Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RDA Packet 2003/06/10
CI'IY OF TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2003 CHUIA VISTA COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 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: May 20, 2003; May 27, 2003; June 3, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING The following item(s) have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 2. CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRECISE PLAN PCM-03-15 KNOWN AS BROADWAY URBAN VILLAGE CONSISTING OF 40 LANE HOMES AND NINE LOFT APARTMENTS ABOVE 9,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE; AND (2) TO CONSIDER, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33431 AND 33433, A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH CARTER REESE AND ASSOCIATES/BITTERLIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE SALE, WITHOUT BIDDING PROCESS, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA - The Developer is a mixed-use project in the Central Commercial zoning district. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and the General Plan relative to mixed-use development along Broadway. The Precise Plan will allow the project to be consistent the with goals and objectives of the General Plan and Chula Vista Municipal Code. [Community Development Director; Planning and Building Director] 2. a. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-03-016 AND PRECISE PLAN PCM- 03-15 FOR THE MIXED-USE PROJECT KNOWN AS BROADWAY URBAN VILLAGE CONSISTING OF 40 LANE HOMES AND NINE LOFT APARTMENTS ABOVE 9,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE 2. b. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAKING THE REQUIRED REDEVELOPMENT ACT FINDINGS AND APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS WITH CARTER REESE AND ASSOCIATES/BITTERLIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE SALE, WITHOUT BIDDING PROCESS, AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) City Council/Redevelopment Agency open the public hearing and receive testimony; 2) City Council place Item 2.a. on first reading; and 3) City Council/Redevelopment Agency adopt Item 2.b. 3. 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 A (B) PRECISE PLAN (PCM-03-21) TO ALLOW FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT INCLUDES: (1) 41 APARTMENTS AFFORDABLE TO LOW-INCOME SENIOR CITIZENS WITH ASSOCIATED SUPPORT SERVICES; (2) ONE MANAGER'S APARTMENT; (3) 2,219 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND (4) REDUCTIONS IN SETBACKS, PARKING AND OPEN SPACE LOCATED 825 BROADWAY TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE METROPOLITAN AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAAC) PROJECT - The Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC) Project is a not-for-profit social service agency that specializes in the development of housing for Iow-income individuals and families. MAAC Project is proposing a mixed-use project on a 1-acre site located at 825-841 Broadway. [Community Development Director; Planning and Building Director] Continued from the meeting of June 3, 2003 3. 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 REZONING 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 3. 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 Redevelopment Agency, June 10, 2003 Page 2 3. c. 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 3. d. 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 (MAAC) PROJECT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED 42 UNIT PROJECT LOCATED AT 825 BROADWAY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City Council place Items 3.a. and 3.b. on first read,lng; Redevelopment Agency adopt Item 3.c.; and City Council adopt Item 3.d. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Public Financing Authority on any subject matter within the Authority's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the Public Financing Authority from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Agency/Authority 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. 4. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) 5. CHAIR/MAYOR REPORT(S) 6. AGENCY/COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to a closed session and thence to the regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on June 17, 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 for[owing 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/Councir 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 act[on taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, announcements of actions taken in CJosed 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) Redevelopment Agency, June 10, 2003 Page 3 7. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Assessor Parcel Nos. 619-121-01, 02, 29 (approx. 0.29 acres) located at Third and Naples Negotiating Parties: Laurie Madigan (Redevelopment Agency) and Mr. Amin Kakayi, Mrs. Elisa Flores, and Mrs. Raquel Ruelas Under Negotiations: Instructions to negotiators 8. 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 Chula 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, June 10, 2003 Page 4 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA May 20, 2003 6:00 P.M. An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council, a Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, and a Special Meeting of the Public Financing Authority of the City of Chula Vista were called to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Agency/Authority/Councilmembers Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Chair/Mayor Padilla ABSENT: Agency/Authority/Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/Authority/ City Attorney Moore, City Clerk Bigelow ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. ACTION ITEMS 1. A. RESOLUTION NO. PFA-6, RESOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING (1) THE SALE AND DELIVERY OF THE 2003 FINDING CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (TOWN CENTRE II PARKING PROJECT) IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $13,000,000 FOR PURPOSES OF REFUNDING THE 1993 TCII PARKING STRUCTURE REFUNDING CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, 1993 CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION TC II - PARKING STRUCTURE PHASE II, AND THE 1998 CAPITAL LEASE WITH CALEASE PUBLIC FUNDING CORPORATION; AND (2) A LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS, IN CONNECTION HEREWITH On February 18, 2003, staff was directed to determine the feasibility of refunding the 1993 TC II Parking Structure Refunding Certificates of Participation, 1993 Certificate of Participation TC II Parking Structure Phase II, and the 1998 capital lease with CaLease Public Funding Corporation. Based on current market rates, the refinancing of these obligations will result in an estimated savings of $938,000 to the City and Redevelopment Agency for the 1993 certificates of participation. An additional savings of approximately $462,000 will be realized by various funding sources, such as the Residential Construction Fund, Development Impact Fee Funds and Sewer Funds due to the refunding of the CaLease capital lease agreement. (Director of Finance/Treasurer) /-? ACTION ITEMS (Continued) B. AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1822, RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING (1) THE SALE AND DELIVERY OBY THE CHULA VISTA FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE 2003 REFUNDING CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (TOWN CENTRE II PARKING PROJECT) IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $13,000,000; (2) THE REFUNDING OF THE CITY'S 1993 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION; AND (3) CERTAIN AGENCY ACTIONS AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH C. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-210, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING (1) THE SALE AND DEL1VERY BY THE CHULA VISTA FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE 2003 REFUNDING CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (TOWN CENTRE II PARKING PROJECT) IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $13,000,000; (2) THE REFUNDING OF THE CITY'S 1993 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION; (3) CERTAIN CITY ACTIONS AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND (4) APPROPRIATING $2,250,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO PREPAY THE CALEASE CAPITAL LEASE OBLIGATION WITH REIMBURSEMENT TO FOLLOW OUT OF 2003 CERTIFICATE PROCEEDS Finance Director Kachadoorian discussed highlights of the refunding proposal. Senior Assistant City Attorney Googins spoke regarding the fact that the refinancing would have the effect of terminating the operating lease for the Chula Vista Center parking garage; therefore, the garage would no longer be required to be free or open to the public. Staff believed that it would remain free and open to the public anyway under normal operations. ACTION: Agency/Authority/Councilmember McCann offered Public Financing Authority Resolution No. PFA-6, Agency Resolution No. 1822, and Council Resolution No. 2003-210, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS 2. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS There were none. 3. CHAIRfMAYOR REPORTS There were none. 4. AGENCY/COUNCIL COMMENTS There were none. Page 2 Council/RDA/PFA Minutes 05/20/2003 /-.7 CLOSED SESSION 5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION $4956.9(a) City/Agency vs. IT Group, Inc., et. Al. [Case No. 02-10118 (MFW)] No action was taken on this item. ADJOURNMENT At 8:00 p.m., Chair/Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting o£ the Redevelopment Agency on May 27, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following thc City Council meeting. Susan Bigelow, CMC, City Clerk Page 3 Cotmcil/RDA/PFA Minutes / ~- ~ 05/20/2003 MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEET1NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ANT) THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA May 27, 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 7:50 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: Agency/Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/City Attorney Moore, and City Clerk Bigelow ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. PUBLIC HEARING 1. CONSIDERTION 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 A (B) PRECISE PLAN (PCM-03-21) TO ALLOW FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT INCLUDES: (1) 41 APARTMENTS AFFORDABLE TO LOW-INCOME SENIOR CITIZENS WITH ASSOCIATED SUPPORT SERVICES; (2) ONE MANAGER'S APARTMENT; (3) 2,219 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND (4) REDUCTIONS IN SETBACKS, PARKING AND OPEN SPACE LOCATED AT 825 BROADWAY TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE METROPOLITAN AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROJECT (Community Development Director) Notice of the heating was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the heating was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Chair/Mayor Padilla opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public who wished to speak. ACTION: Chair/Mayor Padilla moved to continue the heating to June 3, 2003. Agency/Councilmember Davis seconded the motion, and it carded 5-0. ACTION ITEMS 2. COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2003-236 AND AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1823, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE THE PREPARATION OF AN URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN ACTION ITEMS (Continued) The General Plan vision for the urban core of the City states that the urban core will contain the greatest diversity of public, commercial, civic, financial, cultural and residential uses emphasizing its role as the hub of the City. The urban core specific plan will be closely coordinated with the General Plan update process to accomplish the necessary neighborhood-level planning for the urban core that is envisioned in the update process. (Community Development Director; Planning and Building Director) Planning and Environmental Services Manager Ladiana presented the urban core specific plan and discussed its purpose, objectives, and preliminary scope of work. Agency/Councilmembers Rindone and Salas stated that they would abstain from discussion and voting on this item due to the proximity of their properties to the project. They then left the dais. Chair/Mayor Padilla stated that the urban core designation is too restrictive and needs to be expanded to include the northern border, Third Avenue, and the Broadway corridor. Agency/Councilmember Davis commented that the designation should come south to Moss Street, west to Interstate 1-5, and also extend further north. Agency/Cotmcilmember McCann expressed the need to extend the urban core north and west. He also stated that the City must ensure that the single-family neighborhoods around the area will be protected. Patricia Aguilar, representing Crossroads II, commented on specific concerns, such as revitalizing the west side while also preserving its small town character; the effects of growth impacts on schools and parks on the west side; and inclusion of the public in defining the scope of work and in the consultant selection process. Ms. Aguilar requested that Crossroads II be involved with City staff from the onset to develop a work program for the request for proposals. ACTION: Chair/Mayor Padilla offered Council Resolution No. 2003-236/Agency Resolution No. 1823, heading read, text waived. The motion carried 3-0, with Agency/Councilmembers Rindone and Salas abstaining due to the proximity of their properties to the proposed site. OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS There were none. 5. CHAIR/MAYOR REPORTS There were none. 6. AGENCY/COUNCIL COMMENTS There were none. Page 2 Council/RDA Minutes /~ ~-~ 05/27/03 ADJOURNMENT At 8:25 p.m., Chair/Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to a Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on June 3, 2003, at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council Meeting in the Council Chambers. Susan Bigelow, CMC, City Clerk Page 3 Council/RDA Minutes 05/27/03 M1NUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A REGULAR MEETiNG OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA June 3, 2003 4:00 p.m. An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council and a Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista were called to order at 4:46 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers: McCarm, Rindone, Salas, and Chair/Mayor Padilla ABSENT: Agency/Councilmembers: Davis (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/City Attorney Moore, and City Clerk Bigelow CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 6, 2003 and May 13, 2003 Staff recommendation: Council/Agency approve the minutes. 2. AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1824, RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROViNG OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE F.A.E. ROOFING SUPPLY COMPANY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SALES DISPLAY/OFFICE BUILDiNG, A 7,400 SQUARE FOOT METAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING, AND THE ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 2615 MAIN STREET WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA The F.A.E. Roofing Supply Company is proposing to construct a 3,000 square-foot sales display and office building and a 7,400 square-foot metal warehouse building at 2615 Main Street, within the boundaries of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. The project includes associated site improvements, such as access, parking and landscaping. (Community Development Director) Staff recommendation: Agency adopt the resolution. 3. COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2003-243, AND AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1825, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING ISSUANCE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 77 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 30,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR RETAIL/WAREHOUSE USES AT 830 BAY BOULEVARD /-7 CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) The applicant, Foster Investment Corporation, is seeking approval of a Coastal Development Permit for a retail/warehouse project previously approved by the Redevelopment Agency on May 6, 2003. The request for approval of the permit is made in accordance with the provisions of the Bayfront Specific Plan/Coastal Development Permit procedures manual. The project design was also reviewed and approved by the City's Design Review Committee on March 17, 2003. The Planning and Environmental Services Manager has determined that this project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and has filed a categorical exemption with the San Diego County Clerk's Office pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Community Development Director) Staff recommendation: Council/Agency adopt the resolution. ACTION: Chair/Mayor Padilla moved to approve staffs recommendations and offered the Consent Calendar, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEAR1NG 4. a. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING A SPECiFIC PLAN (PCM-02-04) FOR THE AUTO PARK NORTH EXPANSION (KNOWLTON REALTY ADVISORS L.L.C. AND OTAY MESA VENTURES II, L.L.C.) The proposed project consists of a 39-acre auto dealer development, including three auto dealerships fronting on Main Street, inventory parking areas, and auxiliary uses on the interior of the site (Delniso Court). Main Street right-of-way improvements and landscaping will be consistent throughout the auto park on the south and north sides of Main Street. Design guidelines will be consistent with the existing auto park and will also be incorporated into future auto park expansion projects. (Community Development Director; Director of Planning and Building) Notice of the heating was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Chair/Mayor Padilla opened the public hearing. Senior Community Development Specialist Beard presented the project history and background. Senior Planner Pe discussed the project location and the purpose, objectives, and scope of the Specific Plan. Environmental Projects Manager Power discussed the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Agency/Councilmember Rindone asked that staff look closely at the parking requirements to ensure easy accessibility and a warm atmosphere for customers. Senior Planner Pe responded that the current parcel map would permit on-street parking on both sides of the street, in addition to on-site parking. Agency/Councilmember McCann commented that Chula Vista's sales tax revenue is lower per capita than other cities, and the proposed project is very important to the City as it is estimated to generate about $1,000,000 per year. He added that projects such as this would assist the City to continue to be financially viable and fiscally sound. Page 2 Council/RDA Minutes / ~ y 06/03/03 PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) There being no members of the public wishing to speak, Chair/Mayor Padilla closed the public hearing. Hooper Knowlton III, representing Knowlton Realty Advisors, expressed his appreciation to City staff for their competence and diligence in handling the project, adding that it has been a very positive process. ACTION: Agency/Councilmember Rindone offered Ordinance No. 2918 for first reading, heading read, text waived: ORDiNANCE NO. 2918, ORDiNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTiNG PROGRAM (IS-02-006) AND A SPECIFIC PLAN (PCM-02-04) FOR THE AUTO PARK NORTH EXPANSION (KNOWLTON REALTY ADVISORS, L.L.C. AND OTAY MESA VENTURES II, L.L.C.) The motion carded 4-0. 5. 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 A (B) PRECISE PLAN (PCM-03-21) TO ALLOW FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT INCLUDES: (1) 41 APARTMENTS AFFORDABLE TO LOW-INCOME SENIOR CITIZENS WITH ASSOCIATED SUPPORT SERVICES; (2) ONE MANAGER'S APARTMENT; (3) 2,219 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND (4) REDUCTIONS iN SETBACKS, PARKING AND OPEN SPACE LOCATED ON 825 BROADWAY TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE METROPOLITAN AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAAC) PROJECT Director of Community Development; Director of Planning and Building) Notice of the heating was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the heating was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Chair/Mayor Padilla opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public wishing to speak. ACTION: Chair/Mayor Padilla moved to continue the heating to June 10, 2003. Agency/Councilmember McCann seconded the motion, and it carded 4-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. Page 3 Cotmcil/RDA Minutes / -- ~ 06/03/03 OTHER BUS1NESS 6. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS There were none. 7. CHAIR/MAYOR REPORTS There were none. 8. AGENCY/COUNCIL COMMENTS There were none. ADJOURNMENT At 5:14 p.m., Chair/Mayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on June 10, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council Meeting. Susan Bigelow, CMC, City Clerk Page 4 Council/RDA Minutes 06/03/03 / -/o PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: (1) TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRECISE PLAN PCM-03-15 KNOWN AS BROADWAY URBAN VILLAGE CONSISTING OF 40 LANE HOMES AND NINE LOFT APARTMENTS ABOVE 9,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE; AND (2) TO CONSIDER, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33431 AND 33433, A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH CARTER REESE AND ASSOCIATES/BITTERLIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE SALE, WITHOUT BIDDING PROCESS, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA a. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-03-016 AND PRECISE PLAN PCM- 03-15 FOR THE MIXED-USE PROJECT KNOWN AS BROADWAY URBAN VILLAGE CONSISTING OF 40 LANE HOMES AND NINE LOFT APARTMENTS ABOVE 9,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE b. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAKING THE REQUIRED REDEVELOPMENT ACT FINDINGS AND APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS WITH CARTER REESE AND ASSOCIATES/BITTERLIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE SALE, WITHOUT BIDDING PROCESS, AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ PLANNING AND BUILDING DIRECTOR REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER 4/5THS VOTE: YES PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/0:3 BACKGROUND The development team of Carter Reese and Associates and Bifferlin Development Corporation ("Developer") proposes to purchase the Agency-owned property at 760 Broadway and build a mixed use project consisting of 40-lane homes (Townhomes), 9,000 squdre feet of commercial space with 9 lofts on top of the retail space, and the associated parking and internal circulation elements and open spaces ("Project"). On May 15, 2001, the Agency entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with the Developer that would allow the parties to define the project, determine its feasibility and benefits, and negotiate the terms and conditions for a Disposition and Development Agreement ('DDA"). The project has changed significantly since the date of the ENA over the course of r~egotiations, and a viable project and the terms and conditions of a deal have now been achieved. The Developer has prepared the formal concept plans and has processed them through the City's review process. The site is within the Southwest Redevelopment Projed Area under the jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Agency and subject to the requirements of California Health and Safety code sections 33431 and 33433 for the sale without bidding of Agency property. The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quali~ Act and has prepared Mitigated Negatlve Declaration IS-03-016 for the proposed Project. The proposed Project requires the processing of a Precise Plan, which must be approved through a City Council ordinance, in order to develop a functional mixed use project on the 2.53-acre site, and also requires design and architectural review. The Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed concept plans. The recommendations from these review bodies are noted later in this report. Staff is presenting the DDA and the proposed concept plans to the Agency/City Council for consideration and approval. If the DDA is approved, the properly will be placed in escrow and the Developer will proceed to prepare the projed's construdion drawings and submit them for plan check and building permits. After obtaining building permits, the Developer and Agency will close escrow and the property will be transferred to Developer under the terms and conditions of the DDA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency: 1} Hold the required Public Hearing and take public testimony, if any; 2} Adopt the Ordinance adopting Negative Declaration IS-03-16, and approving the Precise Plan for the proposed project; and 3) Adopt the joint resolution making certain findings and approving the Disposition and Development Agreement with the Carter Reese/Bifterlin Development Company for the sale and development of the Agency properly at 760 Broadway. PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION The Resource Conservation Commission reviewed Negative Declaration IS-03-016 at its meeting of April 21, 2003 and recommended its adoption by the City Council/Agency. The Design Review Commiffee reviewed the proposed protect at its meeting of April 21, 2003, and voted to recommend approval of the plans as presented. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed protect and the Precise Plan af its meeting of May 14, 2003, which was aHended by only five Commissioners. A~ter discussing the projed, a motion was made to recommend approval of the protect and the Precise Plan. The vote was three votes in favor and 1-,va votes against the motion. Even though the motion was approved by the maiority of the Commissioners present, under the City's Municipal Code, the motion needed of least four votes in favor in order to pass. Consequently, the Planning Commission did not forward an official recommendation on this projed (see at~ached minutes). The Developer also presented the prated to the Broadway Business Association. While the association is not an official advisory body to the Council or Agency, its opinions are considered o~fen on proieds or programs being considered by the City within the Broadway area. The Association's position on the subiect proied was of solid support and recommended that the Council/Agency approve it. DISCUSSION Site Description The vacant 2.53-ocre site under the ownership of the Redevelopment Agency is located at 700 Broadway, between J and K Streets (see Locator Map attached to DDA). The site was acquired by the Agency in 1992 as pad of the relocation of Fuller Ford fo the Auto Park on Main Street. Subsequent to the acquisition, the Agency worked with a local developer to develop the site with the Broadway Business Homes protect, which never materialized. The improvements that were on the site and housed the former dealership were demolished in 1995. The site is a mid-block commercially-zoned property bounded to the rear (west) by single family residences; to the north by a tire shop; fo the south by the 11-unit Moana Court Motel (currently boarded up, soon fo be demolished and the site redeveloped, as explained later in this report); to the east across Broadway is Humphrey's Mortuary, which was built on o' properly also ~Cormerly owned by the Agency. Other retail commercial uses are located in the area. The subiect site was appraised in November 2000 for $1,435,000 at ifs "highest and best use" as a strip commercial shopping center. The table below summarizes the information on subiecf site and surrounding uses and land use designations: PAGE 4, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/0:3 Current Land Use General Plan Zoning Site: Vacant Retail Commercial C-C-P North: Courtney Tires Retail Commercial C-T-P South: Moana/Roadway Inn Retail Commercial C-T-P East: Various commercial uses Retail Commercial C-T-P West: Single Family Residences Residential R-1 Project Description Since the time the Developer approachedt City staff in early 2001, the Project has had several significant changes. On May 15, 2001, the Agency entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the Developer based on a more dense project proposal. Subsequently, the Developer had to downscale that project and change the product type. At the same time, the motel properly to the south of the Agency site has been part of the dynamics of this redevelopment effort, and has resulted in a separate project. Following is a description of the Developer's original project and the current proposal, as well as the motel project. The Original Proposal The Developer's original proposal called for the construction of a residential and commercial mixed-use project, which included 116 market rate residential apartment units, 9,000 square feet of retail space, 260 parking spaces (surface and underground), and associated open space and landscaped areas. The project site included the Agency parcel and the adjacent 12,600 sq. ft. Moona Court Motel site. However, os a result of several Citywide staff reviews, significant issues were raised regarding density, height, parking and open space. The likely high costs of acquiring the Moana Court motel site were also considered. Agency staff issued Owner Participc~tion rights to the Chang family consistent with Redevelopment Law. The Chang Family responded with their own proposal to redevelop that site. Chang's Proposal The Moana Court Motel is an 11-unit motel, which used to offer Iow-cost rooms that were rented on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. The property is under the ownership of the Chang Family, who also owns the Rodeway Inn at 778 Broadway, just south of the Moana Court Motel. The Moana Court Motel is in poor condition and located in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. The Rodeway Inn was constructed in 1987, is in good condition but is not within the project area. The Chang Family responded to the Agency's owner participation letter, with a proposal to expand the Rodeway Inn onto the Moana motel site. The expansion plans, which were originally prepared by the Changs in the late 1980's as a second phase expansion to the Rodeway Inn Motel, call for the replacement of the Moana Court Motel with the addition of 21 rooms and 21 parking spaces for the Rodeway Inn (see Attachment 2). The Chang Family proposes to self-finance the expansion as a family enterprise contingent on the Developer's project for the Agency properly moving forward. The C:hangs are currently preparing the detailed concept plans for submittal to the City for formal review. PAGE 5, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 The Revised Proposal for the Aqency Property As a result of the planning concerns raised on the original project, as well as the emergence of the Chang's proposal, the Developer elected to revise the project for the 2.53-acre Agency site. The Developer now proposes to build a mixed-use proposal that will include 40 for-sale lane homes and ~vo-car garages, 9 residential for-rent lofts built over 9,000 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking spaces for the commercial component and the 9 lofts (see design plans attached to the DDA. The 40 Lane Homes will be located to the west of the loft/retail building and a 24-foot driveway will separate the two uses. The homes are arranged in eight rows of five dwellings with a north- south orientation, and are designed as three-story dwelling units consisting of a two-car garage and family room at ground level with the remaining livable floor space on the second and third floors. The homes range between 1,450 and 1,650 square feet of floor space, and will contain approximately 400 square feet of open space, which consists of a balcony and o backyard. Although the lane homes will appear as attached units, there will be a narrow physical separation that will allow each unit to function as an independent single family dwelling. The loft apartments over the retail structures will have a floor area of 1,150 square feet, and will be assigned twelve parking spaces within carports (1.3 spaces per unit). The lofts/retail structure will reach a height of approximately 40 feet. Two 1,020-square foot terraces will be built on top of the carports to provide common open space for the loft residents. The terraces will be connected with an above ground walkway located at the rear of the buildings allowing access to the terraces and lofts. Other on-site improvements include landscaping, lighting, drainage facilities, paved parking, retaining walls and a 6-foot high masonry wall along the west side of the properly. Project Development Standards The proposed mixed use project has been evaluated using the Central Commercial (CC) zone development standards for the retail component and the 1~-3 zone standards for the residential component. Following is a table showing the standards of the CC and the P~-3 zones and the standards of the proposed project. PAGE 6, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 Central Commercial Zone Standard P~equirement Proposed Front yard setback 25 feet P~etail: 10 feet Side yard setback None None Rear yard setback None none Height 45 feet Retail: 18 feet Parking 45 spaces 46 spaces Residential (R-3) Zone Standard Requirement Proposed Front yard setback 15 feet Lane homes: 80 feet Lofts: 0 feet Side yard setback 17 feet Lane homes: 9 feet Lofts: 70 feet Rear yard setback 15 feet Lane homes: 3.5 feet Lofts: N/A Height 28 feet Lane homes: 35 feet Lofts: 40 feet Parking SFD: 80 spaces Lane homes: 80 spaces Lofts: 14 spaces Lofts: 12 spaces As proposed, the mixed use project is slightly short of meeting the required standards of these zones for setbacks, height, parking and open space, and, consequently, has been processed through a Precise Plan. The use of a Precise Plan is allowed by Section 19.56.041 of the City's Zoning Code, and can be applied to an area adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different uses. The use of the Precise Plan allows the area designated to coexist between land uses, which might otherwise prove incompatible. In this case, the development standards of the zones limit the Developer's potential to maximize the use of the site with the project, which has been designed with a high density residential concept and zero lot line for the retail uses with building encroachments into the required set backs, a reduction in the required common open space square footage for some residential units and the reduction in number of on-site parking spaces. These deviations are warranted given the constraints imposed on the proposed project by the development standards of the zones and the intent to develop the site with a functional mixed use project that meets the policies of the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan. The mixed use project's site design allows the proposed uses to function cohesively with the surrounding uses, while visually and economically enhancing the area and promoting a beneficial development for the general welfare of the citizens in the area and the City. The Precise Plan may allow the project to deviate from the development standards in an effort to redevelop the site to its maximum potential with a feasible mixed use project. The Precise Plan may be considered and approved by the City Council through an Ordinance considered during a duly noticed public hearing after making the required findings listed below. The justification for the findings is included in the Ordinance that accompanies this report. PAGE 7, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 A. That such plan will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives of Chapter 10 Section 5.9 of the General Plan, which encourages mixed-used development along Broadway. The mixed-use project will introduce new retail uses, rental units and market rate for sale dwelling units that will provide an opportunity for homeownership in the area. This will benefit the surrounding area economically, socially and aesthetically. B. That such plan satisfies the principle for the application of the P modifying district as set forth in Section 19.56.041. Chub Vista Municipal Code 19.56.041(b) provides for application of the Precise Plan modifying district when the property is adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different land uses. The application of the Precise Plan here will allow the property to co- exist between land usages which might otherwise prove incompatible. In this case, the development standards limit the Developer's potential to maximize the use of the site with the proiect which has been designed with a high density residential concept and zero lot line for the retail uses. Thus, application of the P modifying district will bridge the uses between the surrounding retail/commercial and residential. The site is zoned Central Commercial with a Precise Plan modifier (C-C-P) and is subject to the development standards of the C-C and R-3 zone because the project is a mixed- use retail/commercial and residential development. These deviations are warranted given the constraints to the site and the intent to develop the site with a functional use to meet the policies of the General Plan. C. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the P precise plan modifying district. Development of the lot using the development standards of the C:-C and R-3 zone would limit the potential to maximize the use of the site with a mixed-use project. As a result, the project has been designed with a high density residential concept and zero lot line for the retail uses with building encroachments into the required setbacks, a reduction in the required common open space square footage for some residential units and the reduction in number of on-site parking spaces. These deviations are warranted given the constraints to the site and the intent to maximize the use of the property to meet other policies of the General Plan. The parking reduction is mitigated by the availability of on- street parking convenient to the retail uses proposed. PAGE 8, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 D. That the approval of this plan will conform to the general plan and the adopted policies of the city. The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and Chapter 10 Sect[on 5.9 of the General Plan relative to mixed-use development along Broadway. The Precise Plan as described, will allow the project to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, General Plan and the Chub Vista Municipal Code. Planning Commission and Public Comments on the Project The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC), Design Review Committee (DRC), and Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the proposed project, as part of the City's review process. The RCC and DRC forwarded positive and clear recommendations to the Agency/Council and opined that the proposed project would be an enhancement for the community. As indicated previously, however, the PC's motion did not get a majority vote, because only three out of five Commissioners, instead of the necessary four out of seven, voted in favor of it. One of the Commissioners that voted against the motion expressed concerns about the physical layout of the proiect, and the short distance between the lane homes, and the width of the driveways. The other Commissioner's concerns were related to the overall lack of public services in the western part of the City, such as parks and recreation facilities, in comparison with those of the eastern part of the City, and questioned whether the density and type of project being proposed matched the vision of the future General Plan. A resident of the area, in attendance at the meeting, also expressed a concern with the project. His concern was related to the height of the lane homes and the adjacency to his property. He felt that the construction of the project and the views from the homes would be directly bver his backyard, encroach on his privacy and be a detriment to his lifestyle. He would prefer to see the Agency properly left undeveloped or developed with some type of open space or park. As a result of the neighbor's concerns, the Developer has agreed to work with the City's Landscape Planner to provide a screening solution through the use of a variety of landscape materials that will mitigate the potential view impact. Sale of the Property and Redevelopment Law Requirements Disposition of Agency Property is regulated by the California Redevelopment Law. Section 33431 provides that the Agency may sell a property without public bidding, but the City Council must hold a public hearing and take public testimony, if any. Section 33433 requires that the sale be approved by the local legislative body, the City Council, after a properly noticed public hearing. This section of the Redevelopment Law also requires that certain findings be made prior to the sale of the Property. The findings that have to be mode and which are included in the joint Agency/Council resolution are the following: · That it is in the best interest of the public and Agency for the elimination of blight that certain property at 760 Broadway located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area be sold to the Developer; PAGE 9, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 · That the sale of the Property will assist in the elimination of blight; · That the Properl~'s sale price is not less than the fair market value or fair reuse value; and · ~ That the sale and redevelopment of the Property is in accordance with the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. Redevelopment Law also requires that o copy of the report outlining the terms, the costs, and purpose of the sale be made available to the public prior to the publication of the public hearing notice. Pursuant to this requirement, a draft of this report was available for public review by May 29, 2003; the first and second publications of the public hearing notice were May 30, 2003 and June 7, 2003, respectively Isee a~tachment). Property History The Redevelopment Agency purchased the subject Property and other adjacent properties in the early 1990's as part of the retention of the Fuller Ford and Southbay Chevrolet auto dealerships and their relocation to the Auto Park on Main Street. The purchase of the subject Property was part of a deal package that included land acquisition, relocation of several dealerships, and demolition of structures. This deal took place when real estate prices were at their peak at the end of the 1980's. In addition, this transaction took place under special circumstances conditioned by the Agency's interest in proceeding with and facilitating the development of the Auto Park. In 1995, the Redevelopment Agency entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with a local Developer to acquire and develop the 2.53-acre Agency site with the Business Homes Project. The negotiated price at that time was approximately $500,000. The Agency had to take th~ properly back subsequently, when the Developer failed to build the project. On February 6, 2001 during the executive session, the Agency was presented with two unsolicited proposals for the development of the subject Agency Properly. The first proposal came from Mr. George Reh, and called for the construction of 52 residential units and 10,400 square feet of commercial space. The other proposal came from a joint venture formed by the Bifterlin Development Corporation and Carter Reese & Associates for the construction of the Original Project as described previously in this report. On May 15, 2001, the Agency entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with the Bitterlin Development Corporation and Carter Reese and Associates for the purchase and redevelopment of the site with the proposed mixed- use residential and retail project. The approved ENA allowed the parties to: · Further define the project; · Determine proied feasibili~/; . · Secure the necessary financing; · Determine the public benefits of the project; and · Lead to the preparation of a Disposition and Development Agreement containing terms for site acquisition and development of the project. PAGE 10, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 Properly Sale Negotiations Since May 2001, City staff and the Developer have been working on the implementation of the ENA objectives listed above, and have also been in negotiation for the purchase and development of the site. During this time, the Developer modified the project, as indicated previously in this report, to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code ~and real estate market. Prevailing Waqe Legislation Also during this time, legislative actions placed limitation on the Agency's ability to financially assist redevelopment projects. One of the legislative acts is SB 975, which, among other things, treats redevelopment agency assisted projects as "public works" requiring the payment of prevailing wages. If SB 975 was applicable to the DDA, the additional cost of this requirement on the proposed Project has been calculated to be approximately $1.4 million, or 20% of the $7 million project construction cost. The Developer has indicated that it could not proceed with the Project if prevailing wages were required. Thus, the options for Agency assistance to the Project became very limited. Also, it became necessary for the Developer to pay the Agency '~fair market price" (FMP) for the land. Aqenc~s Fair Market Price Determination Based on the latest proposal, the Developer agrees to pay FMP for the Agency proper~y, which has been determined to be $1,350,000. Based on substantial analysis to date, it was estimated that the FMP is between $1,100,000 and $1,500,000 based on two elements. First, a project pro-forma analysis conducted by Community Development staff and the financial consulting firm of Keyser Marston Associates concluded that the value of the Developer's proposed project at completion would support a residual land value of $1,000,000. Second, an appraisal conducted by the Carling Company, which determined a value of $1,435,000 as of November 29, 2000. Third, based on continued price inflation, staff determined that the appraised has most likely increased somewhat since this date. Based upon the above factors, it is staff's opinion that a range of value between $1.1 and $1.5 million is an appropriate indicator of FMP. The Catlin Company conducted an appraisal of the Property in November 29, 2000, and determined that its fair market value was $1,435,000. However, the appraisal was made on the assumption that the highest and best use for the Properly was a retail commercial project, and that development of a mixed-use project on the Properly would be more difficult. In appraisal terminology, the highest and best use can be defined as the legal use (i.e., uses allowed under the Zoning Ordinance and the Redevelopment Plan) that will yield the highest value to the land. Therefore, the definition of highest and best use is based solely on the value created and not on whether or not it enhances or carries out the redevelopment goals and policies established by the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. The "technical" highest value of the property may very well be that of a commercial strip center that could suggest a higher value. However, the Agency would not likely support or approve o commercial shopping center at that location. The Broadway commercial corridor has excess commercial retail and automobile-oriented uses. Because of this, it is desirable to change the function and character of Broadway by PAGE 11, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 other and create synergy and positive economic activity. The proposed mixed use project wilt contribute toward this goal, whereas another traditional commercial strip center will just add to the excessive commercial inventory. Since the Agency owns the land, it completely controls the kind of project that could be developed. It is staff's opinion that the proposed Project, as a commercial/residential mixed-use, is far superior to a potential commercial strip center, and is thus in a superior position to meet the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. These goals and objectives include the establishment and maintenance of balanced neighborhoods and sub-areas characterized by a planned diversity in building sites, density, housing and land use; stimulation of investment of the private sector in the full development of the Project Area; provision of needed improvement to the community's educational, cultural, residential and other communi~/facilities to better serve the Project Area; and removal of impediments to land assembly and development through acquisition and re-parcelization of land into reasonably sized and shaped parcels served by an improved street system and improved public facilities. As required by the Redevelopment Agency, the proposed mixed-use project poses certain market challenges that a regular strip commercial center might not encounter. Because of these challenges and potential obstacles, the proposed mixed-use project reflects a lower residual value and therefore the land commands a lower FMP. Based on these reasons, staff's opinion is that the FMP of the Agency Property is $1,350,000. However, the proposed DDA includes a provision to the effect that if a court determines that the Purchase Price is less than the Fair Market Price, the Developer and the City of Chub Vista will pay, on a 50/50 basis, the price differential to the Redevelopment Agency, with the condition that the City's contribution will be a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000. This will have the effect of reducing the Developer's liability, and thereby insuring that the Project will be built. Disposition and Development Agreement The DDA is the document that establishes the terms and condition for the sale and development of the site with the proposed Project. Among the salient provisions of the DDA are the following: · Purpose of Agreement, Site and Project Description, and Project Entitlements; · Sale/purchase of the site that includes the price to be paid by the Developer; · Conditions of escrow closure that include the required fund deposits, escrow cost-sharing, and other conditions for closure; · Development of the Site, including scope, schedule, and standards of development; and limitations on transfer of the Site by the Developer; · Use of the Site which makes reference to the Proiect and includes non-discriminatory provisions and covenants for the duration of the agreement; · Defaults, Remedies and Termination provisions; PAGE 12, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 · Other provisions dealing with encumbrances, conveyances and leases; and · General provisions. CONCLUSION Based on the forgoing discussion and analysis, it is staff's opinion that the sale of the Properly through the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and Developer is in compliance with the requirements of California Redevelopment Law and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. It is also staff's determination, based on intensive analysis, that the price at which the Properly is being sold to the Developer represents the Fair Market Price and is not less than the fair market value or fair reuse value of the properly. Staff further believes that the proposed Project (mixed-use, residential and commercial) is far superior to a potential regular strip commercial center, and will be a better project for the area. The redevelopment of the Property with this Project will assist in the prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration of the site and the adjacent properties and will encourage the improvement of additional properties and the introduction of more productive uses to the area. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency approve the resolution making the required findings and approving the Disposition and Development Agreement with Carter Reese and Associates and Bitterlin Development Corporation. FISCAL IMPACT The sale of the Agency Properly will generate a one-time payment in the amount of $1,350,000, which represents the Fair Market Price of the property. In addition, the,proposed privatization of the Properly and the construction of the proposed Project will create an estimated $10.35 million of properly tax value (land sale price of $1.35 million plus an estimated project value of $9.0 million). This would generate approximately $103,500 in annual tax-increment revenue. This amount would be divided as follows: Twenty percent ($20,700) for the Housing Set-Aside fund; of the remaining $82,800, fifty three percent ($43,884) will be allocated to other taxing entities as part of the tax sharing pass thru agreements; the rest ($38,916} will accrue to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area fund. An unspecified amount of sales tax revenues will accrue to the Cih/s General Fund from the retail establishments that will be set up as part of the Project's commercial component. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-016 Attachment 2: Minutes of DRC and Planning Commission Attachment 3: Concept Plan for the Rodeway Inn Motel Attochment 4: Notice of Public Hearing Attachment 5: Redevelopment Law Section 33433 Summary Report Attachment 6: Disposition and Development Agreement with the following exhibits: Exhibit A: Locator/Site Map Exhibit B: Scope of Development (Project Design Plans) Exhibit C: Project's Schedule of Performance J:\COMMDEV~STAFF.REP'%06-10-03\760 Broadway Agency Report.doc -/.2 Zo ORDINANCE NO. ~ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-03-016 AND PRECISE PLAN PCM-03-15 FOR THE MIXED-USE PROJECT KNOWN AS BROADWAY URBAN VILLAGE CONSISTING OF 40 LANE HOMES AND NiNE LOFT APARTMENTS ABOVE 9,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/COMMERCIAL SPACE. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this Ordinance is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein consist of 40 lane homes and nine loft apartments above 9,000 square feet of retail/commercial space known as Broadway Urban Village, and located at 760 Broadway ("Project Site"); and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on November 13, 2002, Carter Reese Associates and Bitterlin Development Corporation ("Developers") filed a Precise Plan application with the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista for a mixed-use project in the Central Commercial zoning district ("Project"); and C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee meeting was scheduled and advertised for April 21, 2003, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue at which time the Design Review Committee voted 3-0 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-03-016) and approve the Precise Plan project based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution (PCM-03-15); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on May 14, 2003, and, after considering all reports, evidence and testimony presented, voted 3-2-0-2 on a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the ordinance approving the Project, in accordance with the Development regulations shown in Exhibit "B" based on the findings listed below; and, WHEREAS, four votes are required for the Planning Commission to take an official action; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did not forward an official recommendation to the Council; and D. Planning Commission Record on Applications Ordinance Page 2 WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public heating on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundary of the project, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this project held on May 14, 2003, and the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and, E. City Council Record on Applications WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project applications and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing. II The City Council of the City Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: SECTION 1: CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-03-016) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City Of Chula Vista, and hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-03-016). SECTION 2: iNDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council does hereby find that in the exemise of their independent review and judgment, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-03- 016) in the form presented has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopt same. SECTION 3: PRECISE PLAN FiNDINGS The City Council does hereby find: Ordinance Page 3 1. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives of Chapter 10 Section 5.9 of the General Plan, which encourages mixed-used development along Broadway. The mixed-use project will introduce new retail uses, rental units and market rate for sale dwelling units that will provide an opportunity for homeownership in the area. This will benefit the surrounding area economically, socially and aesthetically. 2. That such plan satisfies the principle for application of the P modifying district as set forth in CVMC 19.56.041. Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.56.041(b) provides for application of the Precise Plan modifying district when the property is adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different land uses. The application of the Precise Plan here will allow the property to co-exist between land usages which might otherwise prove incompatible. In this case, the development standards limit the Developer's potential to maximize the use of the site with the project which has been designed with a high density residential concept and zero lot line for the retail uses. Thus, application of the P modifying district will bridge the uses between the surrounding retail/commercial and residential. The site is zoned Central Commercial with a Precise Plan modifier (C-C-P) and is subject to the development standards of the C-C and R-3 zone because the project is a mixed-use retail/commercial and residential development. These deviations are warranted given the constraints to the site and the intent to develop the site with a functional use to meet the policies of the General Plan. 3. That any exceptions granted which may deviate from the underlying zoning requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the Precise Plan. Development of the lot using the development standards of the C-C and R-3 zone would limit the potential to maximize the use of the site with a mixed-use project. As a result, the project has been designed with a high density residential concept and zero lot line for the retail uses with building encroachments into the required setbacks, a reduction in the required common open space square footage for some residential units and the reduction in number of on-site parking spaces. These deviations are warranted given the constraints to the site and the intent to maximize the use of the property to meet other policies of the General Plan. The parking reduction is mitigated by the availability of on- street parking convenient to the retail uses proposed. 4. The approval of this plan will conform to the General Plan and the adopted policies of the City Of Chula Vista. Ordinance Page 4 The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and Chapter 10 Section 5.9 of the General Plan relative to mixed-use development along Broadway. The Precise Plan as described, will allow the project to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, General Plan and the Chula Vista Municipal Code. C. TERMS OF GRANT OF PRECISE PLAN The City Council hereby grants Precise Plan PCM-03-15 for project depiction in Exhibit "A", and controlled by the Development Regulations in Exhibit "B", and subject to the following conditions: Planning and Building Department 1. The Developer shall install temporary erosion control devices including desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes and shoring during construction activities. 2. The Developer shall implement to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer all mitigation measures identified in the 760 Broadway Village-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-03-016) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 3. The Developer shall submit the design and colors for all buildings prior to the issuance of any building permits to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. 4. The Developer shall comply with all requirements of the Building Division including the following codes for 2001: · California Building Code · California Plumbing C~)de · California Mechanical Code · California Electrical Code · Energy Code · Handicap Accessibility Code 5. The Developer shall submit a concept landscape plan for review and approval by the City's Landscape Planner to include the following to satisfy the City requirements: A. Plant 15-gallon Woody shrubs. B. 24-inch boxed sized street, accent and patio trees. C. Tree grates shall meet or exceed City requirements. D. Any proposed street tree and planting design shall meet Public Works operations standards. Ordinance Page 5 E. Move the internal sidewalk towards the parking lot curb edge to provide large usable planter areas. F. Provide additional landscape treatment to the building elevation that faces Broadway. G.Incorporate trellises or other architectural elements to storefronts. H. Provide details of the storefront areas to indicate potential locations for street furniture or sidewalk seating areas. Note: Any proposals that extend into the City right-of-way will also require an encroachment permit from the City Engineer. I.Add canopy trees along the storefronts. J. Bring the architectural paving shown inside the complex through the passageways out into the Broadway elevation paving. K. Provide a Water Management Plan per requirements of the City Landscape Manual during building permit submittal. 6. The Developer shall apply for and obtain approval of a planned sign program from the Director of Planning and Building prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 7. The Developer shall establish Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) and a Home Owners Association for the residential uses on the properties. 8. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees including PAD fees as required by Municipal Code Chapter 17.10. 9. Prior to leasing any retail space, the Developer shall submit written restrictions for hours of operation for the tenants of the retail/commercial uses to the Director of Planning for review and approval. The hours of operation shall be such that them is no conflict with the residential units. Engineering Department 10. The Developer shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and obtain a development permit to perform any work in the City's right of way or public utility easements. 11. The Developer shall submit a detailed grading plan in accordance with the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 12. The Developer shall ensure that the development of the Project complies with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge, and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations and requirements. The Applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit of Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall Ordinance Page 6 implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures, and shall identify funding mechanisms for post-construction control measures. 13. The Developer shall ensure that the development complies with the NPDES Municipal Permit Order No. 2002-01 requirements and apply Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria. Adequate provisions shall be made in the planning and design stages of the project to facilitate compliance with such requirements. 14. The Developer shall obtain a grading permit in accordance with the Subdivision Manual and Grading Ordinance prior to the issuance of any building permits. 15. The Developer shall be required to complete the applicable forms and comply with the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual. 16. The Developer shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent the pollution of storm water conveyance systems, both during and after construction. Permanent storm water requirements shall be incorporated into the project design, and shall be shown on the plans. Any construction and non-structural BMPs requirements that cannot be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled on the plans. 17. The City of Chula Vista requires that all new development and significant redevelopment projects comply with the requirements of the NEPDS Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01. According to said Permit, all projects falling under the Priority Development Project Categories are required to comply with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria. 18. The Developer shall identify storm water pollutants that are potentially generated at the facility, and purpose Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented to prevent such pollutants from entering the storm drainage systems. 19. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical or soils engineer to determine soil conditions and to provide foundation and pavement recommendation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 20. Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, the Developer shall submit a Construction Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP) per the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Standards Manual. 21. Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, the Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Investigation. 22. A drainage study shall be prepared, which demonstrates the amount of flows contributed by the Project and the adequacy of facilities to handle the flows. Post- development flows shall not exceed pre-development flows. In addition, the project shall be designed such that flows are directed away from neighboring properties. Ordinance Page 7 23. A hydrology study shall be required at the first submittal of grading/improvement plans that demonstrates that post-development flow rate does not exceed the pre- development flow rate at the outlet of the site. 24. The Developer shall apply Best management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution of the storm drain systems during and after construction. 25. Water quality and watershed protection principals shall be incorporated into the design of the project. Such measures shall minimize the discharge of pollutants into the storm drainage systems. 26. A water quality study shall be required demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit including Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSM) and Numeric Sizing Criteria requirements. Special Operations 27. The Developer shall develop and implement an integrated solid waste and recycling plan acceptable to the Special Operations Manager. The plan shall be designed to divert at least 50 pement of the waste stream generated by the project through participation in the City's residential recycling, yard waste, bulky pick up and household hazardous waste programs outlined in Sections 8.24 and 8.25 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Sweetwater Authority 28. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall obtain a letter from the Chula Vita Fire Department stating fire flow requirements and submit the letter to the Sweetwater Authority for review. Chula Vista Elementary School District 29. The Applicant shall pay the appropriate school fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Standard Conditions 30. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this Ordinance shall be grounds for revocation or modification of development permits. 31. This development permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this Ordinance to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. Ordinance Page 8 32. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require approval from the Redevelopment Agency. 33. The Developer shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City, Redevelopment Agency, Council members, its officers, employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval of the Precise Plan, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Applicant's installation and operation of a facility permitted hereby, including, without limitation, ant and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Developer shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Precise Plan where indicated below. Developer compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Precise Plan and this provision shall be binding on any and all of applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. 34. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the final approved plans which will include revised site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and color board, and landscape plans on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Chula Vista General Plan. 35. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 36. This Precise Plan permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive the Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 37. The Developer shall be responsible for the building and landscaping maintenance in accordance with the approved project and landscape plans unless the Redevelopment Agency approves modifications. E. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF ORDINANCE OF APPROVAL The Developer shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be Ordinance Page 9 recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City Clerk and Planning Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk' Office and known as Document No. Signature of Property Owner Date of 760 Broadway Signature of Representative Date F. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. SECTION 4: APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN The City Council does hereby approve the Precise Plan as depicted in Exhibit "A", and including property Development Regulation for Broadway Urban Village, as represented in Exhibit "B". SECTION 5: EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Appygved a,s to form by Robert A.. Leiter ~n~vloore /) ' Planning and Building Director Cri~y Attorney *- / -7__\ Ordinance Page I0 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 3rd day of June, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NAYS: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Steve Padilla, Chair ATTEST: Laurie Madigan, Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of June 2003 and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the __ day of 2003. Executed this day of__ 2003. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk J:\COMMDEV~TAPIA\Projects\760 Broadway\760 Broadway Council Ordinmme.doc Exhibit "B" DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Broadway Urban Village The following chapter details the specific development standards and regulations for development and individual residential lot improvements, the loft apartments and the commercial/retail buildings within Broadway Urban Village. This Precise Plan is intended to work in conjunction with the development standards in the City of Chula Vista's Zoning Ordinance (Title 19). Any information not shown within the Precise Plan should be referenced in the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.28 Apartment Residential (R-3) zone and Chapter 19.36 Central Commercial (C-C) zone. Residential 1. Allowed Uses Allow uses shall be those that are identified in the R-3 zone as permitted uses, accessory uses and buildings and conditional uses except: electrical substations and gas regulators. 2. Development Standards The following development standards shall apply to all land and buildings within the R-3 zoning district. Dimensions and standards shown in Table 1 are allowed. Where in conflict with the R- 3 zone development standards, the standards outlined in this Precise Plan take precedence; where a particular item is not addressed in the Precise Plan, the R-3 zone development standards shall be used. Where building setback, parking and open space requirements are in conflict, the lot specific map (Exhibit "A") shall supersede the R-3 zone requirements. Commercial/Retail 1. Allowed Uses Allowed uses shall be those that are identified in the C-C as permitted uses, accessory uses and buildings and conditional uses except: electrical substations, gas regulators and any automobile related uses. 2. Development Standards The following development standards shall apply to all land and buildings within the C-C zoning diatrict. Dimensions and standards shown in Table 1 are allowed. Where in conflict with the C- C zone development standards, the standards outlined in this Precise Plan take precedence; where a particular item is not addressed in the Precise Plan, the C-C zone development standards shall be used. Where building setback, parking and open space requirements are in conflict, the lot specific map (Exhibit "A") shall supersede the C-C zone requirements. TABLE 1 Precise Plan Development Standard for Lane Homes Lot Criteria Lot area (minimum) 1,200 s.f. Lot coverage (maximum) 70 percent Lot depth (minimum) 50 feet Lot width (minimum) 24 feet FAR (maximum) 1.67 percent or 2,011 s.f. Setbacks from Property Lines Front yard (minimum) None required Side yard (minimum) None required Rear yard (minimum) 15 feet Maximum height 35 feet No accessory structures are N/A permitted on individual lots Parking 2-car garages/unit Minimum open space 390 s.fJunit Fencing 6 feet (3.5-foot high wood/2.5-foot high lattice) Development Standard for Lofts/Retail Uses Building Setbacks Front yard (minimum) None required Side yard (minimum) None required Rear yard (minimum) 24 feet Maximum height 45 feet Parking (lofts apartments) 1.5 per unit Parking (retail/commercial) 1 space per 200 s.f. Minimum open space for lofts 2,050 s.f. Notes: Table I figures are based on the information provided on the approved Precise Plan AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAKING THE REQUIRED REDEVELOPMENT ACT FINDINGS AND APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS WITH CARTER REESE AND ASSOCIATES/BITTERLIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE SALE, WITHOUT BIDDING PROCESS, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, The Redevelopment Agency or the City of Chula Vista owns certain real property at 760 Broadway in Chula Vista, California; and WHEREAS, the development team of Carter Reese and Associates and Bitterlin Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Developer) offers to purchase said properly from the Agency for the development of a mixed-use project consisting of 40 Lane Homes, 9 residential lofts, and approximately 9,000 square feet of commercial space underneath the residential lofts; and WHEREAS, a Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the Developer has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Act requires that a public hearing be held by the Agency for the sale of Agency property without competitive bidding and/or where the property was acquired with tax increment, and requires that notice of said public hearing be given by publication in a local newspaper for not less than once a week for two weeks prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Chula Vista Star News on May 30, 2003, and June 6, 2003, and the City Council and Redevelopment Agency held the joint public hearing on June 10, 2003, and considered all testimony presented; and WHEREAS, Community Redevelopment Law requires that the sale of Agency property assist in the elimination of blight; and WHEREAS, community Redevelopment Law requires that the sale of Agency property be consistent with the implementation plan adopted for the Project Area pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33490; and WHEREAS, Community Redevelopment Law requires that the sale of Agency property be based on a price that is not less than (1) the fair market value of the property at its highest and best use in accordance with the plan, or (2) the fair reuse value at the use and with the covenants and conditions and development costs authorized by the sale. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA do hereby find as follows: 1. The sale of Agency property at 760 Broadway ("Property") will eliminate and prevent The spread of blight and deterioration in the Southwest redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") by selling and causing to put the Property to a higher and better use, improve the Property with new improvements, and create residential and commercial activity in the area. 2. The sale of the Property is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and implementation plan for the Project Area because it will eliminate and prevent the spread of blight; it will facilitate the enhancement and renovation of businesses; it will stimulate investment of the private sector in the full development of the Project Area; and it will achieve an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and urban design principles appropriate to the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. 3. The sale of the Property is for not less than the fair market value. The property is being sold for $1,350,000, which has been determined to constitute the "Fair Market Price" for the Site as that term is referenced under Section 1720 (b) of the California Labor Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Agency further finds that is in the best interest of the public and Agency to sell the property located at 760 Broadway without competitive bidding in order to put the property to its highest and best use and to bring additional improvements and commercial activity to the area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Agency is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Disposition and Development Agreement, subject to any minor modifications deemed necessary and beneficial to the City and Agency by the Agency Attorney, with Carter Reese and Associates and Bitterlin Development Corporation and all other related documents and agreements (collectively, the "Agreements") for the sale of Agency property at 760 Broadway in Chula Vista in final forms approved by the Agency Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is hereby authorized and directed to take any and all necessary and appropriate actions to implement the Agreements. Presented by Approved as to form by Laurie A. Madigan Ann Moore / Director of Community Development City Attorney and Ag~r~cy Counsel/ J:\COMMDEWRESOS\760 Broadway DDA Joint Reso.doc ATTACHMENT 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration PP. OYECr NAMe: 760 Broadway VillaE¢ PROJECT LOCATION: 760 Broadway ASSESSOR' S PARCEL NO.: $71-200-13 through 16 571-200-36 through $8 PROJECT APPLICANT: Carter Reesc & Associates; Bitterlin Development Corporation · CASE NO.: IS-03-016 DATE OF DRAFr'DOCUMENT: April 11; 2003 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: A. Proiect Setting The project site consists of a vacant 2.53-acre site located in an urbanized area in the central western portion of the city of Chula Vista, at 760 Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Area (see Exhibit A - Location Map). The project site has previously been graded and developed for an auto dealership and scrv/ce center. Lan'd uses surrounding the project site consist of the following: North: Commercial Retail Usc (Tire Shop) South: Motel East: Broadway/Corn~ercial retail uses West: Single-Fam/ly Residences B. Proiect DescriCtion The property site is currently owned by the City of Chula Vista pending sale of the site to the applicant upon approval of the proposed project. Th~ proposed project consists of 40 single-family detached condominium lane homes with three bedrooms, two-car garages and 400 square-foot rear yards in the rear portion of the site, and 9 lof~ residential condominium flats above 9,000 square feet of retail space fronting Broadway (see Exhibit B-Site Plan). The total proposed on-site park/ng is 139 spaces including the 40 two-car garages. The redevelopment of the project site would include landscape treatments, lighting, drainage facilities, paved parking lot, street repair, right of Way improvements, retaining walls and fencing along rearyards of row homes. Existing retaining wall along the west to remain and existing retaining wall along the southside to remain and be raised to 6- feet. The project site is '~dthin the CCP (Central Commercial~Precise Plan) Zone and CR (Retail Commercial) General Plan designation.' The proposal requires approval of Design Review, Precise Plan, Special Use Permit and Tentative Map. 'Fne proposed grading quantities are 3,500 cubic yards cut and 1,000 cubic yards fill, resulting in 2,500 net cubic yards of export C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The existing zoning of the project site is CCD Zone (Central Commercial DistricffPrecise Plan) and the General Plan designation is CR (Commercial Retail). Thc proposed project is consistent with thc existing zoning and General Plan designation of the property. D. Public Comments On February 25, 2003, a Notice of Irdtial Study was circulated to property owners within a SOO-foot radius of the project site. Thc public comment per/od ended on March 6, 2003. No public comments were received dmSng the Notice of Initial Study public comment period. E. Identification of Env/ronmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidcl/nes. Noise Dudek and Associates, Inc. prepared the "Broadway Mixed-Use Traffic Noise Assessment" for the proposed project, dated April 10, 2003. The identified noise generators associated with the proposal consist of the primary noise source, traffic noise from Broadway, and distant traffic noise along Interstate $, local roads and nearby commercial/retail uses. Proposed residential development consists of second-story lofts facing Broadway and single-family lane homes immediately to the cast. Noise attenuation associated with thc intervening cornmercialh'csidential building would partially shield the lane homes that are most af£ccted by traffic noise fi'om Broadway, those adjacent to thc main project driveways. With thc noise attenuation associated with the partial shielding provided by the intervening buildings, the noise level at these lane homes would be 63 dB CNEL or less. This noise level would comply with the 65 dB CNEL exterior noise criterion. Thc City of Chula Vista has not adopted any specific numerical noise/land use compatibility levels to establish significance criteria. However, as a matter of policy, thc City employs the noise guideline levels set forth in the Noise Element of the City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. The City's exterior noise level standard for noise-sensitive areas, which include residences, school play areas, and outdoor recreational areas is 65 CNEL. The City's extetior noise standard for office buildings and commercial property is 70 CNEL. State Building Code (Part 2, Title 24) requires that interior noise levels not exceed 45 dB CNEL for multi-family units. An interior noise analysis will be required for the lofts and the lane homes prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that interior noise levels would not exceed 45 dB CNEL. Compliance with the mitigation measures contained below in Section F would avoid significant interior noise impacts to the lofts and lane homes. 2 Traffc/Circulation Existing Conditions - Impact .dnalysis According to the "Traffic Impact Analysis/760 Broadway-Chula Vista", prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, dated January 16, 2003, the residential portion of the project is calculated to generate 490 Average Daily Trips (ADT) with 37 AM peak hour trips and 49 PM peak hour ~ps. The retail portion of the proposed project is calculated to generate 720 ADT with 30 AM peak hour trips and 72 PM peak hour trips. The total project is calculated to generate 1,210 ADT with a total of 67 AM peak hour trips and 121 PM peak hour trips at the project access driveways. The existing traffic volume on the segments of Broadway fronting the site is 21,900 ADT (LLG 2002). Proposed vehicular access tO the project site is via two unsignalized driveways connecting directly to Broadway. Broadway is classified as a Four-Lane Major Arterial rurmiag north and south. Broadway currently provides two lanes of travel per direction with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane (TWLTL) median ia front of the project site. No bike lanes are provided on either side and bus stops mn intermittently along Broadway. The 'intersections of Broadway/J Street and Broadway/K Street are signalized. J Street is classified 'as a Four-Lane Major Street; no bike lanes are provided and bus stops are provided intermittently along both sides of the roadway. K Street is classified as a Class II Collector Street; no bike lanes or bus stops are provided along K Street. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, the street segments of Broadway from J Street to K Street and J Street from I-5 to Broadway currently operate at Level-of-Service (LOS).A. The signalized intersections at Broadway/J Street and Broadway/}[ Street currently operate at Level-of-Service (LOS) C during both the AM and PM peak hours. Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, with project-added traffic, Broadway from J Street to K Street would carry 23,110 ADT and would operate at LOS B and J Street from I-5 to Broadway would carry 16,750 ADT and would operate at LOS B; therefore, both street segments would operate within the LOS "C" City threshold standards. The existing signalized intersections at. Broadway/J Street and Broadway/K Street are expected to Continue to operate at LOS C, during both the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of project traffic. Based upon the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis, no significant traffic/circulation impacts would result from the proposed project. Geophysical · The project site has been previously graded and developed with a full-service car dealership. The preliminary grading plans indicate the proponent plans to cut 3,500 cubic yards and fill 1,000 cubic yards, resulting in 2,500 net cubic yards of export. According to the Engineering Depaament, grading to accommodate the proposed project would require a grading permit. The preparation and submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit as a standard engineering requirement. There are no known or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site. The project site lies approximately 1.0 mile to the west of the La Naeion Fault Zone. The site is not within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, project. compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code standards would adequately address any building safety/seismic concerns. The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could result in siltation impacts dewnstream. Appropriate erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans and would be implemented during construction. The implementation of water quality best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be required in accordance with NPDES Order No. 2001-01. All portions of the development area disturbed during construction would either be developed or would be appropriately landscaped in compliance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110. Compliance with BMPs and NPDES Order No. 2001-01 .would be required and would be monitored by the Engineering DeparUnent. Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into the drainage channel would be less than significant. Water A final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of final grading and improvement plans and properly designed drainage facilities will be installed at the time of site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. There is an existing curb inlet located east of the project site, along Broadway. The proposed drainage facilities include sheetflowing into the existing 30" and 18~ storm' drains off-site towards Riverlawn Avenue to the west and the abandonment of the existing 30" storm drain on-site. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Water. Quality and watershed protection principles shall be incorporated into the design of the project. Such measures shall be designed to minimize discharge of pollutants into the storm drainage systems. Preliminary BMPs are proposed along the' western property line of the project site. The submittal of a formal drainage study would be required prior to the issuance of construction perry_ 'ts to demonstrate that existing infrastructure would be adequate to serve the project. Pre-construction and post-construction storm water pollution best'management practices (BMPs) will be required to be incorporated into the final grading plans. According to the City Engineering DeparUnent, no significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system are anticipated to result from the proposed development. Due to the size and existing condition of the project site, the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required per the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Standards Manual, prior to the issuance of a construction penuit. Compliance with provisions of the California Regional Water Quality ConU'ol Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to construction-related water quality BMPs would be required. Based upon the project design, conditions of the Precise Plan and standard engineering requirements, storm drainage and water quality impacts would be reduced less than significant. Air Quality Based up'on the relatively minor amount of site grading that would be necessary to accommodate the proposed development and the amount of project-generated traffic that is anticipated, the proposal would not result in the violation of any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The proposed project would potentially generate sufficient construction vehicle emissions and dust during construction-related operations to result in a short-term significant, but -' 4 mitigable, impact to air quality. Fugitive dust would be 'created during construction operations as a result of clearing, earth movement, and travel on unpaved surfaces. Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District and the Califomia Air Resources Board. Compliance with the mitigation measures ouflined below in Section F would reduce this potentially significant impact to below a level of s~gnifieance. H~?~rds Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TKPH) impacted, soils present on-site associated with hydraulic hoists that were operated in conjunction w~th the former auto repair facility on-site and subscqucntiy removed were analyzed. According to the Soil Ch~acterization Report prepared by Dudck and Associates d~tcd March 2003, native soil totaling approximately 1100 cubic yards was stockpiled on the northwest comer of the project site in 1998 for the purpose of creating a biommediation cell to treat the TRPH impacted soils. Previous soil investigations prepared by SECOR International Incorporated, dated November 9, 1998, indicated the presence of total reenverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) in the treatment cell soil. At the request of the applicant, a soil characterization study of the soil was conducted on December 4, 2002 and completed in February 2003 by Dudek and Associates, Inc. The highest TRPH concentration among the soil samples collected on December 4, 2002 was located in the northeast comer of the project site at a depth of 3 feet. TRPH concentrations detected in the stockpiled soil in December 2002 are comparable to TRPH concentrations detected in 19~8. Based on the San Diego County Site Assessment and Mitigation Division and the San Diego County Waste Management regulations, and other reviewing regulatory agency requirements, TRPH impacted soil can be managed in two ways: 1).the removal and disposal of the soil off-site in compliance with San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) regulations; or 2) capping the soil on-site in compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements for on-site containment. Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section F would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with development on TKPH impacted soils to below a level of significance. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Si~axificant Impacts Noise - Interior I. Interior acoustical analyses for both the residential lofts and lane homes shall be submitted by the applicant prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure that the interior noise levels would not exceed 45 dB CNEL to the satisfaction of the City Environmental Review Coordinator and City Building Official. ~Air Quality 2. Dust reducing measures shall include watering of graded surfaces in accordance with the most stringent County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District and California Air Resources Board rules and regulations and the restriction of all construction vehicles and equipment to travel along established and regularly watered roadways at specified speeds. 3. During construction, stockpiled materials that can potentially become airborne shall be covered or watered in accordance with the most stringent County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District and California Air Resources Board rules and regulations. 4. During construction, dirt and debris shall be washed down or swept up as soon as practicable to reduce the rcsuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement over such material. Approach routes to the construction area shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt and debris. 5. In acco .r~_ance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114, vehicles transporting loads of aggregate materials must cover/tarp the material, or if not covered, the material must be no nearer than six inches from the upper edge of the container area where the material contacts the sides, front, arid back of the cargo container area, and the load shall not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area. 6. C~nstmc~~n equipment sha~i be tuned p~~r t~ the start ~f c~nstructi~n and sha~~ be maintained in proper working order in order to minimize air pollutant emissions; use of Iow pollutant-emitting construction equipment, ~cluding elec~cal-powcred equipment, shall be used as practical. 7. Soil disturbance and Wavel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended when wind speeds cxcccd 25 miles per hour. Hazards 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Environmental Review Coordinator that thc TRPH impacted soils stockpiled on-site will be properly managed prior to site development in accordance with one of the following two options: a. Option #1~Off-Site Disposal TRPH impacted soils shall be hauled offsitc and disposed of at a Class III landfill. Copies of all laboratory data and waste manifests, or other transportation documents generated for the soil disposal, must be submitted to the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEIt) to demonstrate the proper handling and disposal of contaminatod soils. b. Option #2~On-Site Containment The applicant shall enter the County of San Diego Depa~ttnent of Environmental Health (DEH) Site Assessment and Mitigation Voluntary Assistance Program and obtain a closure or concurrence letter fi.om DEH acknowledging the proper containment of the TRPH impacted soils onsite and submit a copy of the closure or concurrence letter to the City Environmental Review Coordinator. TRPH impacted soils can be lef~ undisturbed in its original location, however, the current surface condition of the stockpile would require construction of a surface liner or cap to prevent rainfall infiltration and/or surface water runoff. Thc soil can be moved to another location on-site and collectively placed within a containment area employing certain engineering controls to contain the soil in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Resolution No. 95-63 for the on-site disposal of TRPH impacted soils. G. Consultation 1.Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Planning and Building 6 Paul Hellman, Planning and Building Maria C. Muett, Planning and Building Brad Remp, Planning and Building Duane Bazzel, Planning and Building Frank Hcrrera-A, Planning and Building Garry Williams, Planning and Building Clifford Swanson, Engineering Frank Pdveng Engineering Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Dave Kaplan, Engineering Joe Gamble, Building & Park Construction G. Edmonds, Fire Department Pdcbard Preuss, Police Deptu~mient'- Crime Prevention Applicant: Carter Reese & Associates; Bitterlin Development Corporation Others: Sweetwater Authority Chula Vista Elementary School District 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989 Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Broadway Mixed-Use Traffic Noise Assessment, Dudek and Associates, Inc., April 10, 2003. Traffic Impact Analysis/760 Broadway-Chula Vista, Linscott Law & Greenspan, January 16, 2003. Soil Characterization Report/760 Broadway-Chula Vista prepared by Dudek and Associates, Inc., dated March 2003. 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any c6mments received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available bom the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Date: Mafilyn R. F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) 760 Broadway Village - fS-03-016 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the. proposed 760 Broadway Village mixed-use commercial/residential project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-03-016). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): 1. Noise 2. Air Quality 3, Hazards MONITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vistm The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator, Building Offical and City Engineer. Evidence in written form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-016 shah be provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator, Building Official and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator, Building Official and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table 1, Mitightion Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-016, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified, along ~vith the City department or agency responsible for monitorinffverifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. J:kPlanningxMARiA\Initial Sludy'dS -03 -016MM P.P t cxt.doc Case No.I$-03-016 ENVIRONMENTAL CHF~CKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Caner Reese & Associates Bitteflin Development Corporation 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City Of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Ciaula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 3636 Fifth Avenue Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92103 (619) 686-5959 2256 San Diego Avenue Suite 121 San Diego, CA 92103 4. Name of Proposal: 760 Broadway Village 5. Date of Checkli~: April 10, 2003 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or [] [] [] ~ zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [] [] [] [] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations [] [] [] [] (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of [] [] [] [] an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: a) Under the currem General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the project site is designated CCP (Central Commercial/Precise Plan) and is zoned CR (Retail Commercial). The project site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. The proposal has been reviewed and has been found to be consistent with the Zoning and General Plan designations of the project site and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. b) The proposal would not conflict with any applicable adopted envirunment~l plans or policies. " Furthermore, the proposal would not encroach into or indirectly affect the Habitat Preserve area oft.he Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, dated October 2002. c) The project site is neither in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources... d) The proposed development of a mixed-use project would not disrupt or divide the established adjacent community or surrounding commercial, office, or residential environment. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local m [] [] [] population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either [] [] [] [] directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major- infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [] [] [] [] housing? Comments: a) The proposed mixedTuse project would have no effects upon regional or local population, a~ it is a relatively minor infill project with a total of 49 dwelling units. b) See Section ll.a. c) The existing project site does.not contain any housing; therefore, no displacement of existing housing or removal of affordable housing would occur. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 111. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in'or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in m [] [] [] geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] r~ [] [] overcovering of the soil7 c) Change in topography or ground surface relief [] [] [] [] features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of [] [] u [] any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, [] either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach [] [] [] [] sands, or changes in siltation; deposition or 2. - erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stxeam or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic n o ~ [] baTards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground fa'flure, or similar hazards? Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: No mitigation measures required. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: ~ n~ ~,~, ~o a) .Changes in absorption rotes, drainage patterns, [] u [] [] or the rate and mount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related o n o [] hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other n m ~ [] alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] n n ~a water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction n [] [] ~ of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either n o o ~ through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of o o [] [] groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? [] [] o ~ i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood u n u [] waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water o o u ~ otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a) The proposed grading and development of the vacant site would result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. There is an existing curb inlet located east of the project site, along Broadway. The proposed drainage facilities include sheetflowing into the existing 30" and 18" storm drains off-site towards Riverlawn Avenue to the west and the abandonment of the existing 30' storm drain on-site. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Water Quality and watershed protection principles .- shall be incorporated into the design of the project. Such measures shall be designed to minimize discharge of pollutants into the storm drainage systems. Preliminary BMPs are proposed along the western property line of the project site. The submittal of a formal drainage study would be required prior to the issuance of construction permits to demonstrate that existing infrastructure would be adequate to serve the project. According to the City Engineering Department, no significant impacts to the ~ity's storm drainage system are anticipated to result from the proposed development. b) The project site is beyond the limits of the 500-year floodplain and is not in proximity to any bay or ocean or in low-lying areas; therefore, no exposure of people or property to water related ba?ards would result from the proposed devalopr~ent. c) Through construction permit conditions of approval, the proposed project would be required . to implement construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), where applicable, in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual in.order to prevem pollution of downstream water bodies. d) Based on the size and nature of the proposed mixed-use development, and the location of the project site relative fo natural water bodies, the project would not result in any changes in the amount of sm'fade water in any water body, in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters. e) See IV.cl. above. f) No changes in the quantity of groundwa(er, or other impacts to groundwater, are expected to result from the proposed development of the site. g) See IV.f. above. h) See IV.f. above. i) See IV.b. above. No alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters downstream of the site are expected to result from the. proposed development of the site. j) According to the Sweetwater Authority, in written correspondence dated November 27, 2002, there is an eight-inch water main located along the east side of Broadway. The construction of the mixed-use project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in the consumption of water otherwise available for public consumption. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a)Violate ~y air quali~ s~dard or con~ibute an exis~g or projecmd a~ quali~ violation? b) Expose ~asitive receptors to pollu~? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or tempera~re, or cause any change in climate, eider locally or region~ly? d) Create objectionable ~ors? e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or [] tn [] [] non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration; Section E. b) The development of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in air pollutants. c) The proposed mixed-use project is not anticipated to significantly alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate. d) The City Zoning Ordinance allows for residential and commercial land uses. Neither development nor operation of the proposed mixed-use commercial/residential project is anticipated to create any objectionable odors. e) See Section V.a. The proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic generation; the proposal would not result in an increase in non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality. No stationary sources of air emissions would be associated with the proposed project. Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would Se proposal result a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangeroug intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e)Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? h) A "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: a) See Mitigated Negative r eolarat on, Section b) See VI.a. According to the Traffic Engineering Department, no traffic safety hazards are anticipated to result from the proposed mixed-use project plus the existing conditions. c) According to the Fire Deparlment and Police DeptuUuent, th~ proposed site plan provides for adequate emergency access from Broadway Avenue. In accordance with preliminary requirements of the Fire Deparlment, the project design has been modified to indicate turning radius for both interior comers off of Broadway and installation of two fire hydrants; one public and one private. d) See Vim. The City Parking Ordinance requires 139 spaces for the proposed project. The proposal would result in a net gain of 138 parking spaces; 80 garages and 58 on-site parking spaces. Through a precise plan review it allows minor flexibility in the project design such as parking. Exclusively the residential and commercial tenants, customers and visitors, would use all on-site parking spaces. e) See Via. ' The proposal would not result in any hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. f) See Via. The proposed project is on a transit corridor. The existing public transit MTDB bus route 932, runs north and south along Broadway. It serves the existing businesses, schools and residential areas in the surrounding neighborhoods. No conflicts with adopted policies support!n, g alternative transportation would result. g) No rail,, navigable waters, or aircraft facilities exist in the vicinity of the project site; therefore, the proposal Would not result in any rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts. h) The proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic; therefore, the project is not considered .a ~large project" under the Congestion Management Program. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of [] [] [] concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage m t3 ri [] trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., [] oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [] [] f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning [] [] efforts? Comment~: a) No endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing are present within or/mmediately adjacent to the proposed development area. b) No locally designated species are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development ar~a. c) No locally designated natural communities are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. d) No wed.and habitat is present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development e) No wildlife dispersal or mi~-afion corridors exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area. y) No impacts to regional habitat preservation planning efforts will be created as a result of the proposed project as the development site is a designated development area in the Draft City of Chula V',sta Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan dated October 2002. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. s~:~t ~ s-,~,,:~ No Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation [] [] [] [] plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] [] ~ inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] [] r~ [] protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: a) The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. b) The proposed mixed-use commercial/residential development would be designed to meet or exceed all applicable energy efficiency regulations per State Regulations, Uniform Building Code Title 24. There are no proposed features or aspects of the project that would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources. c) Pursuant to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the state of California Deparunent of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: P~c~u~ ~,~,~t ~ ~ a) A risk of accidental explosion or release Of [] [] [] [] hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides~ chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency g r~ [] [] ' response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential [] [] [] [] health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ' [] [] [] g potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable r~ tn r~ [] brush, grass, or trees? Comments: a) There are no proposed features of the proposed project that would represent an atypical risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. If applicable, a business plan that identifies the type and location of any hazardous materials utilized and/or stored on-site by any of the commercial tenants would be required to be filed with the City Fire Department and County for San Diego· Department of Environmental. Health/Hazardous Materials Management Division prior to issuance of building permits. b) The proposed mixed commerCial/residential project on the project site would not result in interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, according to the Fire Department and Police Department. The proponent provided the proposed circulation plan and project design that would eliminate any stacking or circulation conflict. According to the Fire DeparUnent, the proponent is required to have access roads meet Chula Vista Fire Department turning radius measurements and provide access ways within the project site. c) No health hazards or potential health hazards would be created as a result of the mixed-use commercial/residential development on the project site. d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. e) The project site is not situated within or immediately adjacent to an area containing dense flammable vegetation and furthermore, buildings consisting of steel and concrete building materials and decorative landscaping surround the proposed project site. The project proposal contains fort-hal landscape treatments along the perimeter of the project site, including palm trees along the Broadway frontage, and interior on-site areas that does not contain flammable vegetation. Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. X. NoIsE. Would the proposal result in: Po~uva~ ~r~., ~t~. a) Increases in existing noise levels? [] g [] [] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?. [] [] [] [] Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? [] [] s~ [] b) Police protection? a [] r~ [] c) Schools? ru D [] [] d) Maintenance of public facifities, including [] [] [] [] roads? e) 'Other governmental services? El [] [] Comments: a) According to the Fire Department, through the proposed project design and installation of two fire hydrants, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed mixed-use commercial/residential development. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. b) According to the Police Deparlxnent, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed mixed-use commercial/residential project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered police protection services. c) The proposed project is a mixed-use commercial/residential development and, therefore, would not induce significant population growth nor result in any significant adverse impacts to public schools or need for additional public schools. The applicant would be required to pay residential and commercial building permit SChool fees; however, an alternative financing mechanism, such as participation in or annexation to a CFD, is allowed by the Chula Visa Elementary School District.. d) The proposed project would be maintained entirely by the property owner. e) As a private development, the proposed development would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded governmental services. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XH. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact [] [] ~ [] the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project would not adversely impact any oi~the seven ':- Threshold Standards. ~ ..- ~ ~;~ 9 a) Fire/EMS [] [] [] r~ The Threshold Standards requires that ~e and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or lcs. s in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of thc cases. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The closest fire station is approximately 0.75 mile from thc site with an estimated response time of 34 minutes; Thc Fin/EMS threshold would continue to be met as reported by thc Fire Dsparanent. Therefore, no significant impacts to tim services arc anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. b) Police [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. Comments: The Police threshold would continue tO be met as reported by the Police Depattment. Therefore, no significant impacts to police services are anticipated. MLitigatiom No mitigation measures are required. c) Traffic [] [] [] [] 1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed avenge travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than any two hou?s of the day. 2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections, which do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. Comments: The proposed project would not increase the land use intensity significantly, as it is an urban infill project on the 2.53-acre parcel, thus technically generating minimal traffic. According to the Engineering Department, all roadways within the project area are calculated to operate at LOS C or better with the addition of the project traffic. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposal, based on the established significance criteria no significant project impacts are calculated at any~of the. ?e~ intersections or adjacent street segments. Thus, all roadways within the project area are calculated to operate at LOS C or better with the addition of project traffic. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. d) Parks/Recreation r~ o o a The 7~hreshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805. Comment5: Because the project site is located to the west of Interstate 805, the threshold standard is not applicable. However, as a mixed-use development with. a residential component the proposal is subject to payment of park fees to be utilized to provide for future park and recreation facilities consistent with the City's Park and Recreation Ma ,~er Plan. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.' P~embny 5~irs:~t Im~ mm e) Drainage [] o ~ o The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. According to the Engineering Department, a formal drainage study will be prepared in conjunction with the preParation of final grading and improvement plans .and properly designed drainage facilities will be installed at the time of site development. Surface runoff will be collected on-site and discharged into the existing City storm drainage system; no significant impacts to the City's storm dra'mage system are anticipated to result from the proposed development. According to the Engineering Deparmaent, the proposed project wot~ld comply with the drainage threshold standard. Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F. f) Sewer ~ a [] [] The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will pr6vide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering ._ Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: No new sewer service would be required to serve the proposed project. Proper engineering design of required sewer improvements to serve the project would ensure that sewage flows and volumes would not exceed City Engineering Standards. Mitigation:' No mitigation measures are required. g) Water [] o [] [] The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: No new water service would be required to serve the proposed project. The project site is an infill site within a developed area. The project site is within the service area of the Sweetwater Authority. Pursuant to correspondence received from the Sweetwater Authority, dated November 27, 2002, the project may be serviced off the existing 8-inch main on the east side of Broadway. There are three existing water services to these parcels. Project impacts m the Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XIIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste diSpqsal? Comments: a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems. Any alterations'to existing utilities and service systems and connections to such utilities and systems that are necessary in order to adequately service the proposed mixed-use development would be implemented by the City, subject to the approval of the appropriate utilities and service providers. No significant impact to utilities and service systems would resul~ from the proposed project, a:~ - b) See XIII.a. c) See XIII.a. The project site is within the service area of the Sweetwater Authority. Pursuant to correspondence fi:om the Swcetwater Authority, th~.project may be serviced from existing potable water'mainn. d) See XIII.a. According to the Engineering Depa~uuent, there is an 8-incli sewer line on the west side of the proposed project flowing westerly into an 8-inch sewer line on Riverlawn Avenue and into another 8-inch line on Kearney and then. flows northerly into an 8-inch sewer line on Madison Avenue. City Engineering staff has determined that existing sewer mains are adequate to serve the proposed project. e) See XIII.a. There is an existing off-site drainage facility located east of the site along Broadway. The conceptual design indicated in the project design is anticipated to be sufficient according to the Engineering Department. The adequacy and final detail of the existing and modification to storm drainage facilities to serve the project will be determined at the time of detailed engineering design; any improvements to the storm draitmge system that are deemed necessary will be implemented by the applicant. f) See XIII.a. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. X'I'~. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: i~a ya~t~ ~ ~.~ a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the [] rn [] [] public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a rn [] [] [] scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] [] [] d) Create added light or glare sources that could [] [] ~ [] t3 increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chnia Vista Municipal Code, Title 197 e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? [] [] a [] Comments: a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site. b) In accordance with the City's General Plan, this portion of Broadway is not designated a scenic roadway. The project proposes access via two unsignalized driveways along '- Broadway. Landscape treatments along Broadway ,are proposed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, (Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110) landscape and site architectural requirements and design review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts to the Broadway corridor are not significant. c) The vacant project site is within an urbanized area and contains.overgrown nun-native vegetation. The development of a mixed-use development on the project site would not have a demomlaable negative aesthetic effect. Proposed improvements along the site's Broadway street frontage, including landscaping, decorative hardscape, and nmintenance of existing wails, and new retaining walls would have a positive aesthetic effect. d) Proper architectural design would ensure compliance with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Exterior lighting would not be directed upward and would be designed and installed, with appropriate shielding if necessary, to ensure that light does not spill horizontally beyond the limits of the development area onto adjacent roadways, and surrounding commercial, or motel areas. e) See XIV.d. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction or tn [] [] [] a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects [] ~ [] [] to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Have the potential to caus_e a physical change, [] [] [] [] which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religions or sacred uses within [] [] [] [] the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan [] [] [] [] EIR as aa area of high potential for archaeological resources? Comments: a) No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known or are expected to be present within the impact area of the proposal. See XV.e. below. b) No buildings or structures are present within the impact area of the proposal and no prehistoric or historic objects are known or are expected to be present within the impact area. See XV.e. below. c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cultural values. d) No religious or sacred uses exist within the impact area of the proposal. e) The project site is identified as an area of low potential for cultural resources in the City's General Plan EIR. The proposed grading quantifies are 3,500 cubic yards cut and 1,000 cubic yards fill, resulting in 2,500 net cubic yards of export. Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively minor amount of additional grading that would be necessary to construct the proposed mixed-use development, the. potential for impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XVI.. PALEONTOLOGICAL R.ESOI~RCES. ~l! ~e [] [] [] ~ . proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources ? Comments: The project site is identified as an area of low potential for paleontological resources ia the City's General Plan EIR. Based upon the low sensitivity of the site and the relatively minor mount of proposed excavation, impacts to paleontological resources are not antigipated to be significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. X-VII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? c) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or programs? Comments: a) Because the proposed mixed-use development is a small commercial retail/residential land use proposing 49 residential units, it would not induce significant population growth and thus not create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities. b) The proposed mixed-use project would not create a significant impact to existing recreational opportunities in the area. c) According to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan, the project site is not planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. ., XVIII. MAI~IDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFIC~: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade [] [] [] the quality of the envkonment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduc~ the number or res~ict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or · prehistory? Comments: The site is currently vacant, is within a commercial area, and is within the designated development area the Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. There are no known sensitive plant or animal species or cultural resources on the site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve [] short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The project would not affect long-term environmental goals of the City because the project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. The project site is slated for infill development. No sigaificant short-term impacts would result from the proposed project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. c) Does the project have impacts that are [] [] individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, the project area is virtually built out and any future infill projects were not known at the time of the traffic study. Since cumulative projects were not included, the existing + project + cumulative projects scenario was not analyzed. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 16 d) Docs thc project have cnvironmemal effects [] n a ~ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human bcings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: No significant effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, are anticipated to result from the proposed project. The 2.53-acre site is currently unoccupied and is zoned for commercial remfl and residential land uses. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-016. ATTACHMENT 2 Design Review Committee -5 DRAFT Minutes April 21, 3. PCM-03-15 Carter Reese Associates and Bitterlin 760 Broadway Chula Vista, CA A Precise Plan for a mixed-use proiect that includes 40 lane homes (condominiums) and nine loft apartments over 9,000 square feet of retail space. Staff Presentation: Mr. Michael Walker, Associate Planner stated that the item before the Design Review Committee was a Precise Plan application for a mixed-used development project that includes 40 lane homes, 9 loft apartments, and 9,000 square feet of commercial retail space and reductions in parking, open space and setback requirements. This item was presented before the DRC for a preliminary review in December of 2002. The Design Review Committee generally liked the project and did not identify any major issues. Mr. Walker reported that the proposed project is on a vacant 2-1/2 acre lot located at 760 Broadway and is surrounded by commercial uses to the north and the east, the Roadway Inn is to the south and single family residences to the west. The site design consists of loft apartments above the retail uses, which is situated along Broadway. The lofts will have a floor area of 1,150 square feet and will be one-bedroom units. Two carports containing six spaces each will provide parking for the lofts. Two 1,020 square foot terraces will be built on top of the carports, and will provide common open space for the loft residences. The terraces will be connected with an above ground walkway that will allow access to either terrace and to the middle lofts. Mr. Walker stated that the lane homes have an east-west orientation and are designed as eight rows with five homes each. The lane homes are designed as three-story dwelling units with a two-car garage at ground level with the second and third levels above as livable floor areas ranging between 1,450 to 1,650 square feet. Each home will have three bedrooms and a private rear yard. ' Mr. Walker commented that the project will provide 138 on-site parking spaces for the residential and retail uses, and approximately 20 additional parking spaces will be available on Broadway to provide additional parking for the retail uses. Mr. Walker stated that the mixed-use project is one of two that will be presented before the committee tonight. This mixed-use project is the first of its type along Broadway and it is expected to enhance the area. The developers have worked with the Planning Department and the'Community Development Department in a positive and productive manner. Staff believes that this project will have a positive affect in the area and recommends that the DRC recommend alSproval to the Planning Commissio. n. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Precise Plan to the Planning Commission. J:\HOME~PLAN NING\ROSEMARIE\DRC~vlIN4-21-03 ~' ' DRAFT Design Review Committee -6 Minutes April 21, 2003 Applicant Presentation: Mr. Reese Jarrett, with Carter Reese Associates stated that they were excited to bring a project of this kind to an area that needed significant revitalization. There were no significant changes to the plans that they had presented in December of 2002. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Vice Chair Araiza asked if the applicant had addressed Condition 5G, 5H, and 51 with respect to the incorporating trellises or other architectural elements to storefronts, providing street furniture and adding canopy trees along the storefronts. Mr. Garry Williams, Landscape Planner responded that he did discuss the project with the project landscape architect and the only item that he did not see submitted in the re-design was Condition 5H; the street furniture, all other items were provided. Vice Chair Araiza inquired if there would be any benches provided by the city or if it was up to the applicant to provide them. Mr. Williams stated that his recommendation was that it could have been some design element as part of this project. When he spoke with the project landscape architect it wasn't something that they thought would be needed along the storefront. Vice Chair Araiza asked if the applicant was in agreement to the conditions of approval for this project. Mr. Jarrett responded that they didn't have a problem with the conditions of approval only that Condition 5H (street furniture) is driven by the tenant mix in the retail. In their view, street furniture should not be put out just for the sake of having it, but that it should have some functional utility. Chair Morion stated that he liked the project and felt that the Broadway area was in dire need of projects such as this. In his opinion, it would really revitalize and enhance the area. With respect to the street furniture, Chair Morion commented that he thought that the type of tenants in the building would dictate if the street furniture were necessary. Mr. Jarrett replied that if there were a tenant that wanted to create some outside dinning opportunities then they would integrate some street furniture within the development itself. They had seen in other situations where arbitrarily placing street furniture created more of a nuisance than appeal. Chair i~orlon thought that a condition for street furniture should be made on a tenant basis. Mr. Williams agreed and felt that perhaps the condition could be modified at staff level as the particular tenant comes in to pull tenant improvement work permits that a determination could be made at that time. Mr. John Schmitz, Principal Planner, further added that they might want to rephrase the condition in such a manner that it requires a detail of the area along the storefronts where street furniture would be appropriate but without designating it. J:\H OM E\PLAN NIN G\ROSEMARIE\DRC',M I N4-21-03 ~* DRAFT Design Review Committee -7 Minutes April 21,200,3 Member Aguilar stated that she agreed with the comments that had been made by Chair Morion and the applicant regarding the street furniture. She was excited about the project and felt that it was just the kind of thing that was needed along Broadway. Member Augilar thought that this project in combination with the proposed MAAC Center project was really going to set a wonderful precedent for what should be done along Broadway and she hoped to see more of them. Member Aguilar also remarked that she was pleased to see that the applicant had worked with city staff to intersperse canopy trees among the existing palm trees along Broadway. MSC (Morlon/Araiza) (3-0-0-2) to recommend the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of PCM-03-1$ to the Planning Commission with a modification to condition (5) H. "Provide details of the storefront areas to indicate potential locations for street furniture or sidewalk seating areas. Note: Any proposals that extend into the City right-of-way will also require an encroachment permit from the City Engineer. J:\H OME\PLANNING\ROSEMARIE\DRC~VllN4.21-03 ~' Planning Commission Minutes - 1 - May 14, 2003 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Mitigated Negative Declaration IS 03-16 and Precise Plan PCM 03-15 to allow for a mixed-use project that includes: 1) 40 lane homes (condominiums); 2) nine loft apartments; 3) 9,000 sf of retail space; and 4) reductions in parking and open space. The project site is located at 760 Broadway in the Central Commercial, Precise Plan (C-C-P) zoning district. Background: Michael Walker gave an overview of the project as presented in the staff report. The project is proposed to be developed on a 2.53 acre site within the City's Southwest Redevelopment Area and will include 40 lane condominiums and 9 loft apartments above 9,000 sf of retail space. The homes will be located behind the loft/retail building and a 24 ft. driveway will separate the two uses. The homes will range between 1,450 to 1,650 sf and will have approximately 400 sf of open space consisting of a balcony and rear yard. The 1,150 sf loft apartments will be located above the retail buildings and two carports containing six spaces each will provide parking for the lofts with two 1,020 sf terraces on top of the carports serving as common open space for the loft residents. Other on-site improvements include landscaping, lighting, drainage facilities, paved parking, retaining walls and a 6 foot high masonry wall along the west property line. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommends to the Redevelopment Agency adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Precise Plan Ordinance, based on the findings and conditions contained therein for the redevelopment of the mixed-use project. Commission Discussion: Cmr. Felber asked for clarification on parking availability for the retail use and residents. He further inquired about common open space areas, specifically for children's use to play in. Mr~ Walker responded that the project provides 138 parking spaces, which includes the two-car garage for each residential units. There are two carports on each side of the project each containing six designated parking spaces for use of loft residents. The remaining parking area behind the retail uses, as well as approximately 20 on-street parking along Broadway, are available for the retail uses. Mr. Walker further stated that the project is being developed under the R-3 standards, which requires some open space, however, the single family units provide 400 sf of open space when you combine the rear yard and balcony, which meets the minimum requirement. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - May 14, 2003 Public Hearing opened 8:20. Chris Bitterlin, 2245 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, applicant stated that they identified this site approximately two years ago to develop an urban in-fill project that meets the goals of the City in revitalizing Broadway, increasing density and providing market-rate entry-level pricing for housing. He was attracted to bringing Tom Carter as a partner because of his track record in developing successful mixed-use projects, such as the Mission Hills project. Additionally, Carter Reese Associates have been pioneers in developing successful urban in-fill, higher density-type projects. He stated their enthusiasm in bringing this proposal to Chula Vista, which provides opportunities for a wide range of homebuyers. Tom Carter, 3636 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, stated they have been developing in-fill projects throughout the San Diego region and one of their main objectives is to bring home-ownership back into the older communities, which brings more stability to that community. Mr. Carter further indicated that the reason they incorporated the retail use was because they felt that the project needed a buffer between the residential community and Broadway. Mr. Carter reiterated the previous statements that given the mixture of buyers that will most likely be attracted to this type of development, i.e. young couples, empty- nesters, and retired individuals, the 400 sf open space provided for each unit would be very adequate. Cmr. O'Neill asked if any other type of project was considered for this site. Mr. Carter responded that they most definitely considered other options, i.e. an apartment complex, which would have brought considerable more density (118 units), however, it would have required a parking structured, which did not work out financially. Cmr. Cortes inquired if the project includes the boarded-up motel to the south. Miguel Tapia responded that the project does not include the motel to the south, however, the owner of the motel is currently in the process of developing a concept plan to submit to the City for an expansion to the motel by approximately 21 rooms and parking spaces, plus associated landscaping. Robert Erni, 749 Riverlawn Avenue, Chula Vista, resident that will be directly in back of the project site stated he opposes the project because of the loss of privacy they will encounter with a three-story building abutting and looming over their property. He is also concerned with the noise impacts this project will create, stating their overall quality of life will be compromised. He urged the Commission to oppose the project. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - May 14, 2003 Public hearing closed 8:40. Commissioner O'Neill stated that he truly desires to like this project and is in favor of even higher density in certain corridors with the City of Chula Vista, however, his main concern with the project is the 24 to 30 foot distance of the driveway between the buildings, creating a cavernous effect. He is concerned with the lay-out and scale of the project. Commissioner Castaneda stated that although this proposal would appear to be in accord with the vision set forth for the redevelopment of this area, he is concerned with hastily approving projects, particularly in western Chula Vista and in the redevelopment area without first knowing what the new General Plan will delineate for this area. In light of the on going General Plan Update, he asked if staff had any information about how this project would fit into the overall vision for western Chula Vista. Furthermore, Cmr. Castaneda expressed his concern with adding more density to an area of the City that is woefully lacking parks, recreation facilities, and even commercial uses that other parts of the City enjoy. Jim Sandoval responded as part of the General Plan Update, staff will be bringing for the Commission's consideration a series of land use alternative, which will identify areas of where there is to be Iow, as well as, high densities of development both in east and west Chula Vista. The focus, among other things, is to identify where one would expect more intense development to occur, such as in activity centers and corridors. The proposed project is located in a corridor where one would expect this type of development to occur. Cmr. Felber stated he empathized with Mr. Erni's concerns over the loss of privacy and stated he could support the project if some type of mitigation measure, i.e. a trellis-type fencing where vegetation could serve as a screen to not only attenuate some of the noise, but also serve as a visual barrier. Cmr. Cortes stated that in spite of the issues that have been raised, which to some extent he too is concerned with, he believes that this is type of project that is envisioned for this redevelopment area and believes would be successful beyond expectations. Cmr. Hall stated that he does not believe that one project will make or break where we're at in our City's history as it relates to the update and development of the General Plan and future plans for the City. He further indicated that although he has some reservation with the layout of the project, he will trust the judgment and ability of both the developer and City staff to be able to work out and address those concerns. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - May 14, 2003 MSC (Cortes/Hall) (3-2-0-2) that the Planning Commission recommends to the Redevelopment Agency adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Precise Plan Ordinance based on the findings and conditions contained therein for the redevelopment of the mixed-use project as described, with a recommendation that staff and adjoining residents discuss a mutually agreed upon mitigation measure to attenuate the sound and visual impacts on the west wide of the property. No action on motion due to a (3-2-0-2) vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Negative Declaration (IS 03-08); Rezone (PCZ 03-02) from the Thoroughfare Commercial, Precise Plan (CTP) zone to the Central Commercial Precise Plan (CCP) zone; and Precise Plan (PCM 03-21) to allow for a mixes- use project that includes: 1) 41 apartments affordable to Iow income senior citizens with associated support services; 2) one manager's apartment; 3) 2,219 sf of retail space; and 4) reductions in setbacks, parking and open space. The project site is located at 825 Broadway. Developer: MAAC. Commissioner Hall stepped down from the dais and left the meeting as he had another commitment to attend. Background: The proposal is to develop a project on a 1-acre site surrounded by commercial uses and located within the City Southwest Redevelopment Area. The project includes 41 affordable apartments for senior citizens, one manager's apartment, 2,219 sf of retail space, 6,100 sf of community and common open space on-site, a social services kiosk, and 45 on-site parking spaces with additional on-street parking spaces along Broadway and Sierra Way for patrons of the retail uses. The project has been designed as a three story "U" shape building with retail at ground level and residential on the second and third levels. Based on the square footage of the project, the CVMC requires 74 parking spaces for the project. The project proposes a total of 45 parking spaces with approximately 34 spaces designated for residential use, and the remaining 11 spaces for supplemental parking for the project and additional on-street parking along Broadway and Sierra Way. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the ordinance for a Rezone and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration and Precise Plan Ordinance based on the findings and conditions contained therein for the mixed-use project. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - May 14, 2003 Commission Discussion: Commissioner Cortes asked for clarification on the calculations for parking requirements. John Schmitz, Principal Planner stated that both Planning and Community Development staff did research to find out what is a typical parking requirement for a senior project such as this. Their research found that half a space per unit is a fair standard because for a variety of reasons, not everybody will have a vehicle. The fact that this is an age-restricted project on a street that is served by public transit and in close proximity with other services in the area, staff was willing to recommend approval of the parking reduction. Public Hearing Opened 9:40. Lee Bates, 22 W. 35th Street, National City, CA, Project Manager for the MAAC Project addressed the eligibility issue and stated that in California a Senior can be defined as a person 55 years or older. In larger scale projects the 55 year requirement is most prevalent, however, because this is a small-scale project, in comparison, the requirement will be 62 years of age or older. They are pursuing affordable housing financing through a federal program called 202 Elderly Housing and the other is a 9% tax credit administered by the State. Cmr. Castaneda inquired what means would be used to identify resident eligibility and if the project's eligibility can be restricted to Chula Vista residents. He also asked about the kiosk use. Mr. Bates stated that they have to abide by strict Fair Housing Laws and because of the tremendous waiting lists that usually develop with projects such as this, most likely they would determine to do a lottery off of a waiting list. Secondly, as previously stated, because the majority of the financing for the project is coming from Federal and State funding, under the Federal statute, the eligibility for the units and the way to access those units is based on Fair Housing Laws, which require that the units be availability to the general public on a first-come-first- serve basis. Mr. Schmitz stated that the kiosk is an annex of the building and it is to provide social services strictly to residents of the building. Public Hearing closed 9:55. Notwithstanding the Commission's disappointment that eligibility cannot be restricted solely to Chula Vista residents, the consensus was that overall the project uses and density are suitable for this area, is in line with the vision set forth Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - May 14, 2003 for the redevelopment of this area, and will provide a valuable service to the community. MSC (CorteslFelber) (4-0-0-3) that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the ordinance for a Rezone and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration and Precise Plan Ordinance based on the findings and conditions contained therein for the mixed-use project. Motion carried CHULA VISI'A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS H~REBY GIVEN that, pursuant to California Redevelopment Law Health and Safety Code Sections 33431 and 33433, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, California will hold a public hearing to consider the sale of Redevelopmant Agency-owned property located at 760 Broadway between J & K Streets in the City of Chula Vista. The 2.53-acre vacant prope~y is to be sold without public bidding, The property is being sold to Car~er Reese & Associates and Bitterlin Development Corporation or an affiliate thereof, for the construction of a mixed use project comprising 40 Lane Homes, 9 residential lo~s, approximately 9,000 square feet o£ commercial space, and the associated parking, circulation and landscaping improvements. SAID PUBLIC RF.~RING WII~L BE I~ELD BY 'I'~LE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M., following the City Council meeting in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula vista, at which time any interested person may appear. Copies of the related documents and a summary of the proposed transaction as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33433 are on file in the office of the Director of Community Development. You may present any information on this matter at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista at or prior to the public hearing. Any petitions to be submitted to the City/Agency must be received by the Community Development Department office no later than 5:00 p.m. one (1) day prior to the hearing date. If you wish to challenge the City's/Agency's action on this property sale in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City/Agency at or prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Miguel Z. Tapia in the Community Development Department at 691-$291. AVISO Por medio de la presente se le comunica que el Cabildo de la ciudad de Chula Vista llevani a cabo una audiencia pfiblica para eonsiderar la venta de la propiedad ubieada en el 760 Broadway. E1 Cabildo planea vender esta propiedad a la eompaflia de Carter Reese & Associates y Bitterlin Development Corp. o alguno de sus afiliados para la eonstrueeion de un proyecto residencial y commercial. La audieneia se llevar~i a cabo a la hora, fecha y lugar mencinnadas en el Segundo p~'afo de este aviso. Si usted desea mayor informaei6n sobre esta audiencia, faoor de comunicarse eon Miguel Z. Tapia al 691-5291. Date: May 28, 2003 276 FOURTH AVENUE · CHULAVISTA · CALIFORNIA 91910 · (619) 691-5047 · FAX (619) 476-5310 CHULA VIS[A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project: HEARING DATE and TIME: June 10, 2003; 6:00 p.m. CASE NUMBER: PCM-03-15 APPLICANT: Carter Reese Associates and Bitterlin Development Corporation SITE ADDRESS: 760 Broadway (APNs: 571-200-13, 14, 15; 571-200-36-58) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Precise Plan for a mixed-use project that includes: (1) 40 lane homes (condominiums); (2) nine loft apartments; (3) 9,000 square feet of retail space; and (4) reductions in the setback, parking and open space requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Mitigated Negative Declaration Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Miguel Z. Tapia, in the Community Development Depamnent, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling (619) 691-5291. Please include case noted above in all correspondence. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development DeparUnent at or prior to the public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans are on file and available for inspection and review at the City's Community Development Department. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS W1TH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilitie~ Act, reque~ individuals who require special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a Cily metering, ncfivity or service requeet such accommodation at lease 48 hour~ in advance, for meetings, and $ days for scheduled ~ervices and activitie~ Pleaee contact Diana Varg~ for specific information at (619) 691-5101. Service for the bearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD). 276 FOURTH AVENUE · CHULA VISTA · CALIFORNIA 91910 · (619) 691-5047 · FAX (619) 476-5310 ATTACHMENT 5 SUMMARY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 33433 OF THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW ON A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETVVEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND CARTER REESE & ASSOCIATES AND BITTERLIN DEVELOPMENT, CORP. INTRODUCTION The following Summary Report has been prepared pursuant to Section 33433 of the California Health and Safety Code. The report sets forth cedain details of the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (Agreement) between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") and Carter Reese & Associates and Bitterlin Development Corporation ("Developer"). The Agency The Agreement provides for the Agency's sale of the site to the Developer, and for the Developer to develop the site with the proposed project. The Site, which is the subject matter of this Agreement ("Property"), is approximately 2.53 acres of land consisting of a parcel map composed of twenty two (22) lots and four (4) separate parcels. All these lots and parcels are owned by the Redevelopment Agency. The Property is located at 760 Broadway, between J and K Streets. The Agreement requires the Developer to construct a high-quality mixed use project, which includes 40 for-sale Lane Homes, 9 for-rent lofts over 9,000 square feet of commercial space, and the associated parking, landscaping, open space and circulation improvements. This Summary Report is based upon information contained within the Agreement, and is organized into the following seven sections: Salient Points of the A,qreement: This section includes a description of the Project, and the major responsibilities imposed on the Developer and the Agency by the Agreement. Cost of the Aflreement to the A.qency: This section details the total net cost to the Agency associated with implementing the Agreement. Estimated Value of the Interests to be Conveyed Determined at the Hi.qhest U~ Permitted Under the Redevelopment Plan: This section estimates the value of the interests to 0004065 CV:WL:gbd be conveyed determined at the highest use permitted under the existing zoning, and the requirements imposed by the Southwest Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan"). Estimated Reuse Value of the Interests to be Conveyed: This section summarizes the valuation estimate for the Site based on the required use, and with the conditions and covenants required by the Agreement. Consideration Received and Comparison with Established Fair Reuse Value: This section describes the compensation to be received by the Agency, and explains any difference between the compensation to be received and the established fair reuse value of the Site. Bli.qht Elimination: This section describes the existing blighting conditions on the Development Site, and explains how the Agreement will assist in alleviating the blighting influence. Conformance with the AB1290 Implementation Plan: This section describes how the Agreement achieves goals identified in the Agency's adopted AB1290 Implementation Plan. This' report and the Agreement are to be made available for public inspection prior to the approval of the Agreement. I. SALIENT POINTS OF THE AGREEMENT The Agreement is for sale of the Property and the construction of the Project. A. Project Description The Developer intends to build a high-quality mixed use Project composed of 40 for-sale Lane Homes (Townhomes), 9 for-rent loft apartments on top of the commercial structure containing approximately 9,000 square feet of retail space. The Project also includes the construction of the associated improvements, such as entrances, driveways, parking spaces, landscaping, and open spaces. B. Developer Responsibilities The Agreement requires the Developer to be responsible for the following: · Pay the A,qenc¥ "Fair Market Price" for the Property, which has been determined to be $1,350,000; 2 0004065.CV:WL:gbd 11216.001.005\6/5/03 · If a court determines that the Purchase Price is less than the Fair Market Price, the Developer and the City of Chula Vista will pay, on a 50/50 basis, the price differential to the Redevelopment Agency, with the condition that the City's contribution will be a not-to- exceed amount of $250,000. · Build the Project based on the concept plans approved by the Redevelopment A,qency and pursuant to the scope of work, schedule, and standards of development; · Obtain all the necessary entitlements from the City prior to construction of the Proiect; · Comply with conditions of escrow closure that include the required fund deposits, escrow cost-sharing, and other conditions for closure; · Make u~e of the Site pursuant to State Law's non-discriminatory provisions and other covenants for the duration of the agreement; · Be responsible for Defaults, Remedies and Termination provisions; · Other provisions dealing with encumbrances, conveyances and leases; and · Other General provisions. 3 0004065 CV:WL:gbd 11216.001.005\6/5/03 C. Agency Responsibilities Under the Agreement, the Agency must complete or cause the following activities: 1. The Agency shall convey to the Developer Fee Simple Title to the Property in exchange for "Fair Market Price," which has been determined to be $1,350,000; 2. If a court determines that the Purchase Price is less than the Fair Market Price, the Developer and the City of Chula Vista will pay, on a 50/50 basis, the price differential to the Redevelopment Agency, with the condition that the City's contribution will be a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000. 3. The Agency shall convey the Property in an "as is" condition; however, Agency has agree to haul a limited amount of hazardous waste contained on the northwest corner of the Property under arrangements made with the City prior to close of escrow; 4. As part of Property preparation for conveyance to Developer, the Agency has repaired a broken sewer pipe that services the Property. II. COST OF THE AGREEMENT TO THE AGENCY The Agency is not providing financial assistance or subsidy to the Developer as part of the conveyance and redevelopment of the Property. The property is being conveyed to the Developer for "Fair Market Price." The Agency however incurred several costs for the acquisition of the Property and the relocation of the dealerships to the Auto Park. These costs are as follows: Cost of land: $1,986,066 (approximately $18 per square foot) Cost of improvements: $ 225,000 Demolition of improvements: $ 100,000 Site hazardous remediation: $ 100,000 Soils removal: $ 50,000 Sewer Line Repair $ 7,000 Total cost of Property to Agency: $ 2,468,066. Additional costs by the Agency were incurred in the relocation of the Ford dealership to the Auto Park. Some of the remediation costs will be recouped by the Agency under a current agreement with Fuller Ford. 4 0004065 CV:WL:gbd 11216.001.005\6/5/03 III. ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE INTERESTS TO BE CONVEYED DETERMINED AT THE HIGHEST USE PERMITTED UNDER THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Pursuant to Section 33433 of the California Health and Safety Code, this section presents an analysis of the fair market value of the Property at the highest and best use. The Catlin Company conducted an appraisal of the Property in November 29, 2000, and determined that its fair market value was $1,435,000. However, the appraisal was made on the assumption that the highest and best use for the Property was a retail commercial project, and that development of a mixed-use project on the Property would be more difficult. In appraisal terminology, the highest and best use can be defined as the legal use (i.e., uses allowed under the Zoning Ordinance and the Redevelopment Plan) that will yield the highest value to the land. Therefore, the definition of highest and best use is based solely on the value created and not on whether or not it enhances or carries out the redevelopment goals and policies established by the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. The "technical" highest value of the property may very well be that of a commercial strip center that could suggest a higher value. However, the Agency would not likely support or approve a commercial shopping center at that location. The Broadway commercial corridor has excess commercial retail and automobile-oriented uses. Because of this, it is desirable to change the function and character of Broadway by introducing a variety and mixture of uses (commercial and residential) that will complement each other and create synergy and positive economic activity. The proposed mixed-use project will contribute toward this goal, whereas another traditional commercial strip center will just add to the excessive commercial inventory. It is staff's opinion that the proposed Project, as a commercial/residential mixed-use, is far superior to a potential commercial strip center, and is thus in a superior position to meet the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. These goals and objectives include the establishment and maintenance of balanced neighborhoods and sub-areas characterized by a planned diversity in building sites, density, housing and land use; stimulation of investment of the private sector in the full development of the Project Area; provision of needed improvement to the community's educational, cultural, residential and other community facilities to better serve the Project Area; and removal of impediments to land assembly and development through acquisition and re-parcelization of land into reasonably sized and shaped pamela served by an improved street system and improved public facilities. IV. ESTIMATED REUSE VALUE OF THE INTERESTS TO BE CONVEYED An analysis conducted by City staff and the consulting firm of Kayser Marston and Associates on the Developers' Pro-forma for the Project determined that the reuse value of the Property is approximately $1,000,000. V. CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND COMPARISON WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND FAIR REUSE VALUE Based on substantial analysis to date, it has been estimated that the FMP is between $1,100,000 and $1,500,000 based on two elements. First, a project pro-forma analysis conducted by Community Development staff and the financial consulting firm of Keyser Marston 5 O004065.CV:WL:gbd 11216.001.005\6/5/03 Associates concluded that the value of the Developer's proposed project at completion would support a residual land value of $1,000,000. Second, an appraisal conducted by the Catling Company, which determined a value of $1,435,000 as of November 29, 2000. Based on continued price inflation, staff determined that the appraised value has most likely increased somewhat since this date. Based upon the above factors, it is staff's opinion that a range of value between $1.1 and $1.5 million is an appropriate indicator of FMP. While the "technical" highest value of the property may very well be that of a commercial strip center that could suggest a higher value, it is staff's opinion that the proposed Project, as a commercial/residential mixed-use, is far superior to a potential commercial strip center, and is thus in a superior position to meet the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. However, the proposed mixed-use project poses certain market challenges that a regular strip commercial center might not encounter. Because of these challenges and potential obstacles, the proposed mixed-use project reflects a lower residual value and therefore the land commands a lower FMP. Based on these reasons, staff's opinion is that the FMP of the Agency Property is $1,350,000. However, the proposed DDA includes a provision to the effect that if a court determines that the Purchase Price is less than the Fair Market Price, the Developer and the City of Chula Vista will pay, on a 50/50 basis, the price differential to the Redevelopment Agency, with the condition that the City's contribution will be a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000. VI. BLIGHT ELIMINATION The Southwest Redevelopment Project Area was adopted in 1990 in order to eliminate conditions of blight, which were impacting the economic and physical viability of the area. The Southwest Redevelopment Plan identifies the following blighting conditions in the project area: · Inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open space, storm water drainage facilities, and utilities. · Subdivision and sale of lots of irregular form and shape. Many of the lots are of an inadequate size and lack sufficient access thereto or lack of off-street parking to permit proper usefulness and marketability. · Lack of adequate community facilities. · Deteriorated or dilapidated commercial, industrial, and residential buildings. · Mixed commercial and residential land uses, which are defective in design and/or physical character. · Visual blight characterized by, among other things, an abundance of outdoor storage and open yard/compound uses, junkyards and other marginal type businesses. 6 0004065 CV:WL:gbd 11216.001.005\6/5/03 Insufficient or incomplete local planning characterized by several "Special Study" areas that have not been converted from County to City land use and zoning designations. Since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in 1990, the Redevelopment Agency has worked to eliminate certain identified blighting conditions by working with Developers and Property Owner to encourage the attraction of investment into the area and facilitate the development of projects within the Project Area. The proposed mixed-use project represents a great opportunity to bring new and better uses into the area that will contribute to its revitalization and improvement. The construction of the Project will assist in the removal of blighting influences, will put a vacant property to a better use, and contribute to the fulfillment of the Agency goals stated in the Redevelopment Plan. These goals include the establishment and maintenance of balanced neighborhoods and sub-areas characterized by a planned diversity in building sites, density, housing and land use; stimulation of investment of the private sector in the full development of the Project Area; provision of needed improvement to the community's educational, cultural, residential and other community facilities to better serve the Project Area; and removal of impediments to land assembly and development through acquisition and re- parcelization of a land into reasonably sized and shaped parcel served by an improved street system and improved public facilities. The proposed Project is consistent with Agency's actions to eliminate the stated blighting conditions and fulfill the stated redevelopment goals. VII. CONFORMANCE WITH THE AB1290 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Agency has adopted the Five-year Implementation Plan for the City's Southwest Redevelopment Project. The Implementation Plan identifies the goals and objectives to alleviate remaining blight within the project area. The proposed Project specifically addresses the goal of the Implementation Plan, which is to" Revitalize the Southwest commercial, residential, and industrial area of the City". As indicated in the Implementation Plan, the blight to be alleviated by the Project includes developing underutilized land, eliminating incompatible uses, eliminating small and irregular lot and block subdivision and correcting faulty planning. The proposed Project will replace the older uses that have become functionally obsolete. Through the Project, the Agency will consolidate multiple pamels to provide a coherent development on the block along Broadway between J and K Streets. 7 0004065.CV:WL:gbd 11216.001.005\6/5/03 ATTACHMENT 6 RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT [760 Broadway] DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT [760 BROADWAY] by and between REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULAVISTA, AGENCY and CARTER REESE AND ASSOCIATES, a California general partnership BITTERLIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California Corporation DEVELOPER DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT [760 Broadway] THIS DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into effective on June 10, 2003 ("Date of Agreement") by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ("Agency") and Carter Reese and Associates and Bitterlin Development Corporation (collectively "Developer"), with reference to the following facts: RECITALS A. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City") has established the Agency and has approved and adopted a redevelopment plan for a redevelopment project known as the Southwest Redevelopment Project by its adoption of Ordinance No. 2420 on November 27, 1990, and as amended by its adoption of Ordinance No. 2467 on July 9, 1991, of Ordinance 2612 on November 8, 1994, and by its adoption of Ordinance 2819 on August 22, 2000 (collectively, "Redevelopment Plan"), pursuant to the provisions of Sections 33000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code ("Redevelopment Law"). B. Agency is undertaking a program in the interest of health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the City pursuant to its authority under Redevelopment Law, for the redevelopment, replanning and redesign of blighted areas within the Southwest Redevelopment Project area which are characterized by stagnant, improperly utilized and unproductive land which requires redevelopment. C. Agency desires to implement the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project area by providing for the disposition of certain real property owned by the Agency comprised of approximately 2.5 gross acres of unimproved land within the project area, as more particularly described in Section 1.2 hereof ("Site"). D. In furtherance of Agency's desire to provide for the redevelopment of the Site, effective May 15, 2001, the Agency entered into a Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Developer pertaining to the Site ("ENA"). E. The Agency has determined that the provisions of this Agreement will make feasible the redevelopment of the Site by the Developer in accordance with the purposes set forth in the ENA and that such development will stimulate development of the remainder of the Southwest Redevelopment Project area, and is in the best interests of the taxpayers and residents of the City, and will otherwise promote the public health, safety and general welfare of City residents and is in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. F. Concurrent with its approval of this Agreement, Agency/City found and determined that (1) the implementation of this Agreement will assist in the elimination of blight, (2) is consistent with the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, (3) the consideration paid by Developer to Agency for the Site constitutes the "fair market price" for the Site as that term is referenced under Section 1720(b) of the California Labor Code; and (4) such consideration is not less than the fair market value of the Site at its highest and best use in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan. 1. SUBJECT OF AGREEMENT 1.1 Purpose of the Agreement The purpose of this Agreement is to assist with the effectuation of the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project area in the City of Chula Vista by providing for the disposition and development of the Site. The development of the Site pursuant to this Agreement, and the fulfillment generally of this Agreement, are in the vital and best interests of the City of Chula Vista and the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable federal, state, and local laws and requirements. 1.2 The Site The "Site" is comprised of approximately 2.5 acres of · unimproved land located at 760 Broadway, Chula Vista, California. The Site is geographically depicted on the "Site Map" attached hereto as Exhibit A-i, and is more precisely described in the "Legal Description" attached hereto as Exhibit A-2. 1.3 The Project The Project to be developed shall be comprised of 40 Lane Homes~ 9 residential lofts, and approximately 9,000 square feet retail/commercial space beneath the lofts, facing Broadway. A detailed Project description, elevations and site plan are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Parking, landscape and other Project requirements shall be determined through the City's land use entitlement process. Upon Close of Escrow, Developer shall be obligated to develop the Project on the Site in accordance with an agreed upon schedule as more particularly set £orth in ~ectlon ~.1 hereof. 1.4 Parties to the Agreement (a) Agency. Agency is a public body, corporate and politic, exercising governmental functions and powers, and organized and existing under Chapter 2 of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. The principal office of the Agency is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910. "Agency" as used in this Agreement includes any assignee of or successor to its rights, powers and responsibilities. (b) Developer. The Developer is Carter Reese and Associates and Bitterlin Development Corporation. Wherever the term Developer is used herein, such term shall include any permitted nominee, assignee or successor in interest as herein provided. 1.5 Entitlements and CEQA as Conditions to Sale. (a) Reservation of Discretion. Agency and Developer acknowledge and agree that the ultimate development of the Site will be governed by and/or subject to certain governmental approvals ("Entitlements"}, including Entitlements which must be obtained from the City. The parties hereto expressly acknowledge and agree that the Agency cannot grant any such Entitlements or cause any other governmental agency, including the City, to grant any such Entitlements. City and Agency reserve the right to exercise their discretion as to all matters which they are, by law, entitled or required to exercise their discretion. It is not the intent (nor shall it be deemed) that, by the Agency's execution or City's approval of this Agreement, the City or the Agency are granting approval of the Project contemplated in this Agreement or any of the Entitlements. Further, in no event shall the Agency or the City be under any obligation to approve such development or any of the Entitlements by virtue of having entered into or approved this Agreement, it being understood that such development and each of the Entitlements as to which the Agency or the City has any approving authority shall be taken up and considered as matters to be separately deliberated upon at such time in the future as they may be so taken up and considered. Accordingly, Developer hereby releases the City and the Agency from any liability based upon Developer not obtaining any such Entitlements, and expressly agrees that in no event shall any lawful exercise of the City's or Agency's discretion to approve, condition or disapprove any Entitlements or other discretionary item which is a condition to the obligations of the parties of this Agreement, be deemed to be a default or an act of bad faith under this Agreement by the City or the Agency. (b) Required Entitlements. (1) Completion of a project environmental impact analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. (2) Approval of a Precise Plan for the construction of the proposed improvements; and (3) Approval of a Parcel/Tract Map for the Site. In_~the event that all of the Entitlements are not approv~ within days after the effective date of this Agreement, or in the event that City or Agency or any other entity shall deny any of the requested discretionary approvals or disapprove any required Entitlement or other agreements necessary for development of the Project, unless extended by the parties under the express terms hereof, this Agreement shall be of no force and effect and, except as provided in Section 2.3(c), none of the parties shall have any further obligations to any of the other parties pursuant to this Agreement. (c) Agency Staff to Cooperate. Subject to the foregoing conditions and reservations of authority, staff agrees to cooperate with Developer by seeking lawful ways to expedite the Entitlement process for the Project. 2. DISPOSITION OF THE SITE 2.1 Sale and Purchase (a) In accordance with, and subject to, all the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement, Agency agrees to sell the Site to Developer, and Developer agrees to purchase the Site from Agency. (b) Developer shall pay to Agency as the purchase price for the Site the amount of One Million Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,350,000.00) ("Purchase Price"). Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33433, the Agency has determined that, given the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, the consideration paid for the Site is not less than the fair market value of the Site at its highest and best use in accordance with the Plan. (c) The Purchase Price shall be paid to Agency in cash, or other immediately available funds, upon the Close of Escrow (defined below). (d) "Close of Escrow" shall mean the date upon which title to the Site passes from Agency to Developer. Close of Escrow shall occur within days after satisfaction of all conditions to close of Escrow for Agency's and Developer's benefit set forth in Section 2.4 hereof. In the event that Close of Escrow has not occurred by , 2003, Agency or Developer may terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 2.5.7 hereof, below. 2.2 Purchase Price as "Fair Market Price"; Potential Adjustments. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Purchase Price constitutes the "fair market price" for the Site as that term is referenced in California Labor Code Section 1720(b) ("Fair Market Price"). In the event that (a) a third party alleges that the Purchase Price is less than the Fair Market Price, or Agency and Developer mutually agree upon a higher Fair Market price, then the Purchase Price shall be increased to equal such court determined or agreed upon higher Fair Market Price, as the case may be (the "Adjusted Purchase Price"). Developer agrees to pay the Adjusted Purchase Price to Agency; provided, however, a condition to Developer's obligation is that City enters into an Agreement with Agency ("City/Agency Cooperation Agreement") to pay fifty percent (50%) of the positive difference between the original Purchase Price and the Adjusted Purchase price up to a maximum payment of $250,000. City's payment to Agency under the City/Agency Cooperation Agreement shall have the effect of reducing Developer's obligation to pay the Adjusted Purchase Price on a dollar for dollar basis. Developer shall be a third party beneficiary under the City/Agency Cooperation Agreement. 2.3 Good Faith Deposit; Liquidated Damages. 5 (a) Deposit. Developer shall deliver to Agency concurrently with delivery of this Agreement, a deposit ("Deposit") of $25,000 in the form of a cashier's or certified check drawn on a California bank account payable to Escrow Agent. Escrow Agent shall invest the Deposit in a federally insured, interest-bearing account approved by both parties. Ail interest earned thereon shall be Agency's. (b) Credit, Release, Return of Deposit. The entire $25,000 Deposit shall be credited to Buyer and applied against the Purchase Price at Close of Escrow. The Deposit shall be returned to Developer if this Agreement and the Escrow are terminated for nonsatisfaction of a condition pursuant to Section 2.4.2. (c) Liquidated Damages in the Event of Developer's Failure to Close Escrow. In the event that Developer fails to Close Escrow despite the satisfaction of conditions for Developer's benefit set forth in Section 2.4.2, below, the following provision for liquidated damages shall apply: THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT AGENCY WILL SUFFER SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES IF DEVELOPER FAILS TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE CLOSING DATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT FOR ANY REASON, OTHER THAN NONSATISFACTION OF THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2.4.2 (TIMELY RAISED) OR A DEFAULT BY SELLER. GIVEN FLUCTUATIONS IN LAND VALUES, THE UNPREDICTABLE STATE OF THE ECONOMY AND OF GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS, THE FLUCTUATING MONEY MARKET FOR REAL ESTATE LOANS AND OTHER FACTORS WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT THE VALUE AND MARKETABLITY OF THE PROPERTY, THE PARTIES REALIZE THAT IT WILL BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND IMPRACTICAL,. IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO ASCERTAIN WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF AGENCY'S DAMAGES IN THE EVENT OF SUCH FAILURE TO PERFORM BY DEVELOPER. THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE THAT THE $25,000 DEPOSIT [PLUS INTEREST EARNED THEREON] REPRESENTS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF SUCH DAMAGES, CONSIDERING ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND THAT AGENCY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RETAIN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSIT [PLUS INTEREST EARNED THEREON] ' AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1671, AS AGENCY'S SOLE RIGHT TO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT. AGENCY WAIVES ALL RIGHTS AGENCY OTHERWISE MAY HAVE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 3389 TO SPECIFICALLY ENFORCE THIS AGREEMENT. 6 NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, THIS SECTION SHALL NOT LIMIT OR LIQUIDATE ANY OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES OF DEVELOPER PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.12 AND 3.1.7(a) BY SIGNING THEIR INITIALS BELOW, EACH PARTY CONFIRMS ITS CONSENT TO AND AGREEMENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH. Agency's Initials Developer's Initials 2.4 Conditions to Developer's Right/Obligation to Acquire Site. 2.4.1 Conditions for Agency Benefit. Developer's right to acquire the Site shall be subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions precedent for the benefit of the Agency: (a) Approved Financing. Developer must present to the Agency staff evidence of acceptable financing for construction of the Project on the Site. (1) Acceptable debt financing entails an institutional lender: (i) which is experienced in making loans for projects like the Project, and is otherwise reasonably acceptable to the Agency; (ii} that validly commits in writing on terms and conditions reasonably approved by Agency to finance the construction of the Project pursuant to a disbursement schedule which is reasonably acceptable to the Agency; {iii) that requires that Developer uses loan proceeds only for costs associated with the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; (iv) that agrees to the acquisition, without discount or recourse, of the loan by the Agency (or its assignee) in the event this Agreement is terminated as a result of a Developer default and the Agency reacquires the Site as allowed in this Agreement ; (v) that agrees to enter into an agreement with the Agency concerning the Agency's right to reacquire the property on the terms and conditions set forth in Section 5.7 of this Agreement; and (vi) that acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement and the covenants contained herein shall be and remain encumbrances prior to all financing for the 7 development of the Project. If Developer identifies an otherwise qualified lender offering superior loan terms that is unw. illing or unable to finance the Project with a lien position subordinate to this Agreement, Agency staff agrees to meet and confer with Developer in order to consider terms upon which the lender might be deemed qualified without the subordination requirement. (2) Acceptable equity financing entails: (i) a binding commitment to invest equity in the Project; (ii) from a reputable source that demonstrates the ability to fulfill its commitment; and (iii) in sufficient amount, when combined with acceptable debt financing, to complete the Project, all as determined by Agency staff in its reasonable discretion. (3) Ail debt or equity financing agreements must close and have achieved ~full funding" status prior to Close of Escrow. '~Full funding" status means that all conditions have been satisfied to make available all funds necessary for the completion of the construction of the Project-without the need for any additional discretionary approval--upon Developer's submittal of a request for disbursement. (4) Agency staff agrees to approve or disapprove (i) a proposed lender or equity partner by no later than ten (10) business days after Developer provides all documents reasonably necessary to make such determination; and (ii) proposed financing agreements by no later than five (5) business days after Developer provides all such agreements. (b) Required Entitlements. Developer shall have received approval of all Entitlements necessary for the development of the Site with the Project, including Entitlements that must be obtained from the Agency/City. (c) Payment of Purchase Price; Payment of Closing Costs. Developer shall pay the Purchase Price for the Site, and shall pay Developer's share of closing costs. 8 (d) CC&R's. Agency approval of and recordation of the CC&R's as provided in Section 4.7 of this Agreement. (e) No Default. Developer shall not be in default under this Agreement. (f) Insurance. The Developer shall provide the insurance certificates conforming to Section of this Agreement in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Agency Executive Director or his designee. (g) Other Agreements. Developer shall have duly executed and delivered all implementing agreements to this Agreement, including all documents which are necessary to ensure that this Agreement is a lien against the Site prior, superior, and non-subordinate to the other monetary encumbrances (excluding non-delinquent taxes and assessments), and all non-monetary encumbrances (except Approved Title Exceptions), and any other documents required by Agency hereunder for the transfer and development of this Project. 2.4.2 Conditions for Developer's Benefit. Developer's obligation to acquire the Site shall be subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions precedent for the benefit of Developer: (a) Financing. Developer shall have obtained Project financing consistent with the requirements of this Agreement on terms and conditions reasonably approved by Developer. (b) Entitlements. Developer shall have obtained all discretionary Entitlements necessary for the development of the Project on the Site and all applicable challenge periods to such approvals shall have expired. (c} Condition of Property. Developer shall have approved ' the physical condition of the Site in accordance with Sections 2.13 and 2.14 hereof. Developer shall have until to indicate any objection to the physical condition of the site. If Agency does not receive a written objection from Developer by , Developer shall be deemed to have approved the condition of the Site, and this condition shall be deemed satisfied. Upon Close of Escrow the Site shall be substantially the 9 same condition as it was in when Developer approved its condition. (d) Title Insurance. Developer shall be satisfied that the Title Company is ready to, upon payment of Title Company's regularly scheduled premium(s), issue to the Developer the Title Insurance (excepting only the Permitted Title Exceptions, the bargained for state of title) in accordance with Section herein. (e) Grant Deed. Agency shall have duly executed the Grant Deed and any other documents required to be signed by the Agency under this Agreement. (f) Demolition at 772 Broadway. The owners of 772 Broadway shall have demolished the existing improvements thereon, and removed all debris, or shall have entered into a secured, binding agreement to do so with the Agency that provides for completion of demolition prior to the scheduled completion of the Project. (g) Sewer Line. City shall have repaired the sewer lateral connecting the Site to the City's sewer collector running north to south, adjacent to the western boundary of the Site subject to the condition that such repair costs not exceed $30,000. (h) No Default. Agency shall not be in default in any of its obligations under the terms of this Agreement. 2.4.3 Obligation to Work Towards Satisfaction of Conditions. Each party hereto agrees to take all reasonable steps necessary and appropriate to satisfy the conditions to Close of Escrow within their control and to work in good faith to cause the Close of Escrow prior to , 2003. 2.5 Escrow 2.5.1 Opening. Upon Agency approval of this Agreement, the parties agree to open an escrow for conveyance of the Site with Chicago Title Insurance Company ("Escrow Agent") as escrow agent. The applicable provisions of this Agreement constitute the joint escrow instructions of the Agency and the Developer, and a duplicate original of this Agreement shall be delivered to the Escrow Agent upon the opening of the escrow. The Agency and the Developer shall provide such additional escrow instructions consistent with this Agreement 10 as shall be necessary. The Escrow Agent hereby is empowered to act under such instructions, and upon indicating its acceptance thereof in writing, delivered to the Agency and to the Developer within five (5) days after opening of the escrow, the Escrow Agent shall carry out its duties as Escrow Agent hereunder. 2.5.2 Escrow Agent Authority. The Escrow Agent is authorized to: (a) Pay, and charge the Agency and the Developer, respectively, for any fees, charges and costs payable under this Agreement. Before such payments are made, the Escrow Agent shall notify the Agency and the Developer of the fees, charges and costs necessary to clear title and close the escrow. (b) Invest and disburse funds and deliver the Deed and other documents to the parties entitled thereto when the conditions of this escrow have been fulfilled by the Agency and the Developer. The Purchase Price shall not be delivered by the Escrow Agent unless and until it has recorded the Deed to the Site and has delivered to the Developer a title insurance policy insuring title and conforming to the requirements of this Agreement. (c) Record any instruments delivered through this escrow if necessary or proper to vest title in the Developer in accordance with the terms and provisions of the escrow instructions portion of this Agreement. 2.5.3 Deposit of Funds. The Deposit provided in Section 2.3 above, and all other funds received in this escrow shall be deposited by the Escrow Agent in a general escrow account with any state or national bank doing business in the State of California and reasonably approved by the Developer and the Agency, and may be combined in such with other escrow funds of the Escrow Agent. 2.5.4 Allocation of Escrow Costs. (a) Agency Costs. Agency shall pay in escrow to the Escrow Agent the following fees, charges and costs after the 11 Escrow Agent has notified the Agency of the amount of such fees, charges and costs, but not earlier than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled date for the conveyance of the Site: 1. One-half the escrow fee; 2. The premium for a CLTA title insurance policy for the amount of the Purchase Price; 3. Any State, County or City documentary stamps or transfer taxes; 4. Ad valorem taxes, if any, upon the applicable Parcel for any time prior to the conveyance of title. 5. Any and all other customary "sellers" fees and costs. (b) Developer Costs. Developer shall pay in escrow to the Escrow Agent the following fees, charges and costs promptly after the Escrow Agent has notified the Agency of the amount of such fees, charges and costs, but not earlier than ten (10) days ~rior to the scheduled date for the conveyance of the applicable Parcel: 1 One-half the escrow fee; 2. The incremental cost of any additional title insurance, including ALTA coverage, or special endorsements; 3. Any costs related to Developer financing of its acquisition or development of the Site; and 4. Any and all other customary "buyers" fees and costs. 2.5.5 Amendments. Any amendment to the escrow instructions shall be in writing and signed by both the Agency and the Developer. At the time of any amendment the Escrow Agent shall agree to carry out its duties as Escrow Agent under such amendment. 2.5.6 Communications. 12 Ail communications from the Escrow Agent to the Agency or the Developer shall be directed to the addresses and in the manner established in Section 7.1 of Chis Agreement for notices, demands and communications between the Agency and the Developer. 2.5.7 Termination of Escrow. If this escrow is not in condition to close on or before the time for conveyance established in Section 2.6 of this Agreement, either party who then shall have fully performed the acts to be performed before the conveyance of title may, in writing, demand the return of its money, papers or documents from the Escrow Agent. No demand for return shall be recognized until ten (10) days after the Escrow Agent (or the party making such demand) shall have mailed copies of such demand to the other party or parties at the address of its principal place of business. Objections, if any, shall be raised by written notice to the Escrow Agent and to the other party within the ten (10) day period, in which event the Escrow Agent is authorized to hold all money, papers and documents with respect to the applicable Parcel until instructed by a mutual agreement of the parties or, upon failure thereof, by a court of competent jurisdiction. If no such demands are made, the escrow shall be closed as soon as possible. If objections are raised as above provided for, the Escrow Agent shall not be obligated to return any such money, papers or documents except upon the written instructions of both the Agency and the Developer, or until the party entitled thereto has been determined by a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. If no such objections are made to the demand within said ten (10) day period, the Escrow Agent shall immediately return the demanded money, papers or documents. 2.6 Conveyance of Title and Delivery of Possession (a) Agency shall convey to the Developer title to the Site in the condition provided in Section 2.8 of this Agreement by Grant Deed in a form to be mutually agreed upon by the Agency and the Developer consistent with this Agreement and otherwise utilizing Escrow Agent's standard form. The Grant Deed to each Parcel shall contain covenants necessary or desirable to carry out this Agreement and implement the requirements of applicable Redevelopment Law and the Redevelopment Plan. (b) Upon delivery of the Grant Deed for the Site to the Escrow Agent by the Agency pursuant to Section 2.9 of this Agreement, the Escrow Agent shall record such Deed in accordance 13 with these escrow instructions, provided that the title to the Site can be vested in the Developer in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. The Escrow Agent shall buy, affix and cancel any transfer stamps required by law. c) Except as otherwise provided herein, possession of the Site shall be delivered to the Developer concurrent with the conveyance of title. The Developer shall accept title and possession to the Site on or before the dates set forth below. (d) Subject to any mutually agreed-upon extension of time, Gonveyance to the Developer of title to the Site shall be completed on or prior to , 2003, or such later date mutually agreed to in writing by the Agency and the Developer and communicated in writing to the Escrow Agent. 2.7 Condition of Title Agency shall convey to the Developer fee simple title to the Site. Developer will accept title to the Site subject to those items indicated on Schedule B of that certain CLTA title insurance policy, dated August 18, 1993, issued to the Agency by Chicago Title Company; provided, however, that Developer's acceptance of the items indicated in such title policy is conditioned upon (i} Developer's review and approval of a plot map showing all easements referenced therein and its determination that such easements and other items do not adversely affect its proposed development of the Site for the purposes described herein, (ii) the Site not being encumbered by any monetary liens or encumbrances, except as created by Developer or by this Agreement, and (iii) the Site shall be subject to the parcel map referred to herein. Developer shall obtain an updated preliminary title report covering the Parcel being purchased and may reasonably object to any additional items indicated on such report. In the event Developer reasonably objects to any items indicated on the updated report, the Agency shall have the option to remove any objectionable items from title to the subject Parcel prior to the close of escrow. If the Agency is unable or unwilling to remove any such objectionable items, Developer shall have the right to terminate the escrow and cancel its obligation to purchase the Site. 2.8 Payment of the Purchase Price and Recordation of the Deed The Escrow Agent shall deliver the Purchase Price to the Agency immediately following the delivery to the Developer of a 14 title insurance policy insuring title in conformity with Section 2.9 of this Agreement.and the filing of the deed for recordation among the land records in the Office of the County Recorder for San Diego County. 2.9 Title Insurance Concurrent with recordation of the Grant Deed, Escrow Agent shall issue and deliver to the Developer a CLTA or an ALTA extended coverage policy of title insurance, as Developer may specify, insuring that the title is vested in the Developer in the condition required by Section 2.7 of this Agreement. The title insurance policy shall be in the amount of the Purchase Price of the Site or, as Developer may specify at Developer's cost, an endorsement to insure the amount of the Developer's estimated construction costs of the improvements to be constructed thereon. 2.10 Taxes and Assessments Ad valorem taxes and assessments, if any, on each parcel comprising the Site shall be prorated in escrow as of the date of close of escrow based on a 30-day month and a 360-day year. 2.11 Condition of the Site The Site, and any and all improvements thereon, shall be conveyed in an "as is" condition, with no warranty, express or implied by the Agency as to the physical condition (including the existence of hazardous materials), value, development, use, marketability, feasibility and suitability of the Site, or any parcel thereof, for Developer's intended use. Developer is a sophisticated purchaser who is familiar with this type of property. Developer will make its own independent investigation, to the extent Developer deems necessary, of the condition or suitability of the Site and each Parcel and will acquire all or any portion of the Site solely in reliance on such independent investigation. Developer acknowledges that any and all studies, reports, surveys, maps and other information that Developer may receive from Agency or its agents in connection with the Site are provided without any warranty (whether oral or written, express or implied) by Agency as to their accuracy, and on the express condition that Developer shall make its own independent evaluation of such information. Developer unconditionally releases Agency from and against any and all liability to Developer, both known and unknown, present and future, for any and all damages, losses, claims and costs (including attorneys fees), including, without limitation, the existence of hazardous materials, or the Site's 15 non-suitability for Developer's intended use excepting, however, any liability arising from Agency's intentional failure to disclose a material known fact with respect to the Site. Developer waives the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1542 which provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." The Agency agrees that it will not cause, or permit its contractors or agents to cause, without remediating the same, during the time the Site is in the possession of the Agency following the Date of Agreement, and prior to conveyance of title to the Site to the Developer, the placement of any hazardous or toxic substances on the Site which contaminates the soil and/or water on the applicable Parcel. Subject to the limitation set forth in this Section 2.11, above, Agency agrees to provide, or cause to be provided to Developer, upon Developer's written request, all written reports pertaining to the physical condition of the Site reasonably discovered by Agency to be in its possession. 2.12 Developer Access to Site Pre-Closing; Indemnity Prior to the conveyance of title to the Site, representatives of Developer shall at all reasonable times have the right of access to and entry upon those real properties comprising the Site which are owned by Agency, or of which Agency has possession, for the purpose of obtaining data relevant to its development process and making surveys and tests necessary to carry out this Agreement. Developer agrees to defend, pro~ect, indemnify and hold Agency, City, and their respective officers, employees, contractors and agents, harmless from and against any and all claims, liability, loss, damage, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs) arising out of any work or activity of Developer, its officers, employees, contractors and agents permitted pursuant to this Section 2.12. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 2.13 Submission of Evidence of Financinq (a) Developer shall report regularly as requested by the Agency (but at least every thirty (30) days) on its progress in obtaining financing for the development of the Project. The 16 reports may be oral, or shall be in writing if requested by Agency. The reports shall explain in reasonable detail the sources and methods of financing sought, the status of obtaining the financing and the issues, if any, which must be resolved, and the preleasing or presales activity which is required or has been achieved. The information in the reports shall remain confidential to the extent permitted by law, recognizing without limitation that they are subject to review by responsible officials, employees and contractors of the Agency. (b) Prior to Close of Escrow, Developer shall submit to Agency evidence satisfactory to Agency that Developer has obtained the financing necessary for the development of the Site in accordance with this Agreement. Such evidence of financing shall include all information described in Section 2.4.1(a) of this Agreement and the following: (i) A copy of the term sheet describing the details of the terms and conditions of the mortgage loan or loans obtained by the Developer (both for interim construction financing and take out financing if a condition of funding the construction loan) to assist in financing the construction of the improvements on the Site (as defined in the Scope of Development attached hereto as Exhibit B), certified by the Developer to be a true and correct copy or copies thereof; and (ii) Evidence reasonably satisfactory to the Agency of sources of equity capital sufficient to demonstrate that the Developer has adequate funds to cover the difference, if any, between construction cost minus financing authorized by mortgage loans. Agency shall approve or disapprove such evidence of financing in a timely manner, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If Agency shall disapprove any such evidence of financing, Agency shall do so by written notice to Developer stating the reasons for such disapproval. 2.14 Developer Indemnity Upon Close. Upon Close of Escrow, Developer agrees to indemnify, protect, defend and indemnify City, Agency and their respective officers and employees from and against any and all claims, suits, liabilities, expenses, (including attorneys' fees, losses or damages (collectively,"losses") of any kind arising as a result of Developer's acts or omissions on or adjacent to the Site except 17 for losses caused directly by the sole'negligence or sole willful misconduct of City/Agency. This obligation shall survive the Close of Escrow and the termination of this Agreement. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE 3.1 In General Upon satisfaction of Developer's conditions to Close of Escrow set forth in Section 2.4.2, Developer shall be obligated to take all remaining necessary and appropriate steps to Close Escrow and to develop the Site with the Project as provided herein. 3.1.1 Scope of Development (a) Developer shall develop the Site with the Project in strict accordance with the Project description attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Project description is comprised of a Project narrative, site plan, and elevations {collectively, the "Scope of Development"). (b) The Project shall be constructed as a "First Class and First Quality" project. First Class and First Quality shall mean that the Project construction, design and materials are of high quality with the quality of variegated exteriors, colors and rooflines represented in the Scope of Development, as further refined and conditioned by the City's design review and Entitlement process. (c) The Scope of Development may be modified through the City/Agency Entitlement process. The Agency Executive Director shall also have the authority to approve minor modifications in the Scope of Development in his/her reasonable discretion upon written request by Developer. Any proposed substantive modifications to the Scope of Development shall be subject to the approval of the Agency Board in its sole discretion. 3.1.2 Schedule of Performance. (a) Developer shall acquire the Site and develop the Project in accordance with the agreed upon "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit C. (b) The Schedule of Performance is subject to revision from time to time as mutually agreed upon in writing between Developer and Agency's Executive Director based on extension(s) 18 necessary due to changes in circumstances or other factors not know by the parties as of the date of Agency approval of the Agreement ("Date of Agreement"). Each request for an extension of an item or items in the Schedule of Performance shall be in writing stating the requested extension period, the reasons for such extension, the facts and circumstances related to the need for such extension, and other information reasonably necessary for Agency staff, and Agency Board, as and if required, (or the Developer, if the requested extension is for an Agency performance item) to understand the basis for such request and the circumstances that did not exist as of the Date of Agreement that necessitate such requested extension. Agency's Executive Director is authorized on behalf of Agency to agree to make such revisions as he or she deems reasonably necessary based on changes in circumstances or other factors not known as of the Date of Agreement; provided however, in the event any proposed extension(s) to the Schedule of Performance being considered between the Agency Executive Director and Developer may cause the completion of construction date of any component of the Project to be extended beyond sixty (60) days after the original date agreed between the parties for date of completion set forth in the Schedule of Performance, such extension(s) to the Schedule of Performance shall require the consideration and approval by the Agency Board of an amendment to this Agreement. It is understood that the Schedule of Performance is subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the text of this Agreement. The summary of the items of performance in the Schedule of Performance is not intended to supersede or modify the more complete description in the text; in the event of any inconsistency between the Schedule of Performance and the text of this Agreement, the text shall govern. 3.1.3 Landscaping and Gradinq Plans Developer shall prepare and submit to the Agency for its approval preliminary and final landscaping plans, and preliminary and finish grading plans for the Site. Those plans shall be prepared and submitted within the time established by the parties as described in the Schedule of Performance. The landscaping plans shall include a lighting program which highlights the design of components of the development, including, but not limited to~ building facades, architectural detail, building interiors, landscaping and artistic features, if any. The landscaping plans shall be prepared by a professional landscape architect and the grading plans shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. Such landscape architect and/or civil engineer may be the same firm as the Developer's architect. 19 3.1.4 Construction Drawings and Related Documents for the Site (a) Developer shall prepare and submit construction drawings and related documents (collectively called the "Drawimgs"} for the development pertaining to each component of the Project to the Agency for review (including but not limited to architectural review), and written approval in the times established by the parties as described in the Schedule of Performance. Such Drawings shall be submitted in three stages: Design Development Drawings, 50% Complete Construction Drawings, and Final Construction Drawings. "Final Construction Drawings" are hereby defined as drawings in sufficient detail to obtain a building permit. (b) The Agency shall approve or disapprove the Drawings in a timely manner. Any disapproval shall state in writing the reasons for disapproval and the changes which the Agency requests to be made. Such reasons and such changes must be consistent with the Scope of Development (Exhibit B) and any items previously approved or deemed approved hereunder. The Developer, upon receipt of a disapproval based upon powers reserved by the Agency hereunder, shall revise the Drawings, and shall resubmit to the Agency as soon as possible after receipt of the notice of disapproval. Approval of progressively more detailed drawings and specifications will be promptly granted by the Agency if developed as a logical evolution of drawings or specifications theretofore approved. Any items so submitted and approved by the Agency shall not be subject to subsequent disapproval. (c) During the preparation of all Drawings, Agency and Developer shall communicate and consult informally as frequently as is necessary to insure that the formal submittal of any documents to Agency can receive prompt and speedy consideration. (d) If any revisions or corrections of Drawings approved by the Agency shall be required by any non-Agency government official, agency, department, or bureau having jurisdiction over the development of the Site, Developer and Agency shall cooperate in efforts to obtain waiver of such requirements or to develop a mutually acceptable alternative. 3.1.5 Cost of Construction; Project Fees. The Purchase Price and any and all costs incurred in connection with developing the Site with the Project shall be 20 borne solely by the Developer, except as expressly provided in this Agreement. Accordingly, Developer shall be solely responsible for payment of all applicable Project processing and impact fees. 3.1.6 Construction Proqress Reports During periods of construction, the Developer shall communicate and consult with Agency as frequently as is necessary to update the Agency as to the progress of Project construction and compliance with the approved Project schedule. 3.1.7 Indemnification During Construction; Bodily Injury and Property Damage Insurance (a) Indemnity. Commencing with the Close of Escrow, to the maximum extent allowed by law, the Developer agrees to and shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Agency, and City and their respective officers, employees, contractors and agents from and against all claims, liability, loss, damage, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs) (collectively, ~'Losses") arising from or as a result of the death of any person or any accident, injury, loss or damage whatsoever caused to any person or to the property of any person arising out of the activities of the Developer under this Agreement, or otherwise in connection with the development of the Site with the Project and which shall be directly or indirectly caused by any acts done or any errors or omissions of the Developer or its officers, employees, contractors or agents; provided, however, such obligation shall not extend to any Losses caused directly by the sole negligence or sole intentional misconduct of the Agency, the City, or their respective officers, employees, contractors or agents. Without limiting the preceding sentence, except for activities undertaken by the Developer with respect to the Site before the conveyance of title thereto to the Developer, the Agency hereby acknowledges that (as between the Agency and the Developer) the Agency is responsible for maintaining the Site in the condition it was in as of the Date of Agreement until conveyance of title to the Site to the Developer. This provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement. (b) Insurance. During the period commencing with any preliminary work on the Site by the Developer under Section 2.12, or if none, then commencing with conveyance of title of the Site to the Developer, and ending on the date when a Certificate of Completion has been issued with respect to the entire Site, 21 Developer shall furnish or cause to be furnished to Agency, duplicate originals or appropriate certificates of insurance policies as follows: (i) Commercial General Liability Insurance with per occurrence based coverage with a coverage minimum of $5 million per occurrence, and general aggregate, containing no cross- liability exclusion, and primary to any City insurance or self-insurance program, and naming City as an additional insured through an endorsement; (ii) Business Auto Coverage with a coverage minimum of $2 million; and (iii) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's liability insurance with minimum coverage of $1 million per accident or disease. Ail coverage shall allow waiver of subrogation with respect to Agency/City, which Developer hereby waives. Ail coverage shall be issued by companies admitted to do business in California and with "Best's" ratings of A-V or better. Any "self-insured retention" must be declared and approved by Agency. The form of insurance and the certificates of insurance evidencing same shall be subject to Agency's prior reasonable approval. (c) Contractor's Indemnity/Insurance Obligations. Developer shall require the general contractor responsible for construction of the Project to indemnify and insure the City/Agency as provided in Subsections (a) and (b), above. 3.1.8 Local, State and Federal Laws The Developer shall carry out the construction of the improvements on the Site in conformity with all applicable laws, including all applicable federal and state labor standards and all environmental land use and other conditions imposed on the Project. 3.1.9 City and Other Governmental Agency Permits 22 Before commencement of construction or development of any buildings, structures or other work of improvement upon the Site, the Developer shall, at its own expense, secure or cause to be secured, any and all permits which may be required by the City or any other governmental agency affected by such construction, development or work. Agency staff shall reasonably cooperate with the Developer in securing these permits. 3.1.10 Assiqnability of Architecture, Engineering and Construction Contracts Developer shall include in any and all Architecture, Engineering and Construction contracts entered into for the development of the Project ("Project Contracts") provisions that make the Project Contracts assignable to Agency, or its designee, in the event that Developer defaults hereunder and Agency requires possession of the Site and elects to complete the Project. 3.2 Taxes; Assessments; Encumbrances; and Liens The Developer shall pay when due 'all real estate taxes and assessments assessed and levied on or against the Site subsequent to the conveyance of the title thereto. The Developer shall not place, or allow to be placed, on the Site or any Parcel thereof, any mortgage, trust deed, encumbrance or lien not authorized by this Agreement. The Developer shall remove, or shall have removed, any levy or attachment made on the Site (or any Parcel thereof), except those created by work of the Agency, or otherwise expressly allowed hereunder, and shall assure the satisfaction thereof within a reasonable time but in any event prior to a sale thereunder. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prohibit the Developer from contesting the validity or amount of any tax assessment, encumbrance or lien, nor to limit the remedies available to the Developer in respect thereto. The covenants of the Developer set forth in this Section 3.2 relating to the placement of any unauthorized mortgage, trust deed, encumbrance or lien, shall remain in effect only until a Certificate of Completion of construction has been recorded with respect to the parcel upon which any unauthorized mortgage, trust deed, encumbrance or lien might be placed. 3.3 Prohibition against Transfer (a) The qualifications and identities of the individuals comprising the Developer entities are of particular concern to the Agency. It is because of those qualifications and identities that 23 the Agency has entered into this Agreement with the Developer. No voluntary or involuntary successor in interest of the Developer shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement except as expressly set forth herein. The provisions and restrictions of this Section shall remain in full force and effect until a Certificate of Completion has been issued for the Project. (b) Prior to the recordation by the Agency of a Certificate of Completion for the Project, Developer shall not, except as permitted by this Agreement, assign or attempt to assign this Agreement or any right herein with respect to the Site or the Project, nor make any total or partial sale, transfer, conveyance or assignment of the whole or any part of the Site or the improvements thereon, without prior written approval of the Agency in its sole discretion. Any attempted transfer that has not been so approved by Agency shall be void. This prohibition shall not apply to the Site (or any portion thereof) subsequent to the recordation of the Certificate of Completion with respect thereto. This prohibition shall not be deemed to prevent the granting of easements or permits necessary for the development of the Site with the Project, nor shall it prohibit entering into contracts to sell individual residences developed as part of the Project conditional on the issuance of a Certificate of Completion therefor, nor shall it prohibit granting any security interests expressly described in this Agreement with respect to Agency approved financing of the acquisition and development of the Site. Except as permitted below, transfers of any interest in the Developer entity shall constitute a prohibited transfer hereunder. (c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, Agency approval of an assignment of this Agreement or any interest herein shall not be required in connection with any of the following: (i) Any transfers among the principals of the Developer entities so long as the existing principals thereof shall be and remain in management control of the Developer entity with at least a fifty-one percent (51%) ownership or beneficial interest in the Developer entity. (ii) Transfers resulting from the death or mental or physical incapacity of an individual. (iii) Transfer or assignments in trust for the benefit of a spouse, children, grandchildren, or other family members. 24 (iv) Transfers of security interest(s) in the Site through deed(s) of trust for which an approved lender or lenders is/are the beneficiary(ies) in connection with financing (and refinancing thereof) of the acquisition of the Site, the construction through completion of the improvements, and/or the operation of each or any component of the Project, subject to such financing having been approved pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. (v) A sale of the Site at foreclosure (or a conveyance thereof in lieu of a foreclosure) pursuant to a foreclosure thereof by a lender approved by the Agency in accordance with this Agreement. (vi) A transfer of stock in a publicly held corporation or the transfer of the beneficial interest in any publicly held partnership or real estate investment trust. (vii The granting of temporary or permanent easements or permits to governmental or quasi-governmental agencies to facilitate the development of the Site, or any component thereof; or (viii) A transfer of Developer's rights under this Agreement to a single purpose entity formed by Developer for purposes of developing and or owning the Project that is comprised of the Developer entities; Agency approved equity investors shall also be permitted provided that the Developer entities remain in management control and hold at least a 30% ownership interest in such entity. 3.4 Certificate of Completion (a) Promptly after completion of all construction and development to be completed by the Developer upon the Site, and assuming Developer is not otherwise in default under this Agreement or in non-compliance with applicable local laws, permits and conditions, the Agency shall furnish the Developer with a Certificate of Completion upon written request therefor by the Developer. The Agency shall not unreasonably withhold any such Certificate of Completion. Such Certificate of Completion shall be, and shall so state, conclusive determination of satisfactory completion of the construction required by this Agreement upon the Site, and of full compliance with the terms hereof with respect to the Site. The Agency may also furnish the Developer with a Certificate of Completion for portions of the improvements upon the Site, including for specific uses, as are properly completed 25 and ready to use if the Developer is not in default under this Agreement. (b) The Certificate of Completion shall be in such form as to permit it to be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of San Diego County. (c) Such Certificate of Completion shall not constitute evidence of compliance with dr satisfaction of any obligation of the Developer to any holder of a mortgage, or any insurer of a mortgage securing money loaned to finance the improvements, nor any part thereof. Such Certificate of Completion is not notice of completion as referred to in Section 3093 of the California Civil Code. (d) In no event shall the issuance of such Certificate of Completion constitute a representation by Agency for any other purpose as to the adequacy or completeness of the applicable improvements, or otherwise relieve Developer of any liability for improper design or construction (or other performance) of the applicable improvements or of any liability for any indemnity or other obligation undertaken by Developer with respect to the applicable improvements. 4. USE OF THE SITE 4.1 Uses The Developer covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof, that during construction and thereafter the Developer, its successors and assigns shall devote the Site, and each parcel thereof, to the uses specified in the Redevelopment Plan, the Scope of Development and the Grant Deed. 4.2 Obligation to Refrain from Discrimination The Developer covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof, there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person, or group of persons, on account of sex, marital status, race, color, creed, religion, national origin or ancestry in the contracting for Site development sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Site nor shall the Developer itself or any person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, 26 location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the Site. 4.3 Nondiscrimination and Nonsegregation The Developer shall refrain from restricting the rental, sale or lease of the Site on the basis of sex, marital status, race, color, creed religion, ancestry or national origin of any person. Ail deeds, leases or contracts shall contain or be subject to substantially the following nondiscrimination or nonsegregation clauses: (a) In deeds: "The grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of sex, marital status, race, color, creed, religion, national origin or ancestry in .the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the land herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land." (b} In leases: "The lessee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of sex, marital status, race, color, creed, religion, national origin or ancestry in the leasing, subleasing, renting, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein leased, nor shall lessee itself, or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants or vendees in the land herein leased." 27 (c) In contracts: "There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of sex, marital status, race, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land, nor shall the transferee itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with Reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the land." 4.4 Effect and Duration of Covenants The covenants established in this Agreement shall, without regard to technical classification and designation, be binding on the Developer and any successor in interest to the Site and each Parcel (or any part thereof) for the benefit and in favor of the Agency, its successors and assigns, and the City and the public they represent, without regard to whether Agency or City remains, or is, an owner of any land in the vicinity of the Site. Such covenants as are to survive the issuance of the Certificate of Completion by the Agency shall be contained in the Grant Deed and shall remain in effect for the period specified therein. 4.5 Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions Prior to Agency's conveyance of the Site to Developer, Developer shall prepare Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CC&R's") for review and approval by Agency. The CC&R's shall address occupancy restrictions, commercial area use, access, maintenance, alterations, maintenance of private improvements and other similar issues which Agency and Developer mutually agree should be included or which are otherwise required by Agency or City. Agency shall be a third party beneficiary of the CC&R's with enforcement rights, but not the obligation enforce. 4.6 Agency Approval of Retail Tenants. Developer shall keep Agency informed as to all commercial pre-leasing activity for the Project and shall notify Agency prior to entering into any commercial lease in such manner as to provide Agency with a reasonable opportunity to express concerns it may have, if any, regarding a prospective tenant. In the event Agency does express concerns, Developer agrees to meet and confer with 28 Agency prior to entering into the subject lease to discuss and attempt to address Agency concerns. 5. DEFAULTS, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION 5.1 Defaults - In General Subject to the extensions of time set forth in Section 7.4, failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. The party who fails or delays must immediately commence to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay and shall complete such cure, correction or remedy using its best efforts and all due diligence, and during any period of curing shall not be in default. The injured party shall give written notice of default to the party in default, specifying the default complained of by the injured party. Failure or delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default, nor shall it change the time of default. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any failures or delays by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies. Delays by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies shall not deprive either party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. 5.2 Legal Actions 5.2.1 Institution of Legal Actions In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Such legal actions must be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, in any other appropriate court of that county, or in the Federal District Court in the Southern District of California. 5.2.2 Applicable Law The Laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. 5.2.3 Acceptance of Service of Process 29 (a) In the event that any legal action is co~menced by the Developer against the Agency, service of process on the Agency shall be made by personal service upon the Executive Director or Chairman of the Agency, or in such other manner as may be provided by law. (b) In the event that any legal action is commenced by the Agency against the Developer, service of process on the Developer shall be made by personal service upon the Developer (or upon a general partner or officer of the Developer if an entity) and shall be valid whether made within or without the State of California, or in such manner as may be provided by law. 5.3 Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 5.4 Damages; Limitations Thereon 5.4.1. In General. I~ either party defaults with regard to any of. the provisions of this Agreement, the non- defaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not commenced to be cured within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of default and is not cured promptly in a continuous and diligent manner within a reasonabbe period of time after commencement, the defaulting party shall be liable to the non-defaulting party for any damages caused by such default, and the non-defaulting party may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for damages against the defaulting party with respect to such default. 5.4.2 Limitations. Agency's damages in the event of a Developer default prior to transfer of the Site shall be limited as provided in Section 2.3(c) hereof. Developer's damages in the event of an Agency default prior to transfer of the Site shall be limited to out-of-pocket costs not to exceed $50,000. In no event shall Developer be entitled to damages based on a claim for lost profits or opportunities. 5.5 Specific Performance 3O If either party defaults with regard to any of the provisions of this Agreement, the non-defaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not commenced to be cured within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of default and is not cured promptly in a continuous and diligent manner within a reasonable period of time after commencement the non-defaulting party, at its option, may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for specific performance of the terms of this Agreement pertaining to such default. 5.6 Remedies and Rights of Termination 5.6.1 Termination by the Developer In the event that prior to the conveyance of title to the Site to the Developer: (a) Agency, despite being in a position to do so, does not tender either conveyance of title to the Site or possession thereof, to the Developer in the manner and condition, and by the date provided in this Agreement; or {b) The conditions to close for Developer's benefit in Section 2.4.2 have not been satisfied despite Developer's diligent and good faith efforts; or (c) Agency is in default under this Agreement and has not cured such default, or reasonably commenced to cure within thirty {30) days after the date of written demand by the Developer; then this Agreement, at the option of the Developer, shall be terminated with respect to the Site, by written notice thereof to the Agency, and except to the extent provided in Section 2.12 of this Agreement, neither Agency nor Developer shall have any further rights against or liability to the other under this Agreement with respect to any unconveyed Parcels, or with respect to the entire Site if no Parcel has been conveyed. 5.6.2 Termination by Agency In the event that prior to the conveyance of title to the Site to the Developer: 31 (a) the Developer shall fail to timely make any report to the Agency on its progress in obtaining financing for the development on a Parcel as required by Section 2.13 of this Agreement, or to submit to the Agency the evidence of financing commitments referred to in Section 2.13 of this Agreement; or (b) the Developer (or any successor in interest) assigns or attempts to assign the Agreement or any right herein, or in the Site in violation of the terms of this Agreement (or portion thereof); or (c) the Developer does not submit any plans, drawings and related documents as required by this Agreement by the date provided in this Agreement therefor; or (d) the Developer does not pay the Purchase Price and take title to the applicable Parcel under a tender of conveyance by the Agency pursuant to this Agreement; or {e) the conditions to close for Agency's benefit set forth in Section 2.4.1 have not been satisfied despite Agency's good faith efforts; or (f) if any default or failure referred to in subdivisions (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this Section shall not be cured within thirty (30) days after the date of written demand by the Agency; then this Agreement and any rights of the Developer, or any assignee or transferee, in this Agreement, or arising therefrom with respect to the Agency, shall at the option of the Agency, be terminated with respect to any unconveyed Parcels, by written notice to the Developer, and except to the extent provided in Section 7.14, neither the Agency nor the Developer shall have any further rights against or liability to the other under this Agreement with respect to any unconveyed, Parcels, or with respect to the entire Site if no Parcel has been conveyed. 5.7 Riqht of Reentry The Agency shall have the right, at its option, to reenter and take possession of any Parcel (or portion thereof) with all improvements thereon, and to terminate and revest in the Agency the estate theretofore conveyed to the Developer if, after 32 conveyance of title to the Site and prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Completion pertaining to the Site (or portion thereof), the Developer (or its successors in interest) shall: (a) fail to commence or complete construction of the improvements on the Site (or portion thereof) as required by this Agreement for a period of three (3) months after written notice to proceed from the Agency, provided that the Developer shall not have obtained an extension or postponement to which the Developer may be entitled pursuant to Section 7'.4 hereof; or (b) abandon or substantially suspend construction of the improvements on the Site (or portion thereof) for a period of three {3) months after written notice of such abandonment or suspension has been given by the Agency to the Developer, provided the Developer has not obtained an extension or postponement to which the Developer may be entitled to pursuant to Section 7.4 hereof; or (c). assign or attempt to assign this Agreement, or any rights herein, or transfer, or suffer any involuntary transfer of the Site, or any part thereof, in violation of this Agreement, and such violation shall not be cured within thirty (30) days after the date of receipt of written notice thereof by the Agency to the Developer. Such right to reenter, repossess, terminate and revest shall be subject to and be limited by and shall not defeat, render invalid or limit: (a) any mortgage, deed of trust or other security interests permitted by this Agreement with respect to the applicable Parcel; (b) any rights or interests provided in this Agreement for the protection of the holders of such mortgages, deeds of trust or other security interests. The rights established in this Section 5.7 shall not apply to any parcel {or portion thereof) on which the improvements to be constructed thereon have been completed in accordance with the Agreement and for which a Certificate of Completion has been recorded therefor as provided in Section 3.7. The Grant Deed to the Site shall contain appropriate reference and provision to give effect to the Agency's right, as 33 set forth in this Section 5.7 under specified circumstances prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Completion, to reenter and take possessio.n of the Site, or any part thereof, with all improvements thereon, and to terminate and revest in the Agency the estate conveyed to the Developer. Upon the revesting in the Agency of title to the Site, or any part thereof, as provided in this Section 5.7 the Agency shall, pursuant to its responsibilities under state law, use its best efforts to resell the Site, or any part thereof, as soon and in such manner as the Agency shall find feasible and consistent with the objectives of Redevelopment Law and the Redevelopment Plan to a qualified and responsible party or parties (as determined by the Agency), who will assume the obligation of making or completing the improvements, or such other improvements in their stead, as shall be satisfactory to the Agency and in accordance with the uses specified for the Site, or any part thereof, in the Redevelopment Plan. Upon such resale of the Site, or any part thereof, the proceeds thereof shall be applied: (a) first, to pay off all liens and encumbrances and offsets for any Developer defaults; (b) second, to reimburse the Agency on its own behalf or on behalf of the City of all costs and expenses incurred by the Agency, including but not limited to salaries to personnel engaged in such action, in connection with the recapture, management and resale of the Parcel, or any part thereof (but less any income derived by the Agency from the sale of the Parcel, or any part thereof, in connection with such management); all taxes, assessments and water and sewer charges with respect to the Parcel or any part thereof (or, in the event the Parcel, or any part thereof, is exempt from taxation or assessment or such charges during the period of ownership, then such taxes, assessments or charges, as would have been payable if the Parcel, or part thereof, were not so exempt); any payments made or necessary to be made to discharge or prevent from attaching or being made any subsequent encumbrances or liens due to obligations, defaults or acts of the Developer, its successors or transferees; any expenditures made or obligations incurred with respect to the making or completion of the agreed improvements or any part thereof on the Parcel, or any part thereof; and any amounts otherwise owing to the Agency by the Developer and its successor or transferee. 34 (c) third, to return to Developer, without interest, any Developer equity Developer can demonstrate to Agency's reasonable satisfaction to have been invested in the Property or the Project. (d) Any balance remaining after such reimbursements shall be retained by the Agency as its property. The rights established in this Section 5.7 are to be interpreted in light of the fact that the Agency will convey the Site to the Developer for development and not for speculation in undeveloped land. 6. SECURITY FINANCING; RIGHT OF HOLDERS 6.1 No Encumbrances except Mortgages, Deeds of Trust, Conveyances and Leases-Back or Other Conveyance for Financing for Development After conveyance of title to the Site to the Developer, mortgages, deeds of trust, or any other form of conveyance required for any reasonable method of financing real estate acquisition, land development or construction, are permitted with respect to the Site before the recordation of the Certificate of Completion, but only for the purpose of securing loans of funds to be used for the construction of improvements on the Site, and any other expenditures necessary and appropriate to develop the Site under this Agreement. The Developer shall notify the Agency in advance of any mortgage, deed of trust, or other form of conveyance for financing, if the Developer proposes to enter into the same before the recordation of the Certificate of Completion. The Developer shall not enter into any such conveyance for financing without the reasonable prior written approval of the Agency Executive Director applying the standards set forth in Sections 2.4.1(a) and 2.13 hereof. Such lender approved by the Agency pursuant to this Section 6.1 shall not be bound by any amendment, implementation or modification to this Agreement subsequent to its approval without such lender giving its prior written consent. 6.2 Holder Not Obligated to Construct Improvements The holder of any mortgage, deed of trust or other security interest authorized by this Agreement shall not be obligated by the provisions of this Agreement to construct or complete the Project or to guarantee such construction or 35 completion; nor shall any covenants or any other provision in the grant deed be so construed as to so obligate such holder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to permit such holder to devote the Site to any uses, or to construct any improvements on the Site, other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement. 6.3 Notice of Default to Mortgage, Deed of Trust or Other Security Interest Holders; Right to Cure Whenever the Agency shall deliver any notice or demand to the Developer with respect to any breach or default by the Developer in completion of construction of the Project improvements, the Agency shall at the same time deliver to each holder of record of any mortgage, deed of trust or other security interest authorized by this Agreement a copy of such notice or demand. Each such holder shall (insofar as the rights of the Agency are concerned) have the right at its option within sixty (60) days after the receipt of the notice, to cure or remedy, or commence to cure or remedy, any such default and to add the cost thereof to the security interest debt and the lien of its security interest. If such default shall be a default which can only be remedied or cured by such holder upon obtaining possession, such holder shall be deemed to have timely cured or remedied if it commences the proceedings necessary to obtain possession within sixty (60) days of notice, and proceeds with diligence and continuity, through a receiver or otherwise, to obtain possession and diligently completes such cure or remedy. In the case of a default which cannot with diligence be remedied or cured, or the remedy or cure of which cannot be commenced within such sixty (60) day period, such holder shall have such additional time as reasonably necessary to remedy or cure such default with diligence and continuity; and provided further that such holder shall not be required to remedy or cure any non-curable default of the Developer. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to permit or authorize such holder to undertake or continue the construction or completion of the improvements (beyond the extent necessary to conserve or protect the improvements or construction already made) without first having expressly assumed the Developer's obligations to the Agency by written agreement satisfactory to the Agency. The holder, in that event, must agree to complete, in the manner provided in this Agreement, the improvements to which the lien or title of such holder related, and submit evidence satisfactory to the Agency that it has the qualifications and/or financial responsibility necessary to perform such obligations. Any such holder properly completing such 36 improvements shall be entitled, upon written request made to the Agency, to a Certificate of Completion from the Agency. 6.4 Failure of Holder to Complete Improvements In any case where, ninety (90) days after default by the Developer in completion of construction of improvements on any parcel under this Agreement, the holder of any mortgage, deed of trust or other security interest creating a lien or encumbrance upon such Parcel (or portion thereof) has not exercised the option to construct, or if it has exercised the option but has not proceeded diligently with construction, the Agency may purchase the mortgage, deed of trust or other security interest by payment to. the holder of the amount of the unpaid debt, plus any accrued and unpaid interest. If the ownership of the Parcel (or portion thereof) has vested in the holder, the Agency, if it so desires, shall be entitled to a conveyance from the holder to the Agency upon payment to the holder of an amount equal to the sum of the following: (a) The unpaid mortgage, deed of trust or other security interest debt at the time title became vested in the holder (less all appropriate credits, including those resulting from collection and application of rentals and other income received during foreclosure proceedings). (b) Ail out-of-pocket expenses actually incurred with respect to foreclosure, including reasonable attorneys fees. (c) The net expense, if any (exclusive of general overhead), incurred by the holder as a direct result of the subsequent ownership or management of the Parcel (or portion thereof), such as insurance premiums and real estate taxes. (d) The actual out-of-pocket cost of any improvements made by such holder. (e) An amount equivalent to the interest that would have accrued on the aggregate of such amounts had all such amounts become part of the mortgage or deed of trust debt and such debt had continued in existence to the date of payment by the Agency. 6.5 Right of the Agency to Cure Mortgage, Deed of 37 Trust, or Other Security Interest Default In the event of a default or breach by Developer under any mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument with respect to the Site, or any portion thereof, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion by the Agency with respect to the Site: (a) the holder of such security instrument shall give the Agency the same notice and cure rights to which Developer is entitled under the applicable loan documents; and (b) the Agency may cure the default prior to completion of any foreclosure. In such event, the Agency shall be immediately entitled to reimbursement from the Developer of all costs and expenses incurred by the Agency in curing the default. The Agency shall also be entitled to a lien upon the Site (or portion thereof) to the extent of such costs and disbursements. Any such lien shall be subordinate and subject to mortgages, deeds of trust, or other security instruments executed for the sole purpose of obtaining funds to purchase and develop the Site (or portion thereof) as authorized herein. 6.6 Right of the Agency to Satisfy Other Liens on the Property After Title Passes Prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Completion, and after the Developer has had a reasonable time to challenge, cure or satisfy any liens or encumbrances on the applicable Parcel (or any portion thereof), the Agency shall have the right to satisfy any such liens or encumbrances; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall require the Developer to pay or make provisions for the payment of any tax, assessment, lien or charge so long as the Developer in good faith shall contest the validity or amount thereof, and so long as such delay in payment shall not subject the Site (or any portion thereof) to forfeiture or sale. 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7.1 Notices, Demands and Communications between the Parties Formal notices, demands and communications between the Agency and the Developer shall be sufficiently given if dispatched by 38 registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal offices of the Agency and the Developer, as designated below. Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate in writing: Developer's Address for Notice: Carter Reese & Associates 3636 5th Avenue, Suite 300 San Diego, Ca. 92101 Attn: Thomas F. Carter Telephone: (619) 232-3200 Fax: (619) 699-4857 And Bitterlin Development Corporation 2245 San Diego Avenue Heritage Plaza Suite 121 P. O. Box 6746 San Diego, Ca. 92166 Attn: Christopher Bitterlin Telephone: (619) 718-6550 Fax: (619) 718-6555 Agency's Address for Notice: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 Attn: Chris Salomone, Community Development Director Byron Estes, Redevelopment Manager Miguel Tapia, Principal Community Development Specialist Telephone: (619) 691-5047 FAX: (619) 476-5310 Copy to: Glen R. Googins, Assistant City Attorney 7.2 Conflicts of Interest (a) No member, official or employee of the Agency shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such member, official or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his personal interests or the interests of any 39 corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested. (b) The Developer warrants that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. This paragraph shall not be construed to apply to the payment of attorneys' fees and other consultant costs. 7.3 Nonliability of the Agency Officials and Employees No member, official, employee or consultant ofthe Agency shall be personally liable to the Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Agency or for any amount which may become due to the Developer or to its successor, or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement. 7.4 Time is of the Essence; Enforced Delay: Extension of Time of Performance Time is of the essence with respect to each and every obligation hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lock-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, lack of transportation, governmental restrictions, litigation, unusually severe weather, inability to secure necessary labor, materials or tools, delays of any contractor, subcontractor or supplies, acts of the other party, acts or failure to act of the City or any other public or governmental agency or entity (other than that act or failure to act of the Agency). An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within thirty {30) days of knowledge of the commencement of the cause. Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by mutual agreement of the Agency and the Developer. 7.5 Inspection of Books and Records The Agency shall have the right after reasonable notice and at all reasonable times during normal business hours to inspect the books and records of the Developer pertaining to the Site and 40 each Parcel as pertinent to the purposes of this Agreement. The Developer shall also have the right after reasonable notice and at all reasonable times during normal business hours to inspect the books and records of the Agency pertaining to the Site and each Parcel as pertinent to the purposes of this Agreement. 7.6 Approvals Approvals required of the Agency or the Developer shall not be unreasonably withheld except as otherwise provided herein, or otherwise required by law. 7.7 Real Estate Commissions The Agency shall not be liable for any real estate commissions, brokerage fees or finders fees which may arise from the sale of the Site or any Parcel to the Developer. The Agency and the Developer each represent to the other that it has employed no broker, agent, or finder in connection with. this transaction and each agrees to indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any and all claims by such a party through Agency or Developer against the other. 7.8 No Third Party Beneficiary The terms and provisions herein contained shall be only for the benefit of the parties hereto and such terms and conditions shall not inure to the benefit of any other party whosoever, it being the intention of the parties hereto that no one shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary of this Agreement. 7.9 Developer's Representation Each entity comprising Developer and the individuals signing on behalf of each entity, respectively, represents and warrants that Chris Bitterlin and Mark Bitterlin are the sole shareholders of Bitterlin Development Corporation, a California corporation, and that Tom Carter and Reese Jarrett , are the sole general partners of REESE JARRETT AND ASSOCIATES, a California general partnership, and that such will remain the case throughout the development of the Project. Any transfer of any interest in Developer or an affiliate entity that changes this ownership shall be treated as an assignment of this Agreement subject to Agency approval as provided in Section 3.3 hereof. Developer acknowledges and agrees that Agency is looking to the experience and expertise of Tom Carter, Reese Jarrett, Chris Bitterlin and Mark Bitterlin 41 -lOG for Developer's performance of its obligations under this Agreement. 7.10 Covenants to Run with Land. Ail covenants contained in this Agreement pertaining to the use of the Site or any Parcel thereof shall run with the land and shall be binding for the benefit and in favor of the Agency, the City, and their respective successors and assigns. The City and the Agency, in the event of any breach of any such covenants, shall have the right to exercise any and all remedies provided hereunder or otherwise available at law or in equity in order to enforce compliance with such covenants. 7.11 Recordation of DDA or Memorandum of DDA Agency reserves the right, at its election, to cause the recordation of this Agreement or a Memorandum thereof which Developer agrees to execute and acknowledge. The recordation of a Certificate of Completion shall operate to remove the effect of this Agreement or any Memorandum thereof upon the real property described in that Certificate of Completion. 7.12 Compliance with Laws; Disclosure Developer shall comply with all laws relating to the marketing and sale of the Lane Homes units, including, as applicable, disclosure of the existence of the CC&Rs and any land use restrictions. 7.13 Third Party Legal Challenge to Agreement or Entitlements (a) In the event that any court action or other legal proceeding is brought by any person not a party to this Agreement to challenge this Agreement, the granting of any Entitlements or the fulfillment of any condition to the obligations of the parties hereto, and without regard to whether or not the Developer or the Agency is a party to said action or proceeding, provided that Developer is not otherwise in default hereunder, Developer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement and obtain the return of its Deposit upon thirty (30) days' notice in writing to Agency and Escrow Agent gfven at any time during the pendency of such action or proceeding prior to the conveyance of the Site to Developer. (b) In the event of such a challenge, if this Agreement is not terminated, Developer and Agency shall meet and confer to 42 discuss how to respond to such challenge. If the parties agree to defend against such challenge, or defense costs are otherwise reasonably incurred by Agency or City prior to such determination, Developer shall indemnify the Agency and the City for all expenses, including attorneys' fees, to defend the City or the Agency from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, the Agency or their agents officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any Entitlements or condition to the obligations of the parties hereto. The City and the Agency shall promptly notify Developer of any such claim, action or proceeding. For purposes of this Section, the Developer acknowledges that the term "attorneys' fees" includes the reasonable costs incurred by the City or Agency in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding by the City Attorney or his staff. (c) In the event of a successful challenge of the legality of this Agreement or any implementing documents, this Agreement and all implementing documents shall terminate and no party shall have any further obligation thereunder. 7.14 Prohibition Against Real Estate Speculation. The purpose of the Agency in entering into this Agreement is to facilitate the redevelopment of the Site and it is not to assist in land assembly for purposes of resale or speculation. Section 33437 of Redevelopment Law prohibits real estate speculation, in particular as to Agency parcels conveyed hereunder. Any speculation by Developer is strictly prohibited and is a basis for legal action hereunder. A memorandum of DDA is required hereunder to be recorded and remain an exception to tile prior, superior, and non-subordinate to other exceptions to title, in part, in order to carry out the objectives of Section 33347 and other applicable provisions of Redevelopment Law. 7.15 Entire Agreement; ENA Superseded. This Agreement shall be executed in three duplicate originals each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement includes pages and Exhibits which constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the Site, including, without limitation the ENA. 7.16 No Merger. None of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions set forth in this Agreement shall be deemed to be 43 merged with the Grant Deed conveying title to the Site and this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect with respect to the Site before and after conveyance until after a Certificate of Completion for the applicable Parcel as provided in Section 3.4 is recorded. 7.17 Waivers/Amendment in Writinq. Ail waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Agency or the Developer, and all amendments hereto must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Agency and the Developer. 8. TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT BY THE AGENCY; DATE OF AGREEMENT This Agreement, when executed by the Developer and delivered to the Agency, must be authorized, executed and delivered by the Agency within sixty (60) days after this Agreement is signed by the Developer, or this Agreement may be terminated by the Developer on written notice to the Agency. [NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE 44 SIGNATURE PAGE TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT [760 Broadway] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby enter into this Agreement effective as of the date first written above. The effective date of this Agreement shall be October , 2002. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE BITTERLIN DEVELOPMENT CITY OF CHULA VISTA CORPORATION By: Stephen C. Padilla, Chair Chris G. Bitterlin, President ATTEST By: Secretary Mark D. Bitterlin, Secretary Approved as to form CARTER REESE AND ASSOCIATES By: [Print Name and Title] Ann Moore, Agency Attorney By: [Print Name and Title] j:/Attorney/agree/DDA760 Broadway 45 EXHIBIT A Site Description [To be inserted] 46 Locator Map 760 Broadway N Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista /[ Community Development Department Disposition and Development Agreement F_, Carter Reese & Assodates/Bitterlin Development Scale: 1:5,000 ,.~ EXHIBIT B Scope of Development [To be inserted] 47 EXHIBIT C Schedule 48 Exhibit "C" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE 1. Submittal of Agreement. Agreement Fourteen (14) days prior to the joint public is submitted to the Agency for public hearing of the City Council and Agency Board hearing, consideration, and action, on the Agreement. 2. Execution of Agreement by Prior approval of the Agreement by the Developer. Developer shall execute Agency, if approved. the Agreement and deliver three (3) executed copies of the Agreement to the Agency. 3. Execution of Agreement by Agency. Within seven (7) after approval of the Agency shall execute the Agreement Agreement by the Agency. and deliver one (1) copy of this Agreement to the Developer. 4. Submission of Basic Concept Prior to or concurrent with Date of this Drawings. The Developer shall Agreement. (Discuss) prepare and submit to the Agency Basic Concept Drawings for all Phases of the Project as more fully set forth in Section of the Agreement. 5. Submission of Schematic Drawings. March 1,2003 The Developer shall prepare and submit to the Agency Schematic Drawings including materials board, site plan, elevations, preliminary and a landscaping plan as required for design review approval for all Phases of the Project as more fully set forth in Section of the Agreement. 6. Approval - Schematic Basic Concept Within 45 days of receipt by the Agency of Drawings. The Agency shall approve complete submittal of Schematic Drawings* or disapprove the Schematic Drawings. 7. Opening of Escrow. The Developer Within 5 days of Agency approval of the and Agency shall open Escrow for Agreement Site Conveyance. 8. Conditions Precedent Developer Prior to close of Escrow for each applicable satisfies all of the Conditions Conveyance. Precedent to the applicable Phase Conveyance. 9. Closin~ of Escrow. The Agency shall Within five (5) days after the date the cause the conveyance of the applicable Developer satisfies all of the applicable Phase Parcels to the Developer. Conditions Precedent to Conveyance, but in no event later than December 31,2003. 10. Submission - 50% Complete Final Within sixty (60) days after the closing of Construction Drawings and 100% Escrow. Complete Landscaping Plans and 100% Complete Grading Plans. Developer shall prepare and submit to the Agency and City 50% Complete Final Construction Drawings and 100% Complete Landscaping Plans and 100% Complete Grading Plans for the applicable Phase Improvements. 11. Approval - 50% Complete Final Within thirty (30) days after receipt by the Construction Drawings and Plans. Agency and City.* The Agency shall approve (or disapprove) and exercise reasonable efforts to cause City to approve (or disapprove) the 50% Complete Final Construction Drawings and 100% Complete Landscaping Plans and 100% Complete Grading Plans for the applicable Phase Improvements. 12. Submission - 100% Complete Final Within sixty (60) days after the Agency and Construction Drawings. The the City approve the 50% Complete Final Developer shall prepare and submit to Construction Drawings for the applicable the Agency and City 100% Complete Phase Improvements. Final Construction Drawings for the applicable Phase Improvements. 13. Approval - 100% Complete Final Within thirty (30) days after receipt by the Construction Drawings and Plans. Agency and City.* The Agency shall approve (or disapprove) and exercise good faith reasonable efforts to cause City to approve (or disapprove) the 100% Complete Final Construction Drawings for the applicable Phase Improvements. PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: ~ MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER (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 A (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 WITH ASSOCIATED SUPPORT SERVICES; (2) ONE MANAGER'S APARTMENT; (3) 2,219 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND (4) REDUCTIONS IN SETBACKS, PARKING AND OPEN SPACE LOCATED 825 BROADWAY TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE METROPOLITAN AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAAC) PROJECT. 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 REZONING 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 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 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 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 (MAAC) PROJECT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED 42 UNIT PROJECT LOCATED AT 825 BROADWAY D BY: PLANNING AND BUILD!NO DIRECTOR~ REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ~,/~ ~-~ 4/5THS VOTE: YES ~ NO ~ PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC) Project is a not-for-profit social service agency that specializes in the development of housing for Iow-income individuals and families. MAAC Project is proposing a mixed-use project on a 1-acre site located at 825-841 Broadway. The site is located directly to the west of the existing Chula Vista Learning Community Charter School, on the corner of Sierra and Broadway. The site is being leased from the Chula Vista Elementary School District for a term of 75 years. The project, commonly known as Seniors on Broadway, ("Project") will include 41 one-bedroom units affordable to very-low income seniors and 1 ~wo-bedroom manager's unit. The community space (6,100 sq. ft.) and retail (2,200 sq. ft.) portions of the Project's ground floor will comprise approximately 8,300 square feet of the building's total 40,000 square feet. The lessees for the commercial/retail space have yet to be identified. The Project has been designed in cooperation with the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Chula Vista Learning Charter School with the purpose of implementing an intergenerational exchange program. Ground floor community space including a community room, library and service kitchen will provide the facilities to operate "Generations Together," a program to cultivate the intergenerational exchange of experience be~veen the senior residents and the students of the adjacent Charter School. Examples of activities that will be provided include culinary arts, arts and crafts, computer technology and graphic arts training. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposal. During the public review and comment period for the draft Negative Declaration, a comment letter was received from a member of the public, which will be further discussed under the Community Response section of the staff report. The comment letter and staff's written rbsponses are provided in Attachment 3. RECOMMENDATION That the Cih/Council and Redevelopment Agency take the following actions: a) Adopt the City Council Ordinance adopting the Negative Declaration and Precise Plan; b) Adopt the City Council Ordinance amending the zoning map; c) Adopt the Redevelopment Agency resolution approving the mixed-use project and the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement with the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the MAAC Project; d) Approve the City Council resolution conditionally approving financial assistance for the 41 affordable senior units PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION The Housing Advisory Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the MAAC Project development and financial assistance for the Project on February 26, 2003 and on April 23, 2003 respectively. Following extensive discussion of the adequacy of the proposed off-street parking, the Resource Conservation Commission recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration on April 7, 2003. The Design Review Committee provided comments at ~wo informal reviews of the Project conducted on November 18, 2002 and March 3, 2003. The DRC recommended approval of the Project on April 21, 2003. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project on May 14, 2003. DISCUSSION The project site is located at 825 Broadway between Sierra Way and 'K' Street and is currently vacant. The site is owned by the Chulo Vista Elementary School District and is adjacent to the Chula Vista Charter School's recreation field. The project is a combined Rezone and Precise Plan proposal for an urban in-fill mixed-use project that will be developed by the MAAC Project. The proposed project is one of ~wo mixed-use projects currently proposed along Broadway. The other mixed-use project is proposed to be located at 760 Broadway and would be comprised of 40 lane homes and nine loft apartments above retail/commercial uses. The project requires a Precise Plan in order to develop a functional mixed-use development on the 1-acre property. The project will provide affordable housing for senior citizens and introduce new commercial/retail uses that could potentially compliment the existing uses in the area. The Precise Plan will allow flexibility of the development standards that would enable the developer to develop the lot. The rezone from the C-T-P zone to the C-C-P zone is necessary because the latter zone allows for mixed-use development. 1. COMMUNITY RESPONSE During the public review and comment period for the draft Negative Declaration, a comment letter was received from a member of the public, which raised concerns related to traffic at the Chub Vista Learning Community Charter School and a variety of other issues. In response, staff requested that members of the City of Chula Vista Police Department School Resource division monitor the school during the morning drop-off period. On ~wo separate occasions, three officers were sent to the site to monitor the traffic, during which some traffic congestion was noted on Sierra Way but no other significant issues were found In addition, staff received phone calls from the public regarding issues related to traffic, parking and design. In particular, one member of the public was concerned that they had received notice regarding the community meeting and the draft negative declaration but not the Planning PAGE 4, ITEM HO..' MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 Commission public hearing. Staff researched this issue, and it was determined that the mailing list that was prepared for the community meeting and draft Negative Declaration had included an expanded area that extended beyond the legally required 500 foot radius. The mailing that occurred for the Planning Commission hearing only included the statutorily required properties. Therefore, in order to clarify the notice issue and provide the affected residents with adequate time and opportunity to review the details of the Project, staff held a community meeting on May 29 that was attended by 8 neighborhood residents, including the individual who submitted the environmental comment letter. Additionally, the public hearing was postponed from the June 3 Redevelopment Agency/City Council meeting to June 10. The residents are still concerned about the development and its impact on their homes, but as a result of the May 29th meeting have a better understanding of the Project. Seniors on Broadway is bordered by K Street to the north, Sierra Way to the South, Broadway to the west and the Chula Vista Charter School to the east. The properly is currently undeveloped, and the surrounding area is commercial and residential. 3. GENERAL PLANf ZONINGr AND LAND USE General Plan Zoning Current Land Use Site: Retail C-T-P Vacant North: Retail C-T Courtney Tires/Furniture Store South: Retail C-T Mortuary East: Retail C-T-P Charter School 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project will be developed on a 1-acre site within the City's Southwest Redevelopment Area. The Project includes: (1) 41 affordable to Iow-income apartments for senior citizens; (2) one manager's apadm~mt; (3} 2,219 square feet of retail space; (4) 6,100 square feet of community and common open space on-site; (5) a Social Services annex; and (6) 45 on-site parking spaces. Additional parking spaces will be located on Broadway to provide parking for the patrons of the retail uses. Seniors on Broadway will have direct access from Broadway by a driveway located at the north end of the Project site. The Project has been designed as a three-story "U' shape building with retail/commercial at ground level and residential on the second and third levels. The parking area is adjacent and north of the building, and is screened from view along Broadway by an architecturally designed wall that will connect the social services kiosk at the northwest corner of the site to the main building. Each apartment will have a floor area of 534 square feet and will include one bedroom. The manager's apartment will have a floor area of 814 square feet with mo-bedrooms. The PAGE 5, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 apartments will be located above the retail/commercial uses and will reach a height of approximately 35 feet. The Project will provide 6,100 square feet of omsite open space. The open space includes a large courtyard, community room, lounge area, and library. The Charter School's recreation field will provide additional off-site open space for use by the Project residents. The proposed social services annex will provide services and programs to assist the on-site residents. Other on-site improvements include landscaping, lighting, drainage facilities and paved parking. 5. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The proposed C-C-P zone would allow mixed-use projects when the residential developments meet the P,-3 zone development standards identified in the following table: Standards (C-C Zone) Minimum Required Proposed Front Yard Setback 25 feet Retail-Apt: 5 feet* Ext. Side Yard Setback None None Pear Yard Setback: None None Height: 45 feet Retail-Apt: 35 feet Parking (off-street)**: 74 spaces 45 On-site* Minimum Standards (R-3 Zone) Required Proposed Front Yard Setback 15 feet Apartments: 6 feet (incl. balconies}* Side Yard Setbacks 17 feet Apartments: 5 feet* Rear Yard Setback 15 feet Apartments: 6 feet* Height 28 feet Apartments: 35.5 feet* Parking 63 spaces Apartments: 35 spaces* *Requested flexibility from the CC and 1~-3 zones per Sections 19.56.0~-0 and 19.56.041 of the CVMC. ** Requested flexibility from Section 19.58.205(D), independent residential/commercial parking, per Sections 19.56.040 and 041of the CVMC. 6. ANALYSIS The Project has been evaluated in accordance with the Chula Vista Design Manual (CVDM), the Zoning Ordinance and the applicable provisions of the General Plan. The General Plan (Chapter 10 Section 5.9) states that medium to high density residential development is potentially desirable along certain sections of Broadway. The General Plan states that mixed-use development should consider access, appropriate setbacks and screening from any adjacent non-compatible uses, and that implementation of this policy should consider a special zone or land use overlay that would establish specific development criteria for project design. Staff believes the project as described is consistent with the General Plan, however as designed to maximize the use of the site with a functional mixed-use project is deficient in meeting the setback, residential parking and open space requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. City Council PAGE 6, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 Ordinance development standards. Rezone The proposed rezone from the C-T-P zone to the C-C-P zone is requested by the developer and property owner because the C-C- P zone allows mixed-use development while the C-T-P zone does not. Both zones are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element, which designates this area retail commercial. The CC zone will contribute to the public convenience and general welfare by further assisting the Ci~/'s efforts to satisfy the goals and objectives of Redevelopment Agency and Chapter 10, Section 5.9, of the General Plan. Precise Plan Section 19.56.041 (B) states that the property or area to which the P modifying district is applied, is adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different uses, and the development of the Precise Plan will allow the area designated to coexist be~veen land uses which might otherwise prove incompatible. The zones surrounding the site include Thoroughfare Commercial (C-T) to the north and south, which allows a variety of retail and commercial uses, and Thoroughfare Commercial, Precise Plan (C-T-P) to the east, which is the Chula Vista Charter School. Single- family dwellings are further to the east. The rite is requested to be zoned Central Commercial with a Precise Plan modifier (C-C-P), it is also subject to the development standards of the C-C and R-3 zone because the Project is a mixed-use retail/commercial and residential development. The existing development standards limit the developer's potential to maximize the use of the site with the Proiect. The proiect has been designed with a high density residential concept with building encroachments into the required setbacks, reduced common open space, reduced on-site parking spaces, and the incorporation of a combined residential and retail parking area. These deviations are warranted given the constraints to the site and the intent to develop the site with a functional use to meet the policies of the General Plan. The mixed-use project's site design allows the proposed uses to function cohesively with the surrounding uses, while visually and economically enhancing the area and promoting a beneficial development for the general welfare of the citizens in the area and the City. The Precise Plan can allow the Project to deviate from the development standards in an effort to develop the site with a feasible mixed-use Project. Buildin,q Setbacks Without the Precise Plan the Project will be subject to the proposed C-C zone 25-foot front yard setback requirement. The Project proposes a building setback of 6 feet front from the public right-of-way along Broadway. The balconies for the apartments facing Broadway will also encroach into this setback. The Project does not meet the building setback standards because of the size of the site and the proposed site design, which is intended to characterize an urban mixed-use development. However, the Project's proposed front yard setback is similar to the setbacks of other retail/commercial buildings along Broadway, and would be in keeping with the General Plan goals of creating a more intensive urban environment along Broadway. The PAGE 7, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 Precise Plan can allow for the reduction in the setback standards. Porkinq The site will contain residential and retail uses that have specific parking requirements as noted in the Development Standards Table above. Based on the residential uses and retail/commercial square footage, the CVMC requires 74 parking spaces for the Project. Additionally, the code requires that residential and retail parking need to be independent. However, the lot size and project design limits the project's ability to satisfy the number of parking spaces and separate residential and retail parking requirements on-site. The Precise Plan would allow for the reduction of on-site parking. The Proiect proposes a total of 45 parking spaces on-site. Approximately 34 spaces will be for residential use, and the remaining 11 spaces will be for retail/commercial parking for the project. Additional on-street parking will be available along Broadway and Sierra Way. The curbside parking is limited to 2-hour parking and car~ be used for loading, patrons and residents or guests. The developer's request for a reduction in the parking standards from the required 1.5 to .5 per residential unit is necessitated by the lot size, the project's design, other on-site requirements (trash enclosures, open space} and the mixed-use nature of the project. Additionally, there is a bus line that services the site in 15-minute intervals. Parking for the Project is shown in the table below. MAAC Seniors on Broadway Parking Table Parking Type Parking Project Proposed Additional Standard Requirement On-street parking Retail/Commercial 1:200 sq.ft. 11 11 12-Shared* Residential 1.5:1 du 63 21 (.5:1 du} 12-Shared* Supplemental N/A N/A 13 12-Shared* Residential *Based on the 288 linear foot distance of the properly along Broadway and ~/pical standard curbside parking spaces. The strict application of the C'ty s parking standards would make the proposed Project infeasible. The City has approved other mixed-use projects including Main Plaza which required a reduction in parking standards. To determine whether the proposed parking reduction was reasonable in this case, staff contacted two other cities in San Diego County, with similar urban characteristics, regarding the parking standards for senior housing developments. The City of La Mesa evaluates parking for senior projects on a case-by-case basis. A development of 129 units was approved with a .4 parking space per unit, and another project of 81 units was approved using a .5 space per unit. The City of El Cajon uses a .5 space per unit standard for all senior and disabled developments. Although the developments illustrated above were strictly senior housing developments, and not necessarily mixed-use projects, they provide a standard for what other local jurisdictions have determined to be acceptable. Since neither city indicated that they were experiencing problems with the .5 space per unit ratio for senior housing projects, staff recommended that standard to the Planning Commission, and the Commission voted to forward that standard to Council for PAGE 8, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 adoption as part of the precise plan. Although, the City has not previously approved affordable housing developments with this level of reduced parking, based upon the income level of the residents, the availability of public transportation, availability of a shuttle provided by the MAAC Project, the limited amount of retail/commercial space, and the limited size of the development site staff supports the proposed parking ratio. Common Open Space The Project will provide approximately 6,100 square feet of common open space on-site for the residents. The open space consists an open landscaped courtyard, library, community room and lounges. Without the Precise Plan, the residential component of the mixed-use project is subject to the R-3 zone development standards. In this case, the common open space requirement is 400 square feet per unit (400 s.f. x 42 units = 16,800 s.f.), therefore; the Project does not meet the common open space standard. However, the Precise Plan can allow for variations from the common open space standard. Staff is recommending approval of the variation in the open space standard for the three related reasons: 1) The restrictions on occupancy of this Project to very-low income seniors; 2) the amenities provided that are geared toward the intended residents; and 3) the availability of adjacent school grounds during non-school hours. The Chula Vista Elementary School District and developer have entered into a written agreement stating that the residents can use the Charter School's activity field adjacent to the Project for outdoor activities. 7. AFFORDABILITY The developer is proposing to pursue tax credit financing to fund a portion of this Project. For tax credit financing, Section 142 of the Internal Revenue Services Code, requires a minimum of twenty percent of the rental units in the Proiect to be available for occupancy by persons or families whose income does not exceed 50 percent of the median income for the San Diego Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, or alternatively, at least 40 percent of the rental units are required to be available for occupancy by persons or families whose income does not exceed 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the Area. In each case, the units are to be made available at affordable rents established by the applicable State law. It is proposed that all 41 units will be affordable to and restricted for occupancy by very Iow- income senior households of 62 years and older. Therefore, 21 units will be affordable to very Iow-income occupants at 50 percent of AMI, (currently $31,900 a year for a family of four) and the remaining 20 units will be available to very Iow-income households at 45 percent of AMI, (currently $28,700 a year for a family of four). The restricted rents will be based upon HUD income limits established for the current fiscal year. 45% 20 $507 $691 $121,680 50% 21 $576 $691 $145,152 Manager's Unit 1 $676 $877 $8,112 PAGE 9, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 00/10/03 It is proposed that the income, rent, and age restridions for the Seniors on Broadway development will be maintained for a period not less than fifty-five years, as is required by the State Tax Allocation Committee (TCAC). The income and rent restrictions outlined above are to be incorporated into the Regulatory and Loan Agreements for both the tax credits and the City Loan, which will be recorded against the property. The affordable housing commitment will bind all subsequent owners of Seniors on Broadway, so that the commitment remains in force regardless of ownership, except in limited circumstances following a default and foreclosure on the Project. The Regulatory Agreement between the Housing Authority and the developer for the tax credit financing will restrict 100 percent of the units, excepting the manager's unit, (41units} for occupancy by very Iow-income households at 50 percent or less of AMI. The restriction of these units will be allocated through the 107 remaining units per Proposition C, which authorized the development, construction and acquisition of 400 units of housing for persons of Iow-income (Article XXXIV of the State Constitution). The Tax Credit financing will also require an independent regulatory agreement restricting units for occupancy by very Iow-income households and will also require a regulatory audit and annual tax credit certification. Compliance with strict property management policies and procedures will also ensure that income and rent restrictions will be maintained for the full 55-year compliance period. 8. PROPOSED FINANCING OF PROJECT Financing and development of this Project is a joint private-public partnership. The developer will be using Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing to support the majority of the estimated $5.5 million cost of constructing the Project. MAAC Project will apply for approximately $3.8 million in Low Income Housing Tax Credits. This will cover approximately 69 percent of the total development costs. With rents restricted to 45 and 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) for a period of 55 years, the net operating income is insufficient to support a loan large enough to cover the project costs. Therefore, there remains a financing gap of approximately $1.7million. It is proposed that the remaining financing gap of $1.7million will be met by a combination of developer equity, State Affordable Housing Program funds, private funds, and City assistance. The developer has committed to deferring 4 percent of their fee as the developer of the Project for a total of $22,955. The MAAC Project has requested direct financial assistance of approximately $300,000, or $7,317 per unit, from the City to close this financing gap. Staff is recommending that the City conditionally approve financial assistance, subject to future appropriation, in the form of a residual receipts loan in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to be financed through the City's Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Home Investment Partnership Program funds. Every year the City receives funds that must be used solely by a "certified" Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). This year the City released a Request for Proposals for $500,000 in CHDO funds. The MAAC Project was the only organization to respond. PAGE 10, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 I Cost Funds I Fiflancing Gap Project Cost: $ 5,461,594 Sources of Funds: Tax Credit Financing $ 3,796,229 Permanent Loan $ 1,142,410 Affordable Housing Program $ 200,000 Subtotal $ 5,138,639 $ 322,955 Subsidies: Developer Deferred Fee $ 22,955 City Subsidy (HOME) $ 300,000 ,Subtotal $ 322,955 TOTAL $ 5,461,594 $ 5,461,594 $ ~ost per Unit (41Units) $ 133,210 City Subsidy per Unit $ 7,317 City Leverage $18 to $1 Project Development Costs Development costs are one of the key variables determining the need for subsidies. It is important that those costs be reasonable. At a total project cost of approximately $5.5 million including land, the average residential unit cost of approximately $133,210 is consistent with lypical affordable new construction for smaller senior developments. Subsidy Analysis The degree of leveraging of City Housing funds is an important factor which staff takes into account in the evaluation of affordable housing proposals. In evaluating a proposal, staff reviews the developer's track record, success in securing public and private financing, ability to complete proiects on time and on budget and demonstrated ability to highly leverage City funds. The MAAC Proiect has successfully demonstrated these qualities in other previously developed affordable housing projects including the Laurel Tree Apartments in Carlsbod, the San Martin de Porres housing development in San Diego, and the award winning Mercado Project in Barrio Logan. In most cases staff has been using a minimum of 5 1o 1 ratio as a general leveraging standard of City funds, which encourages developers 1o be more competitive and creative. The proposed City's assistance to this Project equates to an average of $7,317 per unit and amounts to a very high leveraging of $18 in private funds for every $1 of City funds. Form of Assistance City assistance will be provided in the form of a residual receipts loan secured by a promissory note and deed of trust. Repayment of the loan will be deferred during construction. Once the City has issued a certificate of occupancy for all the units, the outstanding principal and interest PAGE 11. ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 on the loan will be amortized over fifty-five years. The outstanding balance shall accrue with simple interest at 3 percent per annum. Payment of principal and interest, or portions thereof, on the City loan shall be made on an annual basis, out of a fund equal to fifty (50%) percent of the net cash flow of the Project after debt service on bonds, payment of deferred developer fee, and reasonable operating expenses have been paid (Residual Receipts). 9. DEVELOPMENT RISKS In its role as lender to the Project, the City is exposed to three risks inherent to real estate development. These risks generally include: 1} Predevelopment-project does not get to construction, 2) Construction-project cannot be completed, cost overruns, contractor problems, and 3) Operation-revenues do not cover expenses. Adding to these risks, the City's financial assistance will be subordinated to conventional financing. While the City is vulnerable and may face the loss of its loan due to its subordinated financing, subordination is necessary to attract the private financing for the majority of the development costs. A number of factors mitigate these risks. First, the development team has significant experience and an excellent track record. The presence of other major financial commitments, such as the tax credit investments, means that other stakeholders depend on the short and long-term success of the project. By its nature, affordable housing presents some, but very limited market risk because of the deeply discounted rents. There is significant demand for these units and the vacancy rate is Iow. The revenue base is very reliable. The operating costs of the Project are standard. Should problems occur, the City will be involved with the Developer to assure proper handling. 10. CONDITIONS OF FUNDING It is recommended that funding for Seniors on Broadway be conditional as follows: 1. Approval of other Funding: Developer must secure all other funding necessary to fund the Project. 2. Maximum Funding Level: The City assistance is based upon information presented within the Affordable Housing Review Application for the Proiect as submitted by the MAAC Project. It is expected that any substantive revisions in the financing assumptions, which would lead to an increase in other resources available, would therefore reduce the level of City assistance. The City assistance is a maximum level of participation. 3. Environmental Review and Land Use Approvals: All necessary review and approvals must be obtained. 4. Properly Management: Developer must select a qualified property management firm to manage the Project. 5. Successful negotiation of an agreement with the City, which includes, among other things, the following: PAGE 12, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 Project. b) The loan repayment will be secured by a Deed of Trust and Promissory note for the property on behalf of the City of Chula Vista and recorded against the Project property. c) The term of the loan shall be fifty-five (55} years. d) The outstanding balance shall accrue with simple interest at 3 percent per annum. e) Payment of principal and interest on the City loan shall be made, on an annual basis, out of a fund equal to fifty percent (50%} of the "Residual Receipts", rental income from the Project minus debt service on the bonds, payment of the deferred developer fee, and reasonable operating expenses. f} Developer will be required to operate the Project consistent with the Regulatory Agreement required by the Project's tax credit financing, the covenants imposed by the Agreement, and any other project requirements. g) Developer shall enter into a loan agreement with the City consistent with the terms set forth above and with such other terms as shall be required or approved by the City Attorney. h) This conditional approval remains subject to final approval by the City in its sole discretion. 1 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Seniors on Broadway Proiect for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS- 03-008 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the initial study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Chula Vista, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Negative Declaration, IS-03-008. 12. CONCLUSION The mixed-use Project is a unique urban-infill project that introduces new retail and affordable residential uses along Broadway. The Project's design and intent to maximize the use of the site with a functional development precludes the Project from meeting the development standards in the C-C zone. However, due to the type and design of the project staff is recommending approval of the deviations requested through the Precise Plan. Staff believes that the Proiect will enhance the area and potentially become a model for architectural design for future PAGE 13, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/10/03 approve the Rezone and Precise Plan. Staff also recommends that the City Council approve the resolution conditionally approving financial assistance, subject to future appropriation, in an amount not-to-exceed $300,000 from the City's HOME funds. Staff's recommendation is based upon the following: · The proposal's effectiveness in serving the City's housing needs and priorities as expressed in the Housing Element of the General Plan and the HUD Consolidated Plan. The intent of the City to attempt to provide affordable housing opportunities to households earning at or below 50% of AMI in order to receive future credits as outlined in the Housing Element of the General Plan. FISCAL IMPACT The loan amount of $300,000 will be appropriated at the time of execution of the City Loan Agreement, Regulatory Agreement, Deed of Trust, and Promissory Note for the Community Housing Development Organization Home Investment Partnership Program. Funds for staff services are budgeted in the staff services portion of the Housing Division budget. ATTACHMENTS 1. LocatorMap 2. Negative Declaration 3. Comment Letter on Negative Declaration IS-03-008 and Staff Response Letter J:\COMMDEV~STAFF.REP\06-10-03~AAAC Projec! Seniors on Broadway. doc ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULAVISTAADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS- 03-008) AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REZONING 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 I. RECITALS WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a rezone was filed on July 31,2002, with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by the Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC) ("Developer"); and WHEREAS, the Developer requests to rezone 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 in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area for the purpose of a mixed-use development of the subject property and diagrammatically represented in Exhibit 'A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator prepared a Negative Declaration IS-03- 008 and has determined the rezone and proposed mixed-use proiect following the approval of the rezone will not be a significant impact to the environment and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration IS-03-008; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2003, the Resource Conservation Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration IS-03-02; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2003, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-2 to recommend that the City Council adopt the negative declaration and approve the rezoning; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said rezone and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to properly owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely on June 10, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and II. The City Council of the City Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds that the rezoning provided for herein is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that public necessity, convenience, Ordinance No. Page 2 general welfare, and good zoning practice support the rezoning to C-C-P (Central Commercial, Precise Plan) zone. SECTION 2: CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the Negative Declaration [1~)3-008) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Qualify Action (CEQA), the State CEQA Guideline] and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration (IS-03-008). SECTION 3: INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council does hereby find that in the exercise of their independent review and judgment, the Negative Declaration [IS-03-008) in the form presented has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and does hereby adopt-re same. SECTION 4: The City of Chula Vista Zoning Map is hereby amended to rezone the subject property, at 825 Broadway, as shown on Exhibit "A", from the C-T-P (Thoroughfare Commercial, Precise Plan) zone to the GC-P (Central Commercial, Precise Plan)zone in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. SECTION 5: The Precise Plan modifier is appropriate for the rezoned parcel because all the circumstances set forth in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.56.041 exist with respect hereto. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the thirtieth day from its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Director of Planning and Building City Attorney C:\WINDOWS~,I emporary hllemcl Files\OI KC020/Ordmancc Idoc CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR P.OJECT ,'~PucN, rr: HAAC PROJECT INITIAL STUDY PROJECT " ADDRESS: 825-841 BROADWAY Request: Proposal for a three-sto~y mixed commercial -residential project consisting of 39 affordable senior units, a manager's unit and 9,010sq.ft of ground flo6r retail and office space. J:\home~planning\cherrylc\locators~is03008.cdr 10.09.02A ~ Ordinance No. Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this __ day of ,2003 by the following vote: AYES: Members Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Chair/Mayor Padilla NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTENTIONS: None Steve Padilla Mayor ATTEST: C:\WINDOWS Temporary [ntcmet Files\OLKC020/Ordinance Idoc ORDINANCE NO. 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 I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this Ordinance is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein consist of 1-acre commonly known as MAAC Project Seniors on Broadway, and located at 825 Broadway ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Applications for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on January 10, 2003, a Precise Plan application was filed by the Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee on Anti-Poverty of San Diego County, Inc. (MAAC Project) ("Developer") with the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista requesting a Precise Plan to develop a mixed-use project that includes 41 residential apartments for senior citizens above 2,219 square feet of retail/commercial space, a manager's unit and reductions in setbacks, parking and open space requirements ("Project"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held an advertised public hearing on the Project on April 21, 2003, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted 3-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and D. Planning Commission Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundary of the project, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on May 14, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted 4-0-2 to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and, WHEREAS, The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this project held on May 14, 2003, and the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and, E. City Council Record on Applications WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project applications and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, F. Discretionary Approval and Ordinance WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and, WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at which this Ordinance was introduced for first reading on June 10, 2003, the City Council of the City Of Chula Vista approved Ordinance Number by which it approved a zone change for the site at 825 Broadway. Il The City Council of the City Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: CERTIFICATION (DF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the proposed project was adequately covered in previously adopted Negative Declaration IS-03-008 and, therefore, does hereby find that no further environmental review or documentation is necessary. SECTION 2: INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council does hereby find that in the exercise of their independent review and judgment, the previously adopted Negative Declaration (IS-03-008) adequately covers the proposed project in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. SECTION 3: PRECISE PLAN FINDINGS 1. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives of Chapter 10 Section 5.9 of the General Plan, which encourages mixed-use Ordinance Page 3 development along Broadway. The mixed-use project will introduce new retail and commercial uses and affordable rental units for senior citizens. Additionally, the project will assist in implementing a "Generations Together" program fhaf brings together senior citizens and the youth who attend the Chula Vista Elementary Charter School adjacent to the project site. The mixed-use project will benefit the surrounding area economically, socially and aesthetically. 2. That such plan satisfies the principle for application of the "P' modifying district as set forfhin CVMC 19.56.041. The proposal satisfies Section 19.56.0411B) because the mixed-use project's site design allows the proposed uses fo function cohesively with the surrounding uses, while visually and economically enhancing the area and promoting a beneficial development for the general welfare of the citizens in the area and the City. The Precise Plan can allow the project to deviate from the development standards in an effort to develop the site with a feasible mixed-use project. 3. That any exceptions granted which may deviate from the underlying zoning requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the Precise Plan. Development of the lot using the development standards of the C-C and R-3 zone would limit the potential fo maximize the use of the site with a mixed-use project. As a result, the project has been designed with a high-density residential concept and zero lot line for the retail uses with building encroachments into the required setbacks and the reduction in number of on- site parking spaces. These deviations are warranted given the intent fo maximize the use of the property to meet other policies of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and General Plan. 4. The approval of this plan will conform fo the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and General Plan and the adopted policies of the City Of Chula Vista. The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives of the_Southwest Redevelopment P/an and Chapter 10 Section 5.9 of the General Plan relative fo mixed-use development along Broadway. The Precise Plan as described, will allow the project to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, General Plan and the Chula Vista Municipal Code. SECTION 4: TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The City Council hereby grants the Precise Plan (PCM-03-21) subject fo the following conditions: Planning and Building Department 1. The Developer shall incorporate the approved materials and colors for all buildings in accordance with the materials and color board submitted on January 13, 2003, which include an exterior stucco finish for the wall and buildings. 2. The Developer shall comply with all requirements of the Building Division including, but not limited to, the following codes for 2001: · California Building Code · California Plumbing Code · California Mechanical Code · California Electrical Code · Energy Code · Handicap Accessibility Requirements 3. The Developer shall submit a concept landscape plan for review and approval by the City's Landscape Planner to include the following to satisfy the City requirements: A. Show an enhanced accented landscape treatment for entrances. B. Provide raised planters at the corner and the overall Broadway elevation. C. Provide canopy trees at the sidewalk along Broadway. D. Show all downspouts connected to the sewer and not across driveways or planter areas. E. Provide an irrigation or water source design for all raised planters. F. Enhance the paving in the courtyard. G. Provide a Water Management Plan per requirements of the City Landscape Manual during building permit submittal. H. Encourage the use of street furniture as appropriate with the type of retail use. 4. The Developer shall apply for and obtain approval of a planned sign program from the Director of Planning and BUilding prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 5. The Developer shall provide drop-off zones and waiting areas with appropriate seating and overhead shelters. These shall be located as close as possible to the primary entrances. 6. The Developer shall provide a raised wood planter. The dimensions shall conform to the ADA planter standards for individuals with reach limitations and mobility aids. 7. The Developer shall submit written restrictions for hours of operation for the tenants of the retail/commercial uses to the Director of Planning for review and approval. The hours of operation shall be such that there is no conflict with the residential units. Ordinance Page 5 Engineering Department 8. The Developer shall ensure that the development of the project complies with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge, and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations and requirements. The Applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit of Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures, and shall identify funding mechanisms for post-construction control measures. 9. The Developer shall obtain a grading permit in accordance with the Subdivision Manual and Grading Ordinance prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. The Developer shall complete the applicable forms and comply with the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual. 11. The Developer shall implement Best Management Practices (BMP) to prevent the pollution of storm water conveyance systems, both during and after construction. Permanent storm water requirements shall be incorporated into the project design, and shall be shown on the plans. Any construction and non-structural BMPs requirements that cannot be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled on the plans. 12. The City of Chula Vista requires that all new development and significant redevelopment projects comply with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01. According to said Permit, all proiects falling under the Priority Development Project Categories are required to comply with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria. 13. Water quality and watershed protection principals shall be incorporated into the design of the project. Such measures shall minimize the discharge of pollutants into the storm drainage systems. Fire Department 14. Ail buildings shall be fully equipped with fire sprinklers (NFPA13). The Developer shall install a standpipe system, fire extinguishers, on site fire hydrant, Knox boxes, a Knox override gate key switch and an optical gate opening system. The building shall have roof access. Sweetwater Authority 15. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall obtain a letter from the Chula Vita Fire Department stating fire flow requirements and submit the letter to the Sweetwater Authority for review. Chula Vista Elementary School District 16. The Developer shall pay the appropriate school fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Special Operations 17. The Developer shall develop and implement an integrated solid waste and recycling plan acceptable to the Special Operations Manager. The plan shall be designed to divert at least 50 percent of the waste stream generated by the project through participation in the City's residential recycling, yard waste, bulky pick up and household hazardous waste programs outlined in Sections 8.24 and 8.25 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Standard Conditions 18. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this Precise Plan shall be ground for revocation or modification development permits. 19. AIl development permits shall become voic~ and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this Precise Plan and permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. 20. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require approval from the Redevelopment Agency. 21. The Developer shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Redevelopment Agency anc~ Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims anc~ costs, including court costs and attorney's fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's or Agency's approval of the Rezone and Precise Plan, (b) City's or Agency's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c/ Developer's installation and operation of a facility permitted hereby, including, without limitation, ant and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Developer shall acknowledge their agreement to Ordinance Page 7 this provision by executing a copy of this Precise Plan where indicated below. Developer compliance with this provision is an express condition of the Precise Plan and this provision shall be binding on any and oll of Developer's/operator's successors and assigns. 22. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the final approved plans which will include revised site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and color board, and landscape plans on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Chula Vista General Plan. 23. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 24. This Precise Plan shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval fo advc]nce a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City or Agency shall impose after advance written notice to the Permiftee and after the City or Agency has given fo the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City or Agency, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive the Permitfee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use 3ermitted, be expected to economically recover. 25. The Developer shall be responsible for the building and landscaping maintenance in accordance with the approved project and landscape plans unless the Director of Planning and Building approves modifications. E. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF ORDINANCE OF APPROVAL The Developer shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the Developer and property owner have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the Developer and/or property owner, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City Clerk and Planning Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk' Office and known as Document No. ,4 -II Signature of Property Owner Date of 825 Broadway Signature of Representative Date F. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this ordinance and the Precise Plan shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect al:) initio. SECTION 5: APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN The City Council does hereby approve the Precise Plan including property Development Standards for MAAC PROJECT Seniors on Broadway, as represented in Exhibit "B". SECTION 6: EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning and Building Presented by Approved as to form by L) Director of Community Development Ordinance Page 9 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 10th day of June, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NAYS: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Steve Padilla, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of June 2003 and its second reading and adoption at a regutar meeting of said City Council held on the__ day of__ 2003. Executed this day of __ 2003. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR .~ojEc~ .~PUC~T: HAAC PROJECT INITIAL STUDY PROJECT ADDRESS: 825-841 BROADWAY Request: Proposal for a three-story mixed -residential project consisting of 39 affordable senior sc~: F~E NUM-ER: units, a manager's unit and 9,010sq.lt of ground floor NORTH No Scale IS-03-008 retail and office space. J:\home~planning\cherrylc~locators~is03008.cdr 10.09.02,~ _ / ~~~ Exhibit "B" DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS J MAAC PROJECT Seniors on Broadway The following chapter details the specific development standards and regulations for development and individual residential apartments and the commercial/retail buildings within the MAAC PROJECT Seniors on Broadway. This Precise Plan is intended to work in conjunction with the development standards in the City of Chula Vista's Zoning Ordinance (Title 19). Any information not shown within the Precise Plan should be referenced in the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.28 Apartment Residential (R-3) zone and Chapter 19.36 Central Commercial (C-C) zone. Residential Allowed Uses Allow uses shall be those that are identified in the R-3 zone as permitted uses, accessory uses and buildings and conditional uses except: electrical substations and gas regulators. Development Standards The following development standards shall apply to all land and buildings within the R-3 zoning district. Dimensions and standards shown in Table 1 are allowed. Where in conflict with the R-3 zone development standards, the standards outlined in this Precise Plan take precedence; where a particular item is not addressed in the Precise Plan, the R-3 zone development standards shall be used. Where building setback, parking and open space requirements are in conflict, the lot specific map (Exhibit "B") shall supercede the R-3 zone requirements. Commercial/Retail 1. Allowed Uses Allow uses shall be those that are identified in the C-C as permitted uses, accessory uses and buildings and conditional uses except: electrical substations, gas regulators and any automobile related uses. 2. Development Standards. The following development standards shall apply to all land and buildings within the C- C zoning district. Dimensions and standards shown in Table 1 are allowed. Where in conflict with the C-C zone development standards, the standards outlined in this Precise Plan take precedence; where a particular item is not Ordinance Page 11 addressed in the Precise Plan, the C-C zone development standards shall be used. Where building setback, parking and open space requirements are in conflict, the lot specific map (Exhibit "B") shall supercede the C-C zone requirements. TABLE 1 Precise Plan Development Standard for Apartment/Retail Uses Buildin9 Setbacks Front yard (minimum} None required Side yard (minimum) None required Rear yard Iminimum) 16 feet Maximum height 45 feet Parking {apartments) .5 per unit Parking /retail/commercial) 1 space per 200 s.f. Minimum open space for units 6,100 s.f. Fencing 6 feet Note: Table 1 figures are based on the information from the approved Precise Plan RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AC~ENCY 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 PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AT 825 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Elementary School District owns the property at 825 Broadway ("Site"), which is diagrammatically shown in the Locator Map attached as Exhibit A to the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement and incorporated herein by reference; and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC) Project entered into a 75-year lease with the Chula Vista Elementary School District for the development of the Site; and WHEREAS, MAAC Project has presented development plans for the construction of a mixed use residential and retail development and associated site improvements at 825 Broadway ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the site for the proposed Project is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area under the jurisdiction and control of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that the proposed project was adequately covered in previously adopted Negative Declaration IS-03-008 and, therefore, does hereby find that no further environmental review or documentation is necessary; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee reviewed and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed Project subject to the conditions listed in Precise Plan PCM-03-21; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City Of Chula Vista previously approved Ordinance No. by which it approved a zone change at 825 Broadway; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City Of Chula Vista previously approved Ordinance No. by which it approved a precise plan for this site; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has been presented an Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement, said agreement being on file in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency, approving the construction of a mixed use residential and retail project and associated site improvements at 825 Broadway, as depicted in Exhibit B and subject to conditions listed in Precise Plan PCM- 03-21. NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: 1. The proposed project was adequately covered in previously adopted Negative Declaration IS-03-008 and, therefore, does not require additional review. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and shall implement the purpose thereof; the project shall assist with the elimination of blight in the Proiect Area. 3. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the mixed use project as allowed pursuant to City Council Ordinance and the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement with the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee Project for the construction of the Project at 825 Broadway, in the form presented in accordance with plans attached thereto as Exhibit B and subiect to conditions listed in Precise Plan PCM-03-21. 4. The Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized to execute the subject Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee Proiect. 5. The Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency is authorized and directed to record said Owner Participation Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, California. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Laurie A. Madigan Director of Community Development A~c~°~torney-D ''' J:\COMMDEV\RESOS~MAAC Project Ords and Resos\Reso 3.doc CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PRojEC~ :APPLICAN~ PIAAC PROJECT INITIAL STUDY PROJECT ADDRESS: 825-841 BROADWAY Request: Proposal for a three-story mixed commercia -residential project consisting of 39 affordable senior units, a manager's unit and 9,010sq.ff of ground floor retail and office space. J:\home\planning\cherrylc\locators\is03008.cdr 10.09.02 COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 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 COMMII~-EE (MAAC) PROJECT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED 42 UNIT PROJECT LOCATED AT 825 BROADWAY WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is an entitlement/participating jurisdiction for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding programs and is awarded on an annual basis a formula grant from the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME); and WHEREAS, HOME funds are designed exclusively to create affordable housing opportunities for Iow-income households through the construction, purchase, and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing for rent or homeownership or provide direct rental assistance to Iow-income people; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2(e), in carrying out its affordable housing activities, the City is authorized to provide subsidies to or for the benefit of very Iow income and lower income households, or persons and families of Iow or moderate income, to the extent those households cannot obtain housing at affordable costs on the open market, and to provide financial assistance for the construction and rehabilitation of housing which will be made available at an affordable housing cost to such persons; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33413(b), the City is required to ensure that at least 15 percent of all new and substantially rehabilitated dwelling units developed within a project area under the jurisdiction of the City by private or public entities or persons other than the City shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of Iow or moderate income; and WHEREAS, MAAC Project ("Developer") proposes to construct a mixed use project of 2,219 square feet of commercial retail and 41 apartment units available to seniors, with 20 units affordable to very Iow households at 45 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), 20 units affordable to very Iow households at 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) and 1 unit available for an on-site manager, located at 825-841 Broadway ("Project"); and WHEREAS, Developer is applying for nine percent (9%) tax credits from the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC); and WHEREAS, additional financing is necessary in order to make the residential use of the Project feasible; and WHEREAS, the Developer requires assistance to reduce the development costs for the construction of the residential units in order to make the Project feasible; and Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the provision of affordable housing units like the Project is consistent with and called for by the City's General Plan Housing Element, Consolidated Plan, and California Health and Safety Code; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide Developer with a development loan up to three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) to assist with the financing gap for the construction of the residential units of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City's provision of funds to the residential use of the Proiect will directly improve the City's supply of very Iow income housing; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted an Implementation Plan pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33490, which sets forth the objective of providing housing to satisfy the needs and desires of various age, income and ethnic groups of the community, and which specifically provides for the construction of new affordable rental housing units through City assistance; and WHEREAS, the residential use of the Project furthers the goals of the City set forth in the Implementation Plan as it will facilitate the creation of affordable housing which will serve the residents of the neighborhood and the City; and WHEREAS, the City's Housing Advisory Commission did, on the 23rd day of April, 2003, hold a public meeting to consider said request for financial assistance; and WHEREAS, the Housing Advisory Commission, upon hearing and considering all testimony, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, and considering all factors relating to the request for financial assistance, has recommended to the City Council that the appropriation be approved because the Commission believes that the City's financial padicipation in the development of the Project will be a sound investment based upon Developer's ability to effectively serve the City's housing needs and priorities as expressed in the Housing Element and the Consolidated Plan and the cost effectiveness of the City's financial assistance based upon the leveraging of such resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find that the proposed project was adequately covered in previously adopted Negative Declaration IS-03-008 and, therefore, does hereby find that no further environmental review or documentation is necessary. WHEREAS, The City Council does hereby find that in the exercise of their independent review and judgment, the previously adopted Negative Declaration (IS-03-008} adequately covers the proposed project in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City of Chula Vista does hereby conditionally approve a residual receipts loan subject to future appropriation, in an amount not-to-exceed $300,000 from the City's HOME funds to Developer for the construction of the residential units of the Project subject to the City's approvals of an affordable housing and loan agreement which shall include, at a minimum, the following terms and conditions: Resolution No. Page 3 1. Funds shall be used only for those costs directly related to the residential units of the Project. 2. The loan repayment will be secured by a Deed of Trust and Promissory note for the property on behalf of the City of Chula Vista and recorded against the Project properly. 3. The term of the loan shall be fihy-five (55) years. 4. The outstanding balance shall accrue with simple interest at 3 percent per annum. 5. Payment of principal and interest on the City loan shall be made, on an annual basis, out of a fund equal to fifty percent (50%) of the "Residual Receipts", rental income from the Project minus debt service on the bonds, payment of the deferred developer fee, and reasonable operating expenses. 6. Developer will be required to operate the Project consistent with the Regulatory Agreement required by the Project's tax credit financing, the covenants imposed by the Agreement, and any other project requirements. 7. Developer shall enter into a loan agreement with the City consistent with the terms set forth above and with such other terms as shall be required or approved by the City A~torney. 8. This conditional approval remains subject to final approval by the City in its sole discretion. Presented by Approved as to form by Laurie A. Madigan ~,nn ~oore ~ Director of Community Development CiJ~/Attorney Recording Requested By: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 When Recorded Mail To: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attn: Linda Welch (Space Above This Line For Recorder) APN: 572.270-62 OWNER/TENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Chula Vista Elementary School District Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee 825-841 Broadway THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the REBEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a public body corporate and politic (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY"), and the CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a govemmental agency, SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER and METROPOLITAN AREA ADVISORY COMMI'I-rEE ON ANTI.POVERTY OF SAN BIEGO COUNTY, INC. a 501 (c) (3) Califomia Nonprofit Benefit Corporation, SUBJECT PROPERTY TENANT (hereinafter referred to as "BEVELOPER") effective as of June 10, 2003. WHEREAS, Chula Vista Elementary School District owns that certain property located at 825-841 Broadway (Subject Property); and WHEREAS, Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee entered into a 75-year lease with the Chula Vista Elementary School Distdct for the development and use of the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER'desires to develop the real property within the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ("Project Area") which is subject to the jurisdiction and control of the AGENCY; and, WHEREAS, the BEVELOPER has presented plans for development to the Cites Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission for the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 42 residential units for Senior Citizens and 2,219 square feet of retail space and the associated parking, access and circulation, and landscaped areas (the "Project"); and, WHEREAS, said plans for development have been recommended for approval by said committees; and, WHEREAS, the AGENCY has considered the Design Review Committee's and Planning Commission's recommendations and has approved the Project and design plans subject to certain termsand conditions; and, WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires that said Project be implemented and completed as soon as it is practicable in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER agree as follows: 1. The property to be developed is described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 572.270-62 located at 825-841 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA., shown on Iocator map attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein ('Property"). 2. The DEVELOPERAND PROPERTY OWNERcovenant and agree by and for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns and all persons claiming under or through them the following: A. DEVELOPER AND PROPERTY OWNER shall develop the Property with the Project in accordance with the AGENCY approved development proposal attached hereto as Exhibit B. DEVELOPER shall obtain all necessary federal/state and local governmental permits and approvals and abide by all applicable federal, state and IocaJ laws, regulations, policies and approvals in connection with the development of the Project. DEVELOPER further agrees that this Agreement is contingent upon DEVELOPER secudng said permits and approvals. DEVELOPER shall pay ail applicable development impact and processing fees. C. DEVELOPER shall obtain building permits within one year from the date of this Agreement and to actually develop the Property with the Project within one year from the date of issuance of the building permits. In the event DEVELOPER fails to meet these deadlines, the Agency's approval of DEVELOPER's development proposals shall be void and this Agreement shall have no further fome or effect. D. In ali deeds granting or conveying an interest in the Property, the following language shall appear: "The grantee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or sagregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national origin or anceshy in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself or any persons claiming under or through him establish or permit any such practice of discrimination or segregation with referanca to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenant lessees, or vendees in the premises herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land. · E. In all leases demising an interest in all or any part of the Property, the following language shall appear: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under orthrough him, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, national origin, or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein leased, nor shall the lessee himself or any persons claiming under or threugh him, establish or permit any such practices of discrimination or segregation with mferenca to the selection, location, number or use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the premisas herein leased." 3. The Property shall be developed subject to the conditions imposed by the Design Review Cor~mittee, Planning Commission and the AGENCY as described in Precise Plan PCM-03.21 incorporated herein by this reference. DEVELOPER acknowledges the validity of and agrees to accept such conditions. 4. DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER shall maintain the premises in FIRST CLASS CONDITION. A. DUTY TO MAINTAIN FIRST CLASS CONDITION. Throughout the term of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall, at his sole cost and expense, maintain the Property which includes all improvements thereon in first class condition and repair, and in accordance with all applicable laws, permits, licenses and other governmental authorizations, roles, ordinances, orders, decrees and regulations now or hereafter enacted, issued or promulgated by federal, state, county, municipal, and other governmental agencies, bodiesand courts having or claiming jurisdiction and all their respective departments, bureaus, and officials. If the DEVELOPER fail to maintain the Property in a "first class condition", the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista or its agents shall have the right to go on the Property and perform the necessary maintenance and the cost of said maintenance shall become a lien against the Property. The Agency shall have the dght to enforce this lien either by foreclosing on the Property or by forwarding the amount to be collected to the Tax Assessor who shall make it part of the tax bill. B. DEVELOPER shall promptly and diligently repair, restore, alter, add to, remove, and replace, as required, the Property and all improvements to maintain or comply as above, orto remedy all damage to or destruction of all or any part of the improvements. Any repair, restoration, alteration, addition, removal, maintenance, replacement and other act of compliance under this Paragraph (hereafter collectively referred to as "Restoration") shall be completed by DEVELOPER whether or not funds are available from insurance proceeds or subtenant contributions. C. In order to enforce all above maintenance provisions, the parties agree that the Community Development Director is empowered to make reasonable determinations as to whether the Property is in a first class condition. If the Director determines it is not, the Director (1) will notify the DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER in wdting and (2) extend a reasonable timeto cure. If a care or substantial progress to cure has not been made within that time, the Director is authorized to effectuate the cure by City forces or othenvise, the cost of which will be promptly reimbursed by the DEVELOPER. D. In the event Developer falls to cure within a reasonable time and/or fails to promptly reimburse the City for a necessary cure carried out by City forces, the PROPERTY OWNER will either carry out the required restoration or reimburse the City for the necessary cure carried out by City forces. E. FIRST CLASS CONDITION DEFINED. First class condition and repair, means an efficient and attractive condition, at least substantially equal in quality to the condition which exists when the Project has been completed, ordinary aging excepted, in accordance with all applicable laws and conditions. Nothing contained herein shall require redesign and remodel of the premises. 5. AGENCY and DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER agree that the covenants ofthe DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER expressed herein shall run with the land. DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER shall have the right, without pdor approval of AGENCY, to assign its dghts and delegate its duties under this Agreement. Such assignment or delegation shall not be effective until DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER has notified AGENCY in writing. Besides the assignee's or delegate's name, the notice shall include the new contact information for the assignee or delegate. 6. AGENCY and DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER expressed herein are for the express benefit of the AGENCY and for all owners of real property within the boundaries of the PROJECT AREA as the same now exists or may be hereafter amended. AGENCY and DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER agree that the previsions of this Agreement may be specifically enforced in any court of corn petent jurisdiction by the AGENCY on its own behalf or on behalf of any owner of real property within the boundaries of the PROJECT AREA. 7. AGENCY and DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER agree that this Agreement may be recorded by the AGENCY in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Califomia. 8. DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER shall and do hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless AGENCY and the City of Chula Vista, and their respective Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, Eom and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and reasonable attomeys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the AGENCY adsing, directly or indirectly, from (a) AGENCY's approval of this Agreement, (b) AGENCY's or City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the Project contemplated herein, and (c) DEVELOPER's construction and operation of the Project permitted hereby. 9. In the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to the obligations under this AGREEMENT that results in litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs Eom the non-prevailing party. 10. Time is of the essence for each and every obligation hereunder. 11. If DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER fail to fulfill their obligations heraunder after due notice and reasonable opportunity to cure, DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER shall be in default hereunder, and in addition to any and all other rights and remedies AGENCY may have, at law or in equity, AGENCY shall have the dght to terminate its approval of the Project and this Agreement. 12. DEVELOPER and PROPERTY OWNER and AGENCY agree that, notwithstanding Section VI (A), Types of Participation, Conforming Owners of the Rules Governing Participation and Re-Entry Preferences for Property Owners, Operators, or Businesses, and Tenants in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, adopted by the Agency on September 1990, the AGENCY expressly retains its right to exercise its eminent domain powers as it relates to the Property. 13. All notices, demands or requests (hereinafter ~notices") provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in wdting. All notices to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been propedy given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, addressed to such party at the addresses listed below. A party may change the address where notices are to be delivered by giving notice pursuant to this Section, but shall not require a party to serve or mail notices to multiple address AGENCY: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 PROPERTY OWNER: Chula Vista Elementary School Distdct 84 East J Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 DEVELOPER: Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee on Anti-Pove~ of San Diego County, Inc 22 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 National City, CA 91950 Signature Page Follows Signature Page IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA "AGENCY" DATED: By: Stephen Padilla, Chairman "PROPERTY OWNER" Susan H. Fahle, Assistant Superintendent Business Services and Support DATED: . By: "DEVELOPiR" ' ~/'/~ President NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card. APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Ann Moore, Agency Attomey ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF San Diego ) OR .~_~_un.e 4,2003 before me, ~ personally appeared Mitchell L. Thom so personally know to me (og~o~oge~l.to-m&.o~t~? ~,o~? ,,r oo,;or.,.~or~.;,~,~,.e) to be the person(s-) whose name(~) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/:-l;,~';i,~y executed the same in his/her/~ authorized capacity(-ie.~), and that by Ms/htr/Iht, ir signature~) on tho instrument the person~s) or the entity upon behalf of which thc person(s) acted, executed the ins~rnent. ~..~ov~SS my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: March 12 2004 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of 5~ ~ 'C"'~ ~) ~ SS. On ,.)"'¥1~-~ ~/ ,300~1 before me~ ~-'"/~N~ d~'~' ~t /~/~'~'~ ~"~ Date ' e'en e o Off'car (e.g., 'Jane D~r Nota~ Public") personally appeared Name(s} of Signer(s) ~ersonally known to me [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(.s.) whose name(e) is/a~e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that'f'~e/she/they executed the same in -h~/her/th,Mr authorized capacity(4~e), and that by f'tis'fher/th~r Jl "{,~1~.. _ ~a, _Di~e c,e~,b, ~' signature(~) on the instrument the person(-,J-), or ~ the entity upon behalf of which the person(e)- ~ _ _ acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal Place Nota~j Seal Above Signet ure of Notary Put~lic OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Docum,~nt / ~'~ ~'~q~"~ Title or Type of Document: Document Date: r~ ~.-~L Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer S~'ner's Name: )~J ~,a.k '~, ~"~ ~, ~'~ [] Individual - [] Corporate Officer-- Title(s): Top of thumb her~ [] Par~ner-- [] Limited [] General [] Attorney in Fact [] Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Signer Is Representing: C~L~q © 1997 National Nota~ Association · 9350 De Solo Ave,, P.O. Box 2402 · Chatsworlh, CA 91313-2402 Prod, No 5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1-800-876~827 EXHIBIT A Design Plans Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement 825 Broadway Chula Vista, Exhibit A Design Plans I1~ II! ! ill! EXHIBIT B Locator Map Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement 825 Broadway Chula Vista, CA Locator Map CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ' LOCATOR r,.o~cT ' ~ APPU~MAAC PROJECT MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT ~ 825-841 BROADWAY Request: Proposal for a Precise Plan for a mixed use · NORTH No Scale PCM-03-21 ~ Related Case(s): SUPS-03:05 ~*~ r'~'"~"~planning\cherrylc~Jocators~pcm0321 .cdr 01.22.03 *' ATTACHMENT 1 CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRiPTiON: ~,PUC,~m. HAAC PROJECT INITIAL STUDY PROJECT ~ODRESS: 825-841 9ROADWAY Request: Proposal for a three-story mixed commercial -residential project consisting of 39 affordable senior SC, ALE: FILE NUMBE~; units, a manager's unit and 9,010sq.ff of ground floor · NORTH No Scale IS-03-008 ,~/ retail and office space. i"h"'~"planning\cherrylc~locators\is03008.cdr 10.09.02 ATTACHMENT 2 Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Seniors On Broadway PROJECT LOCATION: 825-841 Broadway ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 572-270-0500 PROJECT APPLICANT: Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC) CASE NO.: IS-03-008 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: April 2, 2003 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEET1NG: April 7, 2003 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: May 9, 2003 A. Project Setting The approximately 1.0-acre project site, located within the City of Chula Vista at 825 841 Broadway, is a vacant and undeveloped parcel, adjacent to an existing charter school (see Exhibit A-Location Map). The Chula Vista Elementary School District currently owns both the project site and the school parcel. The land uses that surround the project site consist of the following: North: Furniture Store South: Mortuary East: Charter School West: Across Broadway, miscellaneous retail and auto-related businesses B. Project Description The proposed mixed-use commercial/residential project requires a zone change from CTP (Thoroughfare Commercial) to CCP (Central Commercial), to allow mixed-use development (see Exhibit B - site plan). The project consists of 41 one-bedroom units affordable to very- low income seniors, and one two-bedroom manager's unit within a three-story building. Proposed community area for the residents and retail portions of the project's ground floor comprises 8,300 square feet of the building's total 40,000 square feet; 2,219 square feet of commercial/retail space is proposed on the ground floor facing Broadway and 6,092 square feet of ground floor community common area is proposed for the residents including lounge/waiting area, community room with service kitchen, library, restrooms, manager's office, and maintenance room. A 560 square foot kiesk social services annex is proposed at the northwest comer of the parking lot; its purpose is to accommodate MAAC social services staff offering program assistance to sen/ers on-site residents. An underlying theme of the proposed project is the linking of senior citizens m~d charter school students: "Generations Together". The "Generations Together Community Center" will bring the senior residents 1 and the youth together in the community space located on the first floor for exchange of intergenerational education and experience. Proposed on-site parking is 45 spaces. On-site improvements include landscaping, lighting, drainage facilities, paved parking lot, retaining walls and 6-foot wooden decorative fence. The proposal requires Design Review by the Design Review Committee and approval of a Precise Plan, rezone and Special Use Permit by the City Council. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project site is zoned CTP (Thoroughfare Commercial Zone) under the City's Municipal Code and is designated "Commercial - Retail" under the City's adopted General Plan. The proposed mixed-use commercial/residential project requires a zone change from CTP (Thoroughfare Commercial) to CCP (Central Cormnercial) to allow mixed-use development. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan CR (Commercial/Retail) land use designation. D. Public Comments On February 4, 2003, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The public comment period closed on February 14, 2003. Staffreceived one verbal contact and one written communication from the public. The issues of concern dealt with traffic circulation issues associated with the adjacent charter school along Sierra Way. On April 2, 2003, the Notice of Availability of the Proposed Negative Declaration for the prqject was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the proiect site. The public comment period closed on May 2, 2003. On April 25, 2003, staff received one written communication from a member of the public. The environmental issues of concern contained in the letter addressed traffic circulation and parking. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Transportation/Circulation The project site is currently accessible from Broadway, which operates at level of service (LOS) A between K Street and Sierra Way. The two existing driveways on Broadway will be re!ecated effef"K" Street closed. The existing driveway along the northern boundary of the project site, which also provides access to the adjacent charter school, will provide access to the project site. According to the Traffic Engineering Section, upon completion of the proposed project this segment of Broadway will continue to operate at LOS A. 2 The MAAC social services and intergenerational activities between the seniors at the housing project and the students of the charter school would occur mainly at the designated community space located on the first floor of the senior project site and within the proposed social services kiesk annex. Any MAAC off-site social services activities will be facilitated by ~heir c:~..'n MAAC's 15-person van to shuttle seniors. These activities will not create any significant traffic impacts to the surrounding area. The proposal is projected to generate 690 340 average daily vehicle trips. The initial projection of 600 average daily vehicle trips was done in error based upon the commercial/retail space. Based upon the projected level of traffic generation and the level of service of the segment of Broadway adjacent to the site, it was determined that the proposal does not have the potential to result in any significant traffic impacts; therefore, the preparation of a traffic study was not required. Noise The project site is a comer lot with frontages along Broadway and Sierra Way within a developed urban area. Immediate surrounding land uses consist of commercial/retail and auto-related businesses to the west across Broadway, an established charter school to the east continue (north/south). The closest single-family and multi-family residential properties are to the south and east of the charter school site; the project site is not directly adjacent to residential land uses. There is an existing charter elementary school located to the east of the proposed project site. The closest existing school building is located 242 feet from the property line. Between the project site and the nearest school building is school playground The proposed interior courtyard, approximately 3,000 square-feet, would provide an important outdoor amenity for tenants and visitors alike as well as act as a noise buffer to offset traffic noise from Broadway. The courtyard is partially screened on three sides by the senior residential building with opening facing the school playground area. The proposed residential units shall be constructed in accordance with the interior noise insulation standards of Title 24, California Administrative Code. As a result, interior noise would be reduced to an insignificant level. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts No Mitigation Measures are required. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Frank Rivera, Engineering Dept. Jeff Moneda, Engineering Dept. Muna Cuthbert, Engineering Dept. 3 Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Dept. Maj ed A1-Ghafry, Engineering Dept. Michael Meacham, City Manager's Office John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department Michael Walker, Planning and Building Department Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building Department Carolyn Dakan, Planning and Building Department Others: Lowell Billings, Chula Vista Elementary School District 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989 Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No. 88-2, May 1989 Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, October 2002 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update-Undeveloped Lot-825-841 Broadway, Chula Vista, California, P&D Environmental, May 30, 2002. Broadway Mixed-Use Project Traffic Noise Assessment for 760 Broadway prepared by Dudek and Associates, Inc., dated February 24, 2003. 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator 4 CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ..o:~c~ ~ APPLICANT: HAAC PROJECT INITIAL STUDY ADDRESS: 825.841 BROADWAY Request: Proposal for a three-story mixed commercial -residential project consisting of 39 affordable senior units, a manager's unit and 9,010sq.lt of ground floor J:\home~planning\cherrylc~locators~isO3OO8.cdr 10.09.02 ~ -Z.//~' ~/~rr'~ Case No. IS-03-008 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee (MAAC) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 22 West 35t~ Street, Suite 200 National City, CA 91950 (619) 426-3595 4. Name of Proposal: Seniors on Broadway 825-841 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA 5. Date of Checklist: March 28, 2003 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. WouM the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or [] [] [] [] zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [] [] [] [] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations [] [] [] [] (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of [] r~ ~ [] an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: a) The project site is zoned CTP (Commercial Thoroughfare/Precise Plan) under the City's Municipal Code and is designated "Commercial - Retail" under the City's adopted General Plan. The proposal requires a rezone to CCP (Central Commercial) to accommodate the mixed-use commercial-residential development. b) The proposal would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies. Furthermore, the proposal would not encroach into or indirectly affect the Habitat Preserve area of the Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. Page- 1 A c) The project site is neither in agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural resources. d) The proposal would neither disrupt nor divide the physical arrangement of an established conununity. The project site is presently vacant and undeveloped. The established surrounding land uses consist o£a furniture store, mortuary, school, auto- related businesses and miscellaneous retail uses. Potentially II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the l'ottatiany Significant Less than proposal: Significant Unless SigniFicant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] [] [] [] population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either [] [] [] [] directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [] [] [] [] housing? Comments: a) The proposed project consists of 41 senior housing units and one manager's unit. This is not considered to be a significant increase to the regional or local population projections. b) See Section II, a. The proposal would not directly or indirectly induce significant growth in the area. c) The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. No housing displacement would result from the proposal. III. GEOPHYSICAL. WouM the proposal result in or Potentially Significant Less than expose people to potential impacts involving.. Significant Unless Significant No a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in [] [] [] [] geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] [] [] [] overcover ng of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief [] [] [] [] features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of r~ [] [] [] any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, [] [] [] [] either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach [] [] [] [] Page-2 sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic [] [] [] [] hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: a) A Geotechnical Investigation and Geological/Seismic Hazards Study dated February 7, 2001, was prepared by Kleinifelder, Inc. for the charter school development and the future development area (the current project site). The study did not identify any potential seismic hazards other than potentially expansive soils. The nearest fault to the project site is the La Nacion, 2.5 miles to the west. The geotechnical report included appropriate recommendations to reduce potential hazards associated with expansive soils. Because the project site is flat and inland from the closest water body, San Diego Bay, the geotechnical report concluded that potential impacts from landslides, liquefaction and flooding are considered to be less than significant. An updated geotechnical report for the proposed development will be required at the grading permit submittal stage, which shall include foundation recommendations based on the proposed structures and appropriate soil testing and conditions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b) See III.a. above. Proper engineering design would ensure that no such soils-related impacts would result. c) No significant changes to topographical features of the site would result since the project site is flat. d) The project site area is identified within urbanized areas of the City of Chula General Plan EIR. No unique geologic or physical features exist within the proposed development area. e) All grading operations would be performed in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended). Short-term erosion during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level by the installation of temporary erosion control devices to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These devices may include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring. Protective devices would be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system. Erosion control measures would be installed as required by the City Engineer. f) See III.e. above. Compliance with NPDES Order No. 2001-01, through the implementation of appropriate construction and post-construction best management practices (BMPs), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer is required. Page-3 g) See III.a. above. No significant geological hazards to people or property, such as earthquakes, landslides, ground failures or similar hazards are anticipated to result from the proposed development. Potentially IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in/ Signfficant Unless Significant NO a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, [] [] [] [] or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. b) Exposure of people or property to water [] [] [] [] related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other [] [] [] [] alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] [] [] [] water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction [] [] [] [] of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either [] [] [] [] through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of [] [] [] [] groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? [] [] [] [] i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood [] [] [] [] waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water [] [] [] [] otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a) According to the Engineering Department, the proposed construction ora mixed-use project on the undeveloped project site would not result in a significant change to the on-site absorption rate. There is an existing chain link fence and concrete swale between the existing charter school and proposed project site. A previous lot line adjustment resulted in the movement of the easterly property line of the project site 12 feet inside the chain link fence area separating the school and the project site. According to the Engifieering Department, the relocation of the existing fence line and swale is required in order to complete this project and is part of the proposed MAAC project. The conceptual grading plan proposes a 3-foot wide concrete cut-off brow ditch replacing the existing concrete swale, in order to allow the continued capture of Page - 4 the school playground runoff. Final design specifications will be required prior to the issuance of grading and improvements permits, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b) The site presently sheet flows towards Broadway, where a storm drain inlet exists in the street. The proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address storm drain runofffrom the project site consist of flow guard catch basin inserts. They appear to be sufficient for the proposed project according to the Engineering Department. The submittal of a final drainage study would be required prior to the issuance of grading and improvement permits to demonstrate that existing infrastructure and proposed BMPs would be sufficient to serve the project; no significant impacts to the City's storm water drainage system are anticipated to result from the project. c) The project site is not within the 100-year or 500-year floodplains and is not in proximity to any bay or ocean; therefore, no exposure of people or property to water related hazards would result from the proposed development. d) Through construction permit conditions of approval, the proposed project will be required to implement construction and post-construction BMPs, where applicable, in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual in order to prevent pollution of downstream water bodies. e) Based on the size and nature of the proposed development, and the location of the project site relative to natural water bodies, the project would not result in any changes in the amount of surface water in any water body, in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters. f) According to the Kleinfelder, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic/Seismic Hazards Study, no groundwater was encountered in borings to depths of 21.5 feet. No changes in the quantity of groundwater, or other impacts to groundwater, are expected to result from the proposed development. Therefore, the project will have no impact to groundwater quantity or quality. g) See IV.f. above. h) SeelV.fi above. i) See IV.f. above. No alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters downstream of the site are expected to result from the proposed development of the site. J) The development of the proposal is not anticipated to result in a net increase in the consumption of water otherwise available for public consumption or public water supplies. Page - 5 Potentially V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to [] [] [] [] an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [] [] [] c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, [] [] [] [] or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] [] e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or [] [] [] [] non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: a) Based on the limited amount of site grading necessary to accommodate the proposed development and because the proposal is estimated to generate 600 340 average daily vehicle trips, the proposal ;vould not result in the violation of any air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. b) The development of a mixed-use co .mmercial/residential development is not anticipated to result in an increase in the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants. No traffic congestion exists in the vicinity of the project site that would result in the exposure of tenants to significant concentrations of air pollutants. c) The l~roposed development is not anticipated to significantly alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate, as the surrounding land uses are commercial and residential in nature. d) The City Zoning Ordinance allows for residential and commercial land uses. Neither development nor operation of the proposed senior housing project or retail commercial space would create any objectionable odors. e) The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 600 340 average daily vehicle trips. The proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic generation; the proposal would not result in an increase in non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality. No stationary sources of air emissions would be associated with the proposed project. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would Potentially Signi~ant Less ifian Significant Unless Significant No the proposal result in: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] [] [] b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., r~ [] [] [] Page- 6 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c). Inadequate emergency access or access to [] [] [] [] nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [] [] [] [] e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or [] [] [] [] bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ~ [] D [] alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [] [] [] [] h) A "large project" under the Congestion r~ [] [] ~ Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: a) See Negative Declaration, Section E. b) See VI.a. According to the Traffic Engineering Section, no traffic safety hazards are anticipated to result from the proposed mixed-use project. c) According to the Fire Department and Police Department, the proposed site plan provides for adequate emergency access from Sierra Way. d) The proposal would result in a net gain of 45 on-site parking spaces for the exclusive use of residential and commercial tenants, customers and visitors. e) The proposal would not result in any hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. f) Existing public transit bus routes 932 and 932A runs north and south along Broadway, which serves existing businesses, schools and residential areas in the surrounding neighborhoods. No conflicts with thie these bus routes or with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation would result. g) No rail, navigable waters, or aircraft facilities exist in the vicinity of the project site; therefore, the proposal would not result in any rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts. h) The proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic generated by the mixed-use development; therefore, the project is not considered a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program. Potentially VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No proposal result in impacts to: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of [] [] [] ~ Page-7 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage [] [] [] [] trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., [] [] [] [] oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and [] [] [] [] vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [] [] [] [] f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning [] [] [] [] efforts? Comments: a) The project site is presently vacant within an urban developed area. No habitat for endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing exists on or immediately adjacent to the project site. b) See VII.a. above. No locally designated species are present on or immediately adjacent to the project site. c) See VII.a. above. No locally designated natural communities are present on or immediately adjacent to the project site. d) See VII.a. above. No ~vetland habitat is present on or immediately adjacent to the project site. e) See VII.a. above. The proposal would have no effect upon any wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. f) See VII.a. above. The proposal would not affect regional habitat preservation planning efforts. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant Unless Signil'~ant No Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation [] [] [] [] plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] [] [] inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] [] [] [] protection, will this project impact this protection? Page-8 Comments: a) The proposal would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. b) The proposal would be designed to meet or exceed all applicable energy efficiency regulations. There are no proposed features or aspects of the project that would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources. c) According to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan Update (Chula Vista, 1989), the project site does not contain significant mineral resources. Potentially IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Sigaificant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [] [] hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency [] [] [] [] response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential [] D [] [] health haza/-d? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of [] c~ [] [] potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable [] [] [] [] bmsh, grass, or trees? Comments: a) There are no proposed features or aspects of the proposal that would represent a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. The proposed project consists of residential and commercial/retail development. The applicant is required to show proof of compliance with the County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Management Division and City Fire Department hazardous materials storage requirements and fire safety standards prior to issuance of building permits. b) The proposal would not result in interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. c) No health hazards or potential health hazards would be created as a result of the development of mixed-use commercial/residential development on the project site. d) No known sources of potential health hazards exist on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. Page - 9 e) The project site is not situated ~vithin or immediately adjacent to an area containing dense flammable vegetation; furthermore, the proposed project is surrounded by properties containing buildings constructed of steel and concrete and decorative landscaping. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: rotentiany Significant Less than a) Increases in existing noise levels? [] [] [] [] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] [] Comments: a) Sec Negative Declaration, Section E. b) See Negative Declaration, Section E. Potentially XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unle~ Significant NO an effect upon, OF result in a need for new or Impact Mitigated Impacl Impact altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? [~ ~ [] [] b) Police protection? [] [] [] [] c) Schools? ri [] [] [] d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] [] [] [] roads? e) Other governmental services? [] [] [] [] Comments: a) The 1,500 G.P.M. fire flows at 20 p.s.i, residual pressure for a two-hour duration as required by the Chula Vista Fire Department is available to serve the proposal. According to the Fire Department, the proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. b) According to the Police Department, the proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or altered police protection services. c) Because the proposal is for 41 senior units, assumed to be occupied by 1-2 seniors per unit, and one manager's unit, no adverse impacts to public schools would result. Although, the manager's unit ma,/contain a household with one or more school-age children, this would not result in a significant school impact. Page-JO d) The proposed project would be constructed and maintained entirely by the property owner/applicant. e) The proposal would not have a significant effect upon other governmental facilities. Potentially Potentially Significant Less 1hah Significant Unless Significant NO XII. Thresholds, Will the proposal adversely impact [] [] ~ [] the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project would not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold Standards. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than a) Fire/EMS [] [] ~ [] The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has determined that this threshold standard will be met. Comments: The Fire threshold would continue to be met as reporte~l by the Fire Department. Therefore, no significant impacts to fire services are anticipated. b) Police [] [] ~ [] The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. Comments: The Police threshold would continue to be met as reported by the Police Department. Therefore, no significant impacts to police services are anticipated. c) Traffic [] [] [] [] 1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better'as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. 2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections, which do not meet the standard Page-Il above, may continue to operate at their 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. Comments: According to the Engineering Department, all roadways within the project area are projected to operate at LOS C or better with the addition of the project traffic, in compliance with the traffic threshold. d) Parks/Recreation [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805. Comments: Because the project site is located to the west of Interstate 805, the threshold standard is not applicable. However, as a mixed-use development with a residential component the proposal is subject to payment of park fees to be utilized to provide for future park and recreation facilities consistent with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. e) Drainage [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Engineering Department indicates that the project will be required to construct new on-site and off-site drainage facilities. The preliminary grading and improvement plans include proposed drainage improvements that will improve the existing conditions as well as handle the increased flow created by the project, according to the Engineering Division. The project design and proposed drainage improvements will be sufficient to reduce any impacts to a level ofless than significant. According to the Engineering Division, the proposed project will comply with the drainage threshold standard. f) Sewer [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Comments: No new sewer service facility would be required to serve the proposed project; Page-12 however, engineering design of required sewer improvements or laterals to serve the project would ensure that sewage flows and volumes would not exceed City Engineering Standards and Sewer Threshold Standards. g) Water [] o [] [] The Tllreshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: No new water service would be required to serve the proposed project. The project site is an in-fill site within a developed area. The project site is within the service area of the Sweetwater Authority Water District. Pursuant to correspondence received from the Sweetwater Authority Water District, dated August 14, 2002, the project may be serviced from the existing 8-inch water main on Broadway. As noted in the August 27, 2002 Fire- Flow Availability Letter from the Sweetwater Authority Water District, the project may be served. Project impacts to the District's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. WouM PotentiallySignifican!Lessthan the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact l~itigated Impact Impact substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? [] D [] [] b) Communications systems? [] [] [] ~ c) Local or regional water treatment or [] [] [] [] distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? [] r~ [] [] e) Storm water drainage? [] [] ~ [] f) Solid waste disposal? [] [] [] [] Comrflents: a) The project site is located with an urban area that is served by all necessmy utilities and service systems. Any alterations to existing utilities and service systems and connections to such utilities and systems that are necessary to adequately service the proposal would be implemented by the applicant, subject to the approval of the City Page-13 and/or the appropriate utilities and service providers. Impacts of the proposal to utilities and service systems would be less than significant. b) See XIII.a. c) See XIII.a. d) See XIII.a. e) See XIII.a. The adequacy of the existing storm drainage facilities to serve the project would be determined prior to the issuance of construction permits; any improvements to the storm drainage system that are deemed necessary will be implemented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. f) See XIII.a. Pacific Waste Services provides solid ~vaste disposal services for the property. A new trash enclosure is proposed that would house three 4-cubic-yard bins, one each for trash, mixed paper, and yard waste, along with two 96-gallon carts for rigid recyclables. The proposed mixed-use commercial/residential project would result in a net increase in solid waste generation; however, the applicant shall be required to implement the City Solid Waste and Recycling Plan meeting all criteria for convenient spacing for solid waste and recycling facilities, receptacles and common area collection. XIV. AESTHETICS. WouM the proposal: ~mp~a Mitigated lmlnct lal!~act a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the [] [] [] [] public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a [] [] [] ~ scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] o [] d) Create added light or glare sources that could [] ~ [] [] increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Tide 197 e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? [] [] [] [] Comments: a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to thc public exist through the site. b) In accordance with the City's General Plan, Broadway is not a designated scenic roadway. Landscape treatments within a lO-foot wide strip along Broadway, K Street Page - 14 and Sierra Way and intemal landscaping are proposed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110) and the Montgomery Specific Plan as well as landscape and site architectural requirements and design review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts to these roadways are not adverse. c) Broadway is currently being studied for revitalization opportunities under the proposed Broadway Revitalization Plan. This type ofinfill project is supported by the goals of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. In terms of the project removing blight influences and providing new structures and facilities and contributing to the improvement of the area, directly and purposely linked to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and future goals of the Broadway Revitalization Plan. d) Proper architectural design would ensure compliance with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Exterior lighting would not be directed upward and would be designed with appropriate shielding, if necessary, to ensure that light does not spill horizontally beyond the limits of the development area onto adjacent roadways and surrounding properties. e) See XIV.d. Potentially XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the eolentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No proposal: ~mpact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or [] [] [] [] the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or o [] [] [] aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a [] [~ [] [] physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or [] [] [] [] sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General [] [] [] [] Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: a) No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known or expected to be present within the impact area of the proposal. See XV.e. below. b) No buildings or structures are present within the impact area of the proposal and no prehistoric or historic objects are known or expected to be present within the impact area. See XV.e. below. Page-15 c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cultural values. d) No religious or sacred uses exist within the impact area of the proposal. e) Based on the previous level of site disturbance associated with existing site improvements and adjacent site improvements, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated. Potentially Significant Leas than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the [] [] [] [] destruction of paleontological resources ? Comments: a) Limited excavation within undisturbed geologic formational material would be required; therefore, the potential for the project to significantly impact paleontological resources is considered to be less than significant. Potentially XVII. RECREATION. WouM the proposal.. Potentially Significant Lessthan Sig~fitlcant Unless Significant No a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or [] [] [~ [] regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [] [] ~ [] b) Interfere with parks & recreation plans or [] [] [] ~ programs? Comments: a) The proposed project would not induce any significant population growth and, therefore, would not result in a significant increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational opportunities. b) The proposal would not affect existing recreational opportunities. c) The proposal would not interfere with parks and recreational plans or programs. Page-16 XVIII. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION ~IEASURES: No mitigation measures are required. XIX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one' impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless- Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Land Use and Planning [] Transportation/Circulation [] Public Services [] Population an,d Housing [] Biological Resources [] Utilities and Service Systems [] Geophysical [] Energy and Mineral Resources [] Aesthetics [] Water [] Hazards [] Cultural Resources [] Air Quality [] Noise [] Recreation [] Paleontological [] Mandatory Fin~lings of Significance Resources XX. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, · and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, [] there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an [] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at [] least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a 'ipotentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, [] there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects Page- 17 ,4 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1R pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. Marilyn R~F. Ponseggi )/~ / tDate Environmental Review Coordinator Page - 18 Attachment 8 ATTACHMENT 3 ' Comment Letter on Negative Declaration IS-03-008 April 21; 2003 Ms. Maria Muett ~I'~A® Associate Planner PR ~ § 2003 City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department PLANNING 276 Fourth Ave. ........ Chula Vista, CA 91910 i: Dear Ms. Muett, 7_003 Thank you for taking the time to speak to me regarding the Proposed Seniors on Broadway project located at 825 - 841 Broadway be{n~ submitted by MAAC. As I indicated to you, I have a number of concerns regarding the proposed project and the assumptions that a~ i~ir{~ to determine its viability in our neighborhood and its impact on our neighborhood. As I understand the Neighborhood Revitalization Program, its intent is to make improvements to existing, blighted neighborhoods. Our ' neighborhood was established over 45 years ago and many of its 1. residents are the original homeowners. These homes are all in very good condition and selling in the $200,000 - $300,000 range. They do not, in my estimation, reflect a blighted condition. When the Chula Vista Elementary School District proposed and constructed the new Charter School at 590 ~K' Street, we accepted this new addition without complaint. This occurred even with the recognition of the anticipated parking problems that have come to fruition and impact our lives on a daily basis. However, the proposed MAAC project is another matter. I have attended the community meetings that have occurred to date, and I am concerned with the lack of specificity of the proposed plan that has been presented to the neighborhood. I am even 2. more concerned about comments made by the MAAC representatives regarding the assumptions made about the "seniors" that they anticipate will be occupying their project. As the project was explained it~ is to be a mixed-use project with retail and senior apartments. Unfortunately, with 42 proposed units, only 45 parking spaces were included. This is to provide sufficient parking for tenants, retail commercial, guests and MAAC social service workers. When questioned on the ratio of parking spaces to potential users I was told, "don't worry, seniors don't drive anyway". First I find this response insulting to my intelligence, and second, it makes me question the future for our neighborhood if this is the mentality that MAAC will bring to the table. I am a senior citizen, 2. and have been for some time. I still own a car; I still drive and hope to be adding to the traffic count in this area for some time to come. Some points of fact that will help in understanding the proposed project: · Sierra Way was recently widened through a deal between the City and the School District. Even so, the new street is still of 3. substandard width and lacks a sidewalk on the north side of the street. · As with most of the schools in our community, the charter school creates a traffic jam in the morning and afternoons during the drop-off and pick-up times of the students. There are times when Sierra Way is so severely impacted; the local residents cannot use 4. it. When I discussed this situation with school officials and crossing guards, I was informed that the traffic situation I described on Sierra Way is only exceeded by the traffic generated by the school on 'K' Street. · The proposed site is approximately one acre, about the size of a football field. 5. · The traffic problem will be exacerbated by the traffic trips generated by the proposed MAAC project - estimated at more than 600 traffic trips daily. And, since seniors don't drive, according to 6. the MAAC representatives, this count could be underrepresented in the traffic numbers. · The footprint of the Charter School is in different location than originally contemplated in the plans submitted to the City. I understand that the City does not have jurisdiction over a school site plan, however, if the change in the school footprint occurred in 7. anticipation of the MAAC project, or something like it, would City approval have been required? The proposed project appears to have been contemplated all along. A self-fulfilling prophecy? If this is the case, should this have been considered in the initial EIR? · Traffic and parking appear to have been understated in the Negative Declaration. - "The project site is presently vacant and undeveloped. The established surrounding land uses consist of a furniture store, .mortuary, school, auto-related businesses and 8. miscellaneous retail uses. Unfortunately, the staff report failed to mention that single-family residences are impacted daily by the traffic generated by the Charter School and surround the proposed site. · Neither does the Negative Declaration take into account that our neighborhood {our home) is bordered by Chula Vista High School (CVHS) to the east and the Charter School to the west. CVHS is approximately a quarter mile from the proposed site, and although the traffic 'impact from the high school is not significant, the traffic counts generated by the Iocal leagues using the high school athletic fields is significant, especially during soccer season. Often this occurs on both Saturday and Sunday. There is no mention of this in the Negative Declaration. I encourage you to inspect the impact of this situation on a "soccer weekend". I believe you will 9. find those using the fields occupy every available parking space on Fifth Ave., Sierra Way (approximately a third of the way to Broadway) as well as impacting the side streets closer to Fifth. During the week this traffic impact is replaced by the Charter School traffic. And, now we want to add additional traffic trips. I suggest that the traffic component of the Negative Declaration is flawed and understated and-does not identify the real traffic situation created by pre-existing uses or the proposed project. · Our residential streets are regularly used as short cuts to 'L' Street and to Sierra Way, depending on the direction of the traffic to and 10. from the Charter School and athletic fields. This condition has increased since the construction of the Charter School. As a result, we must bear the brunt of numerous speeding and, at times, reckless drivers. · A better use for the site, especially given the lack of open space on the west side of our City, would be to combine this site with the 11. existing playground at the school and create a mini-park for the neighborhood. I suggest that MAAC's mission statement to "make improvements to blighted areas" can certainly be fulfilled by turning its attention to the hotels and mobile home parks along Broadway. If they need low cost housing, I suggest that these would create excellent opportunities for neighborhood revitalization and be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. There are numerous opportunities in our community, too 12. many in fact, that would benefit from a MAAC revitalization effort. Our neighborhood is well established, clean and well kept. We accepted the Charter School and we are learning to deal with the resulting traffic. We do not need another project, or the additional traffic. There are many, greater opportunities available to achieve the MAAC goal. As I previously indicated, we are in need of parks on the west side of our City and we have more than our fair share of affordable housing. I feel 13. as if I am fighting the fight that Chula Vista has fought for years - to not become a dumping ground and not allow the more affluent of our community to not accept their fair share of affordable housing. Even at the prices I mentioned earlier, we are the affordable housing in Chula Vista. It is time to insure that well-established neighborhoods, such as ours, that are already impacted by existing schools, recreation centers and other community services are not over-burdened with even more development. I hope you will consider anii investigate some ~)f the flaws I see in the negative declaration regarding traffic, the description of the neighborhood and other community uses. I encourage you to visit the neighborhood and walk the proposed project site. Visit our neighborhood on weekends 14. during soccer season, as well as during the school day when parents are coming and going to school with their children. I believe you will see the impact for yourself. This project seems ill advised. Schools need more land for the children, not less. Respectfully, Bobbie Morris / 862 Cedar Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 . Attachment S Responses to Comment Letter on Negative Declaration IS-03-008 1. This comment does not address a potential environmental impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, therefore, does not address the adequacy of the Negative Declaration. 2. Existing parking within the neighborhood associated with the charter school are not attributable to the proposed project; furthermore, the City does not have the authority to dictate how school operations are conducted. The development of thc charter school was approved by the Chula Vista Elementary School District; the District adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA in conjunction with the approval of the charter school. The Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the District did not contemplate the existing pedestrian access point on Sierra Way, which has resulted in persons dropping off and picking up students parking in the surrounding neighborhood. The parking issue associated with the proposed project is whether or not it would exacerbate this existing problem. Thc majority of the patrons of the retail commercial businesses are expected to utilize on-street parking on the project's Broadway and Sierra Way frontages. On average, the proposed one-bedroom, low-income senior apartments are expected to generate a parking demand of 0.5 parking spaces per unit, or a total of approximately 22 spaces including the two-bedroom manager's unit, as outlined in the Agenda Statement. The off-street parking requirement for the proposed 2,219 square feet of retail commercial space is 11 spaces. Based upon the project's anticipated.parking demand and thc potential for approximately 14 on-street parking spaces along the project's Broadway frontage, the proposed 45 off-street parking spaces are considered to be adequate to meet the parking demand associated with the project. 3. Comment noted. This existing condition is not anticipated to contribute to a project- related parking or traffic impact. 4. Thc Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the District in conjunction with the approval of thc charter school identified the potential stacking of cars onto K Street at the school's main entrance during drop-off and pick-up periods as a potentially significant impact. To mitigate this impact, the District adopted a mitigation measure consisting of traffic control signage instructing drivers to park their cars in the school parking lot when dropping off or picking up students. The existing pedestrian access point to the school on Sierra Way, which contributes to school-related traffic on Sierra Way, was not contemplated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. City staff has initiated contact with the District to address school-related traffic issues associated with the charter school neighborhood and will continue to do so; however, the City does not have the authority to dictate how school operations are conducted. Project-generated traffic, estimated to be 340 average daily trips based on the current revised proposal, will be dispersed throughout the day; it is anticipated that a very small percentage of these trips will occur on K Street and Sierra Way on weekdays during charter school drop-off and pick-up periods. The current average daily traffic Page 1 of 3 Attachment 8 Responses to Comment Letter on Negative Declaration IS-03-008 volume on Broadway in the vicinity of the project site is approximately 22,000 trips. Pursuant to 2002 SANDAG ~rip generation rates, the percentage of daily trips generated by apartments that occur during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours is only 8 and 9 percent, respectively; only a portion of these trips are expected to occur on K Street and Sierra Way. For most types of retail businesses, the percentage of daily trips that occur during the A.M. peak hour is even less than the percentage of apartment trips. Access to the on-site parking lot will be provided from Broadway. The majority of the patrons of the retail businesses are expected to utilize on-street parking on Broadway along the project frontage, which will further minimize the amount of project traffic on Sierra Way and other residential streets in the surrounding neighborhood. 5. This comment does not address a potential environmental impact pursuant to CEQA and, therefore, does not address the adequacy of the Negative Declaration. 6. The trip generation projection for the project is based upon 2002 SANDAG trip generation rates for the San Diego region. The rate utilized for the apartments was six daily vehicular trips per unit (this rate is applicable to multi-family developments of 20 or more dwelling units per acre). Because the initial trip generation projection for the project was incorrectly based upon 9,010 square feet of retail commercial space (the proposal is 2,219 square feet) and because the number of apartments has been increased from 40 to 42 units, the number of average daily trips projected to be generated by the'project is 340 trips, not 600 trips as stated in the draft Negative Declaration. The fact that the proposed apartments are proposed to be occupied by low-income, senior residents had no bearing on the trip generation projection. 7. The City has no authority with respect to the siting of educational buildings on public school campuses; therefore, City approval would not have been required for the construction of the school building in its present location even if the current proposal had been contemplated by the District at the time of construction. If the current proposal was reasonably foreseeable by the District at the time they prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the charter school, then it would have been incumbent upon the District to assess the anticipated layout of the school campus and to address to the extent possible the potential impacts of the current proposal. However, despite the inclusion of the District's evaluation of the current proposal in their CEQA document, the District would not have been able to develop the project site as a non-educational facility prior to obtaining City approval. 8. Please refer to the response to comment 4 above. 9. With respect to project parking impacts, please refer to the response to comment 2 above. On weekends when sports league activities occur at nearby Chula Vista High School, A.M. and P.M. peak period traffic volumes are less concentrated than weekday peak periods associated with corrmauting patterns. Therefore, on weekends project traffic will be more evenly dispersed throughout the day than on weekdays, Page 2 of 3 Attachment g Responses to Comment Letter on Negative Declaration IS-03-008 which will minimize the potential for a significant amount of project traffic to coincide with sports league traffic. Based on the minimal contribution of project traffic during peak periods, project traffic is not anticipated to result in either a significant or cumulatively considerable traffic impact on neighborhood streets. 10. Comment noted; this comment does not address a potential environmental impact pursuant to CEQA and, therefore, does not address the adequacy of the Negative Declaration. 11. This comment does not address a potential environmental impact pursuant to CEQA and, therefore, does not address the adequacy of the Negative Declaration. 12. This comment does not address a potential environ_mental impact pursuant to CEQA and, therefore, does not address the adequacy of the Negative Declaration. 13. This comment does not address a potential environmental impact pursuant to CEQA and, therefore, does not address the adequacy of the Negative Declaration. 14. Please refer to the above responses to comments. Although it is acknowledged that the charter school and sports league activities at Chula Vista High School generate traffic and parking issues in the surrounding neighborhood, based upon staffs analysis of the project it is not anticipated that either significant or cumulatively considerable traffic or parking impacts will result from the project. Page 3 of 3 ,4 -75'-