, the
Agency would be required to share a portion of its nonhousing fund revenues with
the affected taxing agencies pursuant to Sections 33607.5 of the Redevelopment
Law ("Taxing Agency Payments"). These Taxing Agency Payments would start
in the first fiscal year the Agency would receive tax increment revenue from the
Added Area (assumed to be fiscal year 2004-05), and continue through fiscal
year 2047-48.
According to Section 33607.5 of the Law, beginning in the first payment year, the
Taxing Agency Payments are equal to 25% of the Added Area's annual
nonhousing tax increment revenue. These Taxing Agency Payments are subject
to two subsequent increases. The first increase in Taxing Agency Payments
would take effect in the eleventh payment year, when the Agency would be
required to pay 21% of the incremental increase in nonhousing tax increment
revenues exceeding amounts in the tenth payment year. The Law further
provides for a second increase in the Taxing Agency Payments that commences
in the thirty-first payment year of 14% of the incremental increase in nonhousing
tax increment revenues in excess of the thirtieth year. In total, the Agency will
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUL.A VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - D-4- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
share approximately 34% of its gross tax increment revenues with the affected
taxing agencies.
Each taxing agency is entitled to their respective share of the Taxing Agency
Payments. All agencies receive their share of the Statutory Payments, except for
the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego, which, by Section 33607.5 of the Law,
are only entitled to its share of the first 25% of the Taxing Agency Payments. The
following is a list of affected taxing agencies in the Added Area, according to the
County's base year report:
1) City of Chula Vista
2) City of San Diego
3) San Diego County General Fund
4) Chula Vista Elementary School District
5) National City Elementary School District
6) Sweetwater Union High School Distdct
7) Southwestem Community College District
8) San Diego County Superintendent of Schools
9) County Water Authority
10) City of San Diego Zoological Exhibits
11) Metropolitan Water District
The actual amount of the Taxing Agency Payments will vary based on the
amount of tax increment revenues collected by the Agency each year. A forecast
of Taxing Agency Payments has been included on Table D-1. Should actual tax
increment revenues exceed or fall below these projections, actual Taxing Agency
Payments would be higher or lower.
Between fiscal year 2004-05 and 2047-48, RSG estimates that the Added Area
could generate approximately $188 million in gross tax increment revenue. After
deducting the Taxing Agency Payments described above, approximately $86
million would be deposited to the Agency's nonhousing fund for redevelopment
projects, and another $38 million could be deposited into the Agency's housing
fund for affordable housing projects.
These projected Added Area revenues would augment Project Area revenues
from the existing constituent areas and be available to fund projects throughout
the Project Area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - D-5- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
3.0% 0.0%
BASE 394,022,538 40,174,114 434,196,652
2006-07 430,559,066 40,174,114 470,733,180 36,536,528 365,365 73,073 73,073 219,219
2010-11 484,598,022 40,174,114 524,772,136 90,575,484 905,755 181,151 181,151 543,453
2015-16 561,781,923 40,174,114 601,956,037 167,759,385 1,677,594 335,519 389,696 952,379
Net Present Value (at 6% Discount Rate) 36,419,152 7,283,830 11,161,701 17,973,620
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, iNC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - D-6- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Tax increment financing will be an essential component of a successful
redevelopment program in the Added Area. As demonstrated in Section B of this
Report, many of the Added Area blighting conditions are attributed to a lack of
financial incentives for redevelopment, such as redesign and reconstruction of
obsolete properties. Market values and development constraints have caused
infill properties to remain undeveloped for decades, even as the greater City of
Chula Vista area has experienced an unprecedented housing boom.
While there are other means to raise public funds without tax increment financing,
these techniques would ultimately result in higher taxes or increased
development costs, both of which are counterproductive to resolving the unique
issues in the Added Area. For example, certain public improvements could be
financed by creating an assessment district, but the property owners would
probably not support creation of the distdct because many cannot afford the cost
of additional taxes (two-thirds of the voters must approve formation of such a
district).
Tax increment financing provides a dedicated source of revenues for the Agency
to invest into housing and redevelopment programs, without burdening property
owners or residents with additional costs that they cannot afford.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - D-7- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
A Description of the Projects. Proposed by
the .~.n~ a.nd Ho~ They Will Improv~ or
Alleviate Physical and Economic Conditions
of Blight
The Plan incorporates a list of the infrastructure and public facilities projects
proposed to be implemented by the Agency throughout the Project Area. In
addition to these projects, the Agency will employ other tools necessary to
alleviate the blighting conditions as demonstrated in Section B of the Report.
The projects proposed by the Agency include the following:
Public li~-~J~I, ICtUI'~ ~
Improvements to Project Area public infrastructure are intended to alleviate traffic
congestion and improve public safety, remove costly impediments to
development, and upgrade infrastructure to contemporary standards to stimulate
private development. The proposed traffic/circulation improvement projects shall
include, but are not limited to roadways, landscape, street lights, pedestrian
walkways, bridges, interchanges, roadways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parking,
street widening, street lights, traffic signals, over or underpasses, utility
undergrounding, bicycle paths, street medians, trails, and trolley crossings.
The proposed sewer and drainage improvement projects shall include, but are
not limited to, monitoring systems, sewer parallels, drainage, sewer lines,
wastewater treatment facilities, flooding systems, floor control dikes, and sewer
systems. The proposed utility and communication improvement projects shall
include, but are not limited to, electrical distribution systems, natural gas
distribution systems; cable TV and fiber optic communication systems, water
distribution systems, and windbreakers.
Further compliance with General Plan, zoning standards, and environmental
review may be necessary for these proposals to come forward. Projects include,
but are not limited to the following:
· Streel/Entryway Beautification. Construct streetscape improvements at key
Project Area locations, including Fourth Avenue and Highway 54.
· Main Street Improvements. Construct street improvements along Main Street
to improve traffic flows and upgrade character of right-of-way.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - E-I- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
· Broadway Revitalization. Implement a variety of street and other applicable
improvements along Broadway, from H Street to L Street.
Community Facilities
Community facility improvements enhance the ability of the City to provide a
commensurate level of service demands of Project Area and west Chula Vista
residents and businesses. Improved service levels can elevate the appeal of
Project Area real estate, thereby positively affecting property values. Other
blighting conditions that can be addressed through the proposed community
facilities improvement projects shall include, but are not limited to parks, open
spaces, schools, school facilities, fire and police facilities, communication
systems, libraries, fire protection, cultural centers, community centers, city
maintenance facilities, plazas, recreational facilities, playgrounds, and civic
center. Further compliance with the General Plan, zoning standards, and
environmental review may be necessary for these proposals to come forward.
Other Potential Redevelopment Projects:
The Agency may consider participation in other redevelopment projects to reduce
blight and achieve other redevelopment goals. Except where noted, most of the
projects are in the conceptual stages and no formal proposals have been
submitted to the city or Agency. Thus, each of these projects is subject to further
discretionary actions and is not being approved specifically reviewed as a part of
the adoption of the Amendments. Further compliance with the General Plan,
zoning standards, and environmental review may be necessary for these projects
as proposals come forward.
These projects include, but are not limited to, the following:
· Watt Commercial Project. Redevelopment of property at the corners of Third
Avenue and E Street for retail and other commercial use.
· Landis/Pacific Scene. Adoption of specific plan and development of
approximately 152 residential units at the corner of Third Avenue and
Davidson Street.
· SUHSD Joint Prelects. The Agency and the Sweetwater Union High School
Distdct may consider one or more planning agreements to implement a series
of improvements to current and future SUHSD properties that serve the
Amended Project Area. The projects may include redevelopment of the
existing District headquarters and corporate yard on Fifth Avenue with
approximately 200 residential units, the Windmill Farms property at Third
Avenue and Alvarado Street for District headquarters, residential and
commercial uses.
· Bayfront/Port Master Plan. Participation by both the City of Chula Vista and
the Port of San Diego to develop and implement the Port Master Plan for the
Bayfront area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - E-2- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
· Duke Enerqy Plant Relocation. Facilitate relocation and reuse and/or
relocation of power generating facility within the Amended Project Area.
· Bayfront Commons. Develop approximately 2,000 residential units, 3 hotels,
and 150,000 square feet of supporting retail commercial use within the
Bayfront area.
· BayfrontJPort Master Plan. Participate with Chula Vista and the Port of San
Diego on development and implementation of Port Master Plan for Bayfront
area.
Other than the projects listed above, other redevelopment tools include the
authority to acquire and rehabilitate property, relocate property owners, and
assemble sites for development as mentioned in Section B. For example, the
lack of parking, circulation space, designated pedestrian walkways, and proper
setbacks within the Added Area could be addressed by acquiring vacant sites to
develop designated parking where parking shortages exist or consolidate shared
parking areas. These projects would relieve the reliance on street parking and
create buffers for pedestrian walkways, provide building setbacks, and address
insufficient circulation space. In return, the improvement in circulation and public
right of way will lessen the concentration of automobile accidents. The Agency
could also fund improvement programs to strengthen the construction matedal
that are susceptible to fire.
Through redevelopment, the Agency would have the financial power to revitalize
the Added Area by providing a designated source of funding to stimulate pdvate
investments, provide incentives for development to occur, and improve quality of
life.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - E-3- CHUb& VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo Survey
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 - APPENDIX A-l- CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Unsafe and Unhealthy Buildings
The following photographs depict examples of unsafe or unhealthy
conditions among Added Area parcels. These conditions are evident
throughout the Added Area, due to dilapidation, substandard building
materials, inadequate setbacks and poor lot design.
Photo 1: Bay Boulevard. This abandoned structure suffers from years of neglect
and deterioration as apparent in the photo exhibit above. The building is also a
target for graffiti. The connection between the roof framing and the walls seem to
have also broken apart.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -1 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 2:200 block of Broadway. The distance between the mobile home units
is less than the 20 feet required by the Fire Department when cars are parked on
both sides. This condition can hamper emergency vehicle access into parts of
the mobile home park.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -2 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 3:200 block of Broadway. The auto repair shop operators park their cars
on the street or on the edge of the property line due to the lack of proper
setbacks and off street parking. Vehicles must reverse out onto the street to
leave the repair shop, but are often blindsided by parked cars on the street,
blocking the views of passing vehicles. Broadway has a high accident rate due
to the presence of these unsafe conditions.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A ~3 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 4:300 block of Broadway. The windows on one side of the residential
unit of this mobile home unit is completely boarded up. The Fire Department has
stated that because mobile homes are generally constructed of lightweight
materials, they are more susceptible to fire damage. This unit's plywood exterior
is particularly vulnerable to fire damage.
Photo 5: 400 block of Broadway. This residential unit suffers from serious
deterioration to an exterior wall, with the wood siding peeling and coming apart.
Part of the window frame is also deteriorating.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -4 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 6:1100 block of Broadway. The commercial building exhibits signs of
deterioration to the fac~ade, roof, and exterior wall material. The framing support
for the roof is exposed and unprotected, which is susceptible to water damage
and dry rot.
Photo 7:100 N. Glover Avenue. The buildings on this lot are dilapidated and in
need of repairs to the doors, windows, walls, and roofing material. The lot is also
overparked.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Of THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -5 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 8: 700 block of Third Avenue. This residential unit suffers from
deterioration to the roof to such an extent that a plastic sheet is used as a
protection against rain.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -6 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 9: 900 block of Third Avenue. The structure in the foreground is
abandoned and completely boarded up. The building displays serious
deterioration to the roof, exterior wall material, and foundation. The structure to
the rear suffers from fire damage with large portions of the building burnt. Graffiti
can also be seen, suggesting trespassing onto this unsafe and unhealthy
property.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK eROUP, INC, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -7 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 10: Trousdale Drive at Press Lane. This structure behind the building to
the right has fire damage (part of the exterior wall matedal and framing are
burned).
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A q~ CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Factors That Prevent or Substantially Hinder Viable Use
The following photos exhibit examples of factors that prevent or
substantially hinder the viable use of buildings or lots, taken from the field
survey in February 2003. RSG estimates that over 50% of the properties
on Broadway, Third Avenue, and Trousdale Drive suffer from this
blighting condition.
Photo 11: Broadway at Mclntosh Street. The front setbacks of the buildings are
so limited that cars are forced to park on the edge of the property line and on the
sidewalk at times.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, ]NC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY Of CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -9 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 12:100 block of Broadway. This lot does not have sufficient parking as
parked cars are blocking ingress/egress to the property.
Photo 13:400 block of Broadway. Most of the retail sites on Broadway have
little or no setbacks, lacking onsite parking and relying solely on a limited amount
of street parking, which not only creates a parking shortage as shown in the
photo, but hinders pedestrian and vehicle visibility.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-10 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 14:400 block of Broadway. Most of the mobile home park residents park
their cars on both sides of the streets, limiting adequate space for traffic
circulation and emergency vehicles to enter in the event of a fire.
Photo 15:600 block of Broadway. The parking of this repair shop is limited as
cars are stacked next to each other, limiting the access of other vehicles. Note
that a portion of the sidewalk is used for parking.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-11 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 16:600 block of Broadway. Another set of retail stores that have no
setback to each other or front setback to accommodate for onsite parking. The
parking on the street serving these retail stores is also completely full.
Photo 17:800 block of Broadway. The lack of proper front setback creates a
pedestrian danger when cars reverse to exit the store.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-12 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 18: 300 block of E Street. This auto body shop use does not have
sufficient parking for its inventory, so it parks the cars on the driveway blocking
the ingress/egress to the property.
Photo 19: First Avenue and C Street. The front setback of the site is so small
that when a truck (as shown above) is parked, a third of the truck is on the
sidewalk. Note the lack of space between the car and the front of the building.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -13 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 20:500 block of H Street. The retail strip in the photo above has no
onsite parking as the front setbacks of these buildings are approximately five feet
from the sidewalks.
Photo 21:600 block of E. Manor Ddve. The parking lot of this retail store is
completely full. However, as the car (on the right) reverses to exit, the car
crosses part of the pedestrian walkway and presents a threat to pedestrians.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-14 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 22: 1400 block of Orange Avenue. Lack of loading/unloading areas
create a problem, where delivery trucks are forced to unload in the parking lot
impeding vehicular movement within the site and limiting emergency vehicles
ability to access buildings in the event of a fire.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-15 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 23:200 Palomar Street. The steep slope of this property is challenging
for cars to enter and exit the site. This restaurant also only provides four to five
parking spaces.
Photo 24:200 block of Quintard Street. This furniture store uses the limited
amount of onsite parking for loading and unloading. When properties lack onsite
parking and space for deliveries, customers and business operators are
inconvenienced and local brokers indicate an associated detrimental affect on
property values.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-16 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 25: 200 block of Quintard Street. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters are
lacking on the south side of Quintard Street creating a safety hazard as cars are
sharing the same right-of-way as pedestrians. The lack of curbs and gutters
contribute to drainage problems in the event of rains.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-17 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 26:600 block of Third Avenue. This lot not only lacks sufficient parking to
support the commercial uses but also forces customers to reverse into oncoming
traffic in order to exit from the property, presenting a threat to on-coming traffic
and pedestrians.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -18 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 27: 700 block of Third Avenue. The parking lot of this site is poorly
configured requiring autos to back into the pedestrian right of way and into heavy
traffic in order to exit, presenting a threat not only to oncoming traffic but
pedestrians as well.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -19 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 28: 700 block of Third Avenue. This building was originally built for
residential purposes but has since then been converted to a commercial use.
Therefore the space exhibits inadequate parking and limited vehicular access
required for commercial usage. These conditions also translate to a reduction in
the economic well being of the business and limits the highest and the best use
of the property.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -20 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 29:900 Third Avenue. Due to the physical limitation of the site and lack
of proper setbacks, people are forced to parallel park their cars or park on the
side setback as shown in the photo above.
Photo 30: 900 block of Third Avenue. Cars from the adjoining commercial
property are parked on this vacant land, as the commercial use does not have
enough parking to accommodate the vehicles.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-21 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 31:1400 block of Third Avenue. This commercial store uses the limited
amount of onsite parking for loading and unloading purposes. This
inconveniences customers and business operators, which relates to detrimental
affect on property values as indicated by local brokers.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-22 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 32: 300 block of Trousdale Drive. This lot lacks sufficient parking to
support the commercial uses. The white vehicle on the left side of the photo is
parked on part of the pedestrian right-of-way.
Photo 33:300 block of Trousdale Drive. Sidewalks are lacking on the south side
of Trousdale Drive creating a safety hazard as cars are sharing the same right-
of-way as pedestrians. Cars are also parked on pedestrian walkways.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -23 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 34:300 block of Trousdale Drive. The trailer above is being stored in the
public and pedestrian right of way indicating that the commercial center lacks
sufficient parking and/or storage space. The trailer also creates a safety hazard
for pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-24 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Incompatible Use
As mentioned ir~ Section B of the Report, many of the residential units are
located next to and/or directly across from auto repair shops, gas
stations, or on busy commercial streets, subjecting the sensitive
residential uses to nuisances and impairing property values,
Photo 35: Broadway at Casselman Street. A home is located next to an auto
repair shop where excess auto pads are stored adjacent to the home's perimeter
fence. The noise, fumes, and undesirable sight of the repair shop are a nuisance
to the residents.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-25 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINAeY REPORT
Photo 36: Broadway at Flower Street. The vacant residential unit shares a
driveway with the neighboring auto repair shop. The house is located on a heavy
retail concentrated street with a lack of buffers for noise and traffic.
Photo 37:200 block of Palomar Street. The residential unit is surrounded by a
regional strip center. A chain link fence provides virtually no buffer between the
commercial use and the residence.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -26 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 38:400 of Broadway. The wall of the auto pads shop adjoins a mobile
park home. This portion of Broadway has one of the highest rates of traffic
accidents and code violations in Chula Vista.
Photo 39:400 Block of Woodlawn Avenue. The residential hnit on the left is
situated next to a gas station where traffic and gasoline fumes are a nuisance.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-27 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Abnormally High Business Vacancies and Abandoned Buildings
The Added Area has an abundance of business vacancies and
abandoned buildings, with a concentration in areas mentioned in Section
B of the Report. The following photos exhibit some of the vacant and/or
abandoned buildings,
Photo 40: Bay Boulevard. This abandoned residential unit is located between
the Western Salt Facility and residential neighborhood. The building is covered
in graffiti and parts of the exterior wall are falling apart.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CiTY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-28 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 41: Bay Boulevard. A vacant site that is a target for illegal dumping. Note
the furniture on the right side of the photo.
Photo 42: Broadway and Naples Street. The building is vacant and abandoned,
and covered in graffiti.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-29 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 43: Broadway and Palomar Street. The industrial building next to the
railroad tracks is vacant. The building is also deteriorating as it remains vacant.
Some of the windows are also boarded up.
Photo 44: 100 block of Broadway. This building is abandoned and does not
have the proper setbacks, sufficient lot size, or design for modern retail
operation.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-30 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 45:100 block of Broadway, The retail store is vacant.
Photo 46:200 block of Broadway. The former gas station is abandoned and
vacant with the windows and doors completely boarded up.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-31 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 47:300 block of Broadway. The building in the middle is completely
boarded up with deterioration to the roof and framing. Graffiti can also be seen
on the abandoned building.
Photo 48:300 block of Broadway. The building is vacant and blocked by the
masonry wall, limiting its street visibility, essential for retail operation.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-32 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 49:400 block of Broadway. Another vacant retail store. The Winston
Tires business has relocated to a larger site elsewhere.
Photo 50:400 block of Broadway. The building above is vacant and a target for
graffiti.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-33 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 51:1100 block of Broadway. The retail center next to Costco is vacant
and is a target for graffiti.
Photo 52:600 E Street. The retail store is vacant with pads of signs on the
ground.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Of THE CiTY OF ChULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -34 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 53:700 E Street. The former gas station is vacant.
Photo54: Glover Avenue and E Street. The vacant retail store is completely
boarded up.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -35 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 55: Third Avenue and Glover Avenue. This building is marked with graffiti
and part of it is boarded up. The building is also tucked away in the back of the
lot and lacks street visibility.
Photo 56:600 block of Third Avenue. Another vacant building with graffiti.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -36 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 57:1000 block of Third Avenue. The vacant building has no windows for
retail operation. The building is also covered in graffiti.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-37 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
High Crime Rates
Photo 58: Broadway and H Street. Another site covered in graffiti.
Photo 59:500 block of H Street. Graffiti marking in a residential neighborhood.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A ~38 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 60:3300 Main Street. Another site covered in graffiti.
Photo 61:200 block of Quintard Street. Another building with graffiti.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-39 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Photo 62: 900 block of Third Avenue. Abandoned building with boarded up
windows with graffiti.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A ~.0 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PRELIMINARY REPORT