The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Packet 2004/03/02 ~~~ :::-:-"'::; ~ CIlY OF CHUIA VISfA TUESDAY. MARCH 2. 2004 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 P.M. PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING (immediately following the City Council meeting) JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I 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 - February 3, 2004 2. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON AND RAUTH'S REPRESENTATION OF YACOEL PROPERTIES I, LLC - Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth has represented the City and Redevelopment Agency in connection with various public law, public finance, and redevelopment matters since 1997. Recently, Vacoel Properties I, LLC, a private developer, asked Stradling to represent it in connection with the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Report, and any off-site acquisition proceedings that may arise, in connection with the proposed Chula Vista Crossings project. Because of its previous and ongoing representation of the City and Agency, in order to represent Vacoel Properties, Stradling must first obtain a waiver of conflicts of interest from the City and Agency. [Ann Moore, City Attorney] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council/Agency adopt the resolutions. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter within the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Agency on such a subject, please complete the II Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the Agency/Council, staft, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Agency/Council and staff recommendation may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a Request to Speak form available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting. 3.a. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL TO AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR THE 2004 AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - This action is part of the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment process begun earlier this year to consolidate the Redevelopment Plan documents for the Otay Valley, Town Centre II and Southwest Redevelopment Project Areas and add approximately 494 acres of land into redevelopment. Approval of these resolutions would allow staff to transmit to taxing entities the Preliminary Report, which explains the reasons for the proposed Amendment and adopts the Owner Participation Rules for the consolidated redevelopment areas. [Director of Community Development] Continued from the meetina of 2/24/04 3.b. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AMENDED AND RESTATED RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION AND REENTRY PREFERENCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OCCUPANTS FOR THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the resolutions. 4.a. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE TERMINATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT AND BAYFRONT MASTER PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH NORTH C.V. WATERFRONT L.P. - Port and City staff were directed to investigate the opportunity to joint plan the bayfront. Joint planning would include Port properties located in the Chula Vista Bayfront, as well as City-jurisdictional properties located in the area known as MidBayfront. [Director of Community Development] 4.b. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Redevelopment Agency, March 2, 2004 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council/Agency adopt resolution a); Council adopt resolution b). OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 6. CHAIR REPORT 7. AGENCY COMMENTS CLOSED SESSION Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency/City Council states otherwise at this time, the Agency/Council will discuss and deliberate on the following item(s) of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency/Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency/Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Agency/Council's return from closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made by Noon on Wednesday following the meeting at the City Attorney's office in accordance with the Ralph Brown Act (Govt. Code § 54957.71 8. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -- Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Assessor Parcel No. 567-031-2700 (5.98 acres at 707 F Street) Negotiating Parties: City Council/Redevelopment Agency (Laurie Madigan), Barone Galasso (Michael B. Galasso), and The Olson Company (Tony Pauker) Under Negotiations: Price and terms for disposition/acquisition ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to a regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on March 16, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting in the City Council Chambers. 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 (TOO) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearin9 impaired. Redevelopment Agency, March 2, 2004 Page 3 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA February 3, 2004 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 6:28 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 ChairlMayor Padilla ABSENT: Agency/Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/City Attorney Moore, and City Clerk Bigelow CONSENT CALENDAR With the consent of Council, Item No.2 was moved ITom Action Items to the Consent Calendar. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 13, 2004 Staff recommendation: Council! Agency approve the minutes. 2. AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 The audited financial statements for fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, were prepared by the independent audit firm of Caporicci & Larson. Both the City's and the Agency's annual financial reports received unqualified (clean) opinions ITom the independent audit firm. (Director of Finance) Staff recommendation: Council!Agency accept the fiscal year 2002-2003 Financial Statements. Agency/Councilmember Rindone congratulated the City Manager and staff on a reserve of 20.6 percent in the City budget, as compared to the Council Policy of eight percent. Agency/Councilmember Salas spoke regarding redevelopment strategies and their positive financial effects on the City's General Fund. She requested that staff bring back a report that illustrates a clear understanding of the benefits of tax increments as a result of the Gateway project. ACTION: ChairlMayor Padilla moved to approve staffs recommendations and offered the Consent Calendar, headings read, texts waived. Council! Agencymember Rindone seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. I-I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. OTHER BUSINESS 3. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS There were none. 4. CHAIR/MAYOR'S REPORTS There were none. 5. AGENCY /COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS There were none. CLOSED SESSION 6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) . City/Agency vs. IT Group, Inc., et. al. [Case No. 02-10118 (MFW)] This item was not discussed, and no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT At 7:30 p.m., ChairlMayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to a joint workshop of the City Council and Redeveloprnent Agency at 6:30 p.m. at the John Lippitt Public Works Center, located at 1800 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, and thence to an adjourned meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on February 10, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting in the Council Chambers. ~ ~ LL':¡-=;~;'í;'<_t2_-Lc;c-------," Susan Bigelow, CMC, City Clerk Page 2 CouncillRDA Minutes I-~ 02/03/04 PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: ,Ä MEETING DATE: 03/02/04 JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON AND RAUTH'S REPRESENTATION OF YACOEL PROPERTIES I, LLC SUBMITTED BY: ANN MOORE, CITY ATTORNEY~ REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR %)1'"' 4/5THS VOTE: YESD NO0 BACKGROUND Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth ("Stradling") has represented the City and Redevelopment Agency in connection with various public law, public finance, and redevelopment matters since 1997. Recently, Yacoel Properties I, LLC ("Yacoel Properties"), a private developer, asked Stradling to represent it in connection with the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Report, and any off-sife acquisition proceedings that may arise, in connection with the proposed Chula Vista Crossings project. The Chula Vista Crossings proposal is for approximately 188,000 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space to be located on approximately 17 acres located at the intersection of 1-805 and Main Street. Because of its previous and ongoing representation of the City and Agency, in order to represenf Yacoel Properties, Stradling must first obfain a waiver of conflicts of interest from the City and Agency. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Resolution waiving the conflict of interest for Stradling, Yocca, Calrson and Raufh's representation of Yacoel Properties I, LLc. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION Stradling has requested that the City and Agency waive any objection it may have to Stradling's representation of Yacoel Properties in connection with the proposed Chula Vista Crossings project ó) -I PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: ~ MEETING DATE: 03/02/04 at the corner of 1-805 and Main Street in Chula Vista. This request, and City/Agency's express waiver of any conflicts of interest, is required under the California State Rules of Professional Conduct as a candition to Stradling's work for Yacoel Properties on the project. The formal request from Stradling is attached hereto as Exhibif A. Staff does not object to Stradling's representation of Yacoel Properties for the following reasons: (1) the lawyer at Stradling representing Yacoel Properties has been doing so for 2 years; he has never previously represented the City or Agency (2) Stradling's representation is limited to matters where there is no current dispute between City/Agency and Developer, and where no maferial future dispute is expected; (3) if a dispute does arise City/Agency would have the ability to require Stradling to withdraw from its representation; and (4) Stradling's expertise and advice is likely to enhance the overall quality of the project proposal. Accordingly, staff recommends the City/Agency adopt the resolution. FISCAL IMPACT Not applicable. jo\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\O2-24-04\Waiving Conflict of Interest - Yacael.dac 02-;)" COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2004- - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON AND RAUTH'S REPRESENTATION OF YACOEL PROPERTIES I, LLC WHEREAS, Stadling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth ("Stradling") has represented the City and Redevelopment Agency in connection with various public law, public finance, and redevelopment matters since 1997; and WHEREAS, Yacoel Properties I, LLC ("Yacoel Properties"), a private developer, asked Stradling to represent it in connection with the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Report, and any off-site acquisition proceedings that may arise, in connection with the proposed Chula Vista Crossings project; and WHEREAS, Stradling has requested that the City and Agency waive any objection it may have to Stradling's representation of Yacoel Properties in connection with the proposed Chula Vista Crossings project at I-80S and Main Street in Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, this request is required under the California State Rules of Professional Conduct as a condition to Stradling's work for Yacoel Properties on the project; and WHEREAS, staff does not object to Stradling's representation of Yacoel Properties for the following reasons: I) the lawyer at Stradling representing Yacoel Properties has been doing so for two years; he has never previously represented the City or Agency; (2) Stradling's representation is limited to matters where there is no current dispute between City/Agency and Developer, and where no material future dispute is expected; (3) if a dispute does arise City/Agency would have the ability to require Stradling to withdraw ITom its representation; and (4) Stradling's expertise and advice is likely to enhance the overall quality of the project proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista do hereby waive any conflict of interest that might exist in connection with Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth's Representation of Yacoel Properties, LLC and authorize staff to take any and all appropriate actions to implement this waiver. Presented by and Approved as to form by J:\COMMDEV\RESOS\O2-24-04\Conflict of Interest 2004.doc ';;'-.3 PAOI1, I'IIM NO.: 3 _mNG DATil; ÔÞl1 ~" ~ RlDIYILOP_NI AGiMer AGlMDA STAIIMINT ðf2-fOcf 111M TI1'LI: RESOLWON OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CItY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL TO AFFECIED TAXING AGENaES, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, OF THE PREUMlNARY" REPOIrr FOR THE 2004 AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MERGED OIULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJEC:r RESOLWON OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY' OF THE CITY OF QtULA . VISTA ADOPnNG AMENDED AND RESTATED RULES GOVERNING -PARI'ICIPAnON AND REENTRY' PREÆRENCES FOR ÞlíõPlIIV òWNIISANöjüSlNEÜOcX:üPüTs FOR 'i1fË MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECr AREA IUBMlftlD BY: COMMUNIn' DEVELOPMENT DIRECI'OR Ú ¿;.. ~ JI1 RIVIIWID BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECI'ORÚ~ r:,r' n 4/5THI YOn: yu D NO ~ BACKGROUND In NoVember 2002, the Redevelopment Agency initiated the prooessto amend the Merged Chula VISta Redevelopment Plan. (comprised of the -Tawn Centre II, Otay Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment Plans) to facilitate exlension of redevelopment and economic development tools throughout commercial and industrial areas in the westem port of Chula Vista (hèreinafter ref8rred to as the '2004 Amendment"). As a result of the decision to withdraw the BayfrontlTown Centre I amendment and the West Fairfield property, City/Agency staff delennined that it would be better to terminate the combined amendment process. Stoff is proceeding with an updated amendment process to add territory to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area (T awn Centre II, OIay Valley and Southwest). As part of the 2004 Amendment process, the Redevelopment Agency is required by the California Community Redevelopment law to prepare and submit to affected laxing agencies a preliminary report ihat (ij describes ihe reasons for ihe 2004 Amendment, ~ij desaibes the physical and eConomic conditions in ihe territory to be added to the Merged Chula Vista Project Area (hereinafter referred to as the 'Added Area" (iiij determines whether the Added Area is predominantly urbanized (as defined by law),. (iv) assesses the proposed method of finanång redevelopment, and (v) desaibes haw the projects proposed by the Agency would alleviate blight in the Added Area. Accordingly, consultonts under the direction Of staff and legal counsel have prepared the Preliminary Report. The Redevelopment Agency is asked to consider adopting a resolution that authorizes staff to transmit ihe Preliminary Report to affected laxing agencies. J-I PAOI 2, I"" NO.: MlmHO DATIl 02-2...ØIt The Agency will also be considering a separate ~ution approving the Amended and ~L z1 0 'f Rules Governing Partidpation and Reentry Preferences for Property Owners and Business Occupams. Draft Rules were transmi11ed 10 the Town Centre and Added Area Project Area Committees last fall, and both Project Area Commillæs reviewed and recommended approval of these draft Rules. With the exception of minOr 1echnic:a1 relinemen1s, the proposed final Rules are unchanged from the version reyjewed by the PACs and are being presen1ed 10 the Agency for considera1ion and app~1. RlCOIUUNDATION That the Redevelopment Agency adopt the following resolutions: 1) Resolution authorizing transmiffal1o the affected taxing agencies, as required by law, of the Preliminary Report for 2004 Amendment, in the form of an Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan, to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area. 2) Resolution adopting the final Amended and Restated Rules Governing Participation and Reentry Preferences for Property Owners and Business Occupants for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area. BODDS/COMMISSIONS UCOMMINDAftONI The PrelirninaryReport is an informational document and not subject 10 review or ap proval by the Project Area Committees or Planning Commission. A:> stated earlier, the draft Amended and Restated Rules Goveming Participation and Reentry Preferences for Property Owners and Business Occupants were revieWed and approved by the Town Centre Project Area Committee (on September 17, 2003) and the Added Area Project Area Committee (on October 9,2003). DISCUSSION If adopted by the City Council later this year, the proposed 2004 Amendment would achieve the following: 1) Consolidate the previously merged Town Centre II, 0Iay Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment Plans into a single amended and restated redevelopment plan document 10 be known as the Merged Chula VISia Redevelopment I')an, induding updating -the public improvement and focility projects list in the Plan; 2) AcId approximately 494.37 aaes of property loca1ed throughout the western pari' of Chula Vista 10 the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area ("Added Area"); and 3) Reestablish eminent domain authori1y for a period of 12 years on all property (except for residenfiallycoccupied property in a residrial zone) in the T awn Centre II Redevelopment Project Area; and 3-:1... ---, PAGI 3, 111M NO.: MIDING DATE: ot.24-04 4) Rses1ablish eminent domain authority for a period of 12 years on all property in thf' J::;f °1 Valley Redevelopment Project Area. The 2004 Amendment process was initiafed over a year ago, and is nearing completion. Agency staff anticipates that the 2004 Amendment would be considered by the Ci1y Council after a noticed joint public hearing with the Agency to be conducted in late March or early April. In the meantime, several documen1s related to the 2004 Amendment have been prepared, including a Preliminary Report and final Amended and Restated Rules Goveming Participation and Reentry Preferences for Property Owners and Business Occupanis. These documenis are described below: Preliminary ReDOrt State Low requires that the Agency prepare a preliminary report and submit it to affected taxing agencies. (County, school districts, and special districts) as part of the Agency's ongoing consultation process. Below is a summary of the Preliminary Report's five componenls: Section A- Reasons for the Amendment As described in Section A of the Preliminary Report, the 2004 Amendment is being proposed to achieve the following: 1) Consolidate the three existina redeveloDment Dlans into a sinale doc~ment to excedite administration and imDlementation of redeveloDment in the westem D rt of Cnula Vista. The Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment Plans were prepared at different times over a 15-year period, based on practices and legal requirements in effect - at the time. Consequently, the documenls vary dramatically, and their merger for financial reasons in 2000 have highlighted these inconsistencies. Additionally, the foct that the Added Area would need to be incorporated into the redevelopment plan creates an opportune time to update and consolidate the existing Redevelopment Pia ns into a single document. 2) Add DrODertv to the Proiect Area to achieve a comDrehensive redeveioDment Droaram alona Broadwav. Third Avenue and other commercial and industrial corridors I~ted in the western Dart of the citv. The Added Area consists of approximately 494 acres of property that is generally contiguous to the existing Project Areas. Adding this property enables the Agency to more effectively implement projects such as revitalization of the Broadway corridor as part of the City's overall efforts to attend to the acute economic development needs in older parts of Chula Vista. 3) Extend eminent domain authoritY. consistent with ADencv Dolicv in other Project Areas. in the Town Centre II and Olav Valley constituent areas. Eminent domain authority, though .3-.3 MG. 4, 111M NO.: 8m.G DATE: --~ 3-( 7.- -o~ rarely used .by the Agency, is an essential component of the redevelopment program, particulany in portions of these areas where lot assembly is needed to consolidate undersized 1015 under mixed ownership. However, the exisling Redevelopment Plan's time limit on commencing eminent domain has expired in the Town Centre II and Otoy Valley consli1uent areas. Consistent with Agency policy, the 2004 Amendment proposes to extend eminent domain on all property in the Town Centre II and Otoy Volley constituent areas. In the Town Centre II constituent area the 2004 Amendment would prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire residentially occupied uses in a residential zone. Otay Valley has no residentially zoned property, and therefore, does not hove this exemption. Though residentially occupied property in residential zones would be exempt from eminent domain by the proposed 2004 Amendment, eminent domain would be available to the Agency on residential property in non-resideritiàl zones. In most cases, residentially occ:upied uses are located in residential zones in the Project Ivea. However, there are eight Troiler parks (seven in the Added Area and one in Town Centre II) and two other residential parcels within the Added Area that are located in commercial or other non-residential zones, that could be subject to eminent domain acquisition if the 2004 Amendment is approved. In its other redevelopment areas, the Agency's policy has been to retain eminent domain on residential property in areas where non-conforming residential uses exist. Though there are no plans to acquire or redevelop these non-conforming residential uses at this time, it is conceivable that some nonconforming residential uses could be redeveloped in the future as the Agency looks to implement the Redevelopment Plan in conformity with City General Plan land use policies and improve the western part of Chula Vista. Eminent domain is an important tool for the Agency as it seeks to address blighting conditions, such as consolidating and redeveloping porcels that are undersized, lack parking and contain obsolete buildings that stifle economic growth in the area. Section B - A DescriDfion of Physical and EConomic Bliahfina Conditions Existina in the Ac:/ded Area Section B of the Preliminary Report contains a detailed description of the physico! and economic blighting conditions in the Added Ivea, and provides statislical and photographic data as evidence of these conditions. The conditions in the Added Ivea include the following: . Unsafe/Unhealthy Buildinas - Due in large part to excessive lot coveroge that inhibits safe onsite parking and årculation, over 50% of the buildings in the Added Area are unsafe, resulting in a disproportionate number of traffic accidents and serious building code violations. This condition is most severe in areas around Broadway and Third Avenue. . Factors Preventing Economically Viable Use - Over 50% of the properties on Broadway were rated foir or poor for parking availability due to insufficient lot acreage and setbacks. ..1;- 4 PAGE 5, 111M NO.: MIIII..G DATE: ~ 3{~o1 . Incomoatible Uses - Approximately 60% of the residentiol use parcels are located adjacent to industrial and/or commercial uses, resulting in a below market property values of these residences. . Abandoned Buildinas and Excess Vacont lois! Low Lease Rates - The average re1aillease rate within the Added Area is $1.32, approximately 43% lower than al'8QS ouiside the Project Area. . Excess of Businesses Caterina Exclusivelv to Aduhs - Per square mile, the Added Area has 26 times more liquor stores and 41 times more' bars than the entire City. . Hiah Crime Rates - the crime rates among all reported crimes are more than 8 times higher than the alywide overoge. Section C - A Determination as to Whether the Added Area is Predominantly Urbanized The Low requires that the Added Area be predominantly urbanized, generally meaning that not less than 80% of the lond within the areo has been developed, is an integral part of an urban area, or is characterized by having lo1s of inadequate form, shape, and size for proper usefulness -and development. The analysis in Section C of the Preliminary Report indicates that approximately 83% of the Added Area is urbanized; therefore, the Added Area is predominantly urbanized as defined by Low. Section D - Method of Financina Though other sources of revenue may be employed from time-to-time, the Preliminary Report acknowledges that the primary method of financing redevelopment of the Added Area would be tax increment financing, and includes a preliminary forecast of projected tax increment revenues from the Added Area in Section D. Over the 45-year period the Agency may collect tax increment revenue from the Added Area. The projections in Section D indicate that the Added Area could generate approximately $199 million in gross tax increment revenue during this period. After deducting the mandatory payments to affected taxing agencies required by Low, approximately $92 million could be deposited to the Agency's non-housing fund for redevelopment projects, and another $40 million could be deposited into the Agency's housing fund for affordoble housing projects. Section E - ProDOsed Projects and Proarams and How Such Activi1ies would Address Blion t As described in Section E of the Preliminary Report, the proposed 2004 Amendment, in the form of an Amended c;md Restated Redevelopment Plan, permits the Agency to under1ake a 'Variety of public infrastructure, community facilities, affordable housing, and other redevelopment projects in the Project Area. .J-S- PAGI 4i, InM NO.: MUll.. DAna 0.1 ¡4-0IJ P/-z{ ð~ Improvemen1$ to Merged Chula Vista Project Area public infrostTUcture are intended 10 alleviate traffic congestion and improve public safety, remove costly impediments to development, and upgrade infrastructure to contemporary standards to stimulate private development. Community facili1y improvements enhance the ability of the City to provide a commensurate level of services to Project Area and west Chula Vista residen1$ and businesses. . Improved service levels can elevate the appeal of Project Area real estate, thereby positively affecting property values. Other Project Area blighting conditions. that can be addressed through community facility improvements indude reduction of crime rates by expanding the availability of facilities for after-school programs. Affordable housing projects funded by Project Area tax inaement revenue will result in improved housing conditions and expanded availability of affordable housing, addressing dire needs for both in the Project Area. Finally, other redevelopment projects, including assisting private property owners with renovations or redeveloping their parcels, enable the Agency to undertake a comprehensive effort to expand parking and make more effiderrtuse ofProj8ct Area parcels 10 eliminate safety and other physical and economic constraints to private redevelopment. As required by Law, the Preliminary Report is to be submitted to all taxing agencies that levy taxes in the Project Area, as part of the Agency's consultation process. The accompanying resolution authorizes staff to transmit this document accordingly. Amended and Restated Rules Goveming Particiootion and Reentrv Preferences for ProDeriv Owners and Business Tenants Redevelopment Law requires that .the Agency have rules to govern owner participation and business occupant reentry for each redevelopment project area. The Agency currently has three different sets of owner participation rules for the Towri Centre II, Otay Valley and Southwest constituent project areas. Beccuse these rules were adopled at different times (as each constituent project area was originally established) the existing. rules are proœdurally inconsistent and unnecessarily cumbersome. .In light of the Agency's current effort to adopt the 2004 Amendment which would create a single, consolidated Amended and Resta1ed Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Chulo Vis1a Project Area, staff and consultants have prepared new, consolidated owner participation rules to remove these inconsistencies and the cumbel'S()lT1e administration that comes with three separate sets of rules. The attached resolution adopts amended Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Properly Owners and Business Oa:uponls for the Merged Chula VISta Redevelopment Project Area. The owner participation rules provide guidelines for the partiàpotion of property owners, operators of business and business 1enants in the Project Area. In œrtain instances when the Agency under1akes redevelopment of a specific property in the Project Area, or a property owner, business operator or business tenant wishes to participate in the redevelopment proœss, the Rules outline the procedures to be followed to ensure that both the rights of the participant in the redevelopment process are preserved and the. goals s1aIed in the Redevelopment Plan are achieved. J-~ PAR 7, 111M NO.: MIllING DAm ~ s1-z-( f)~ As stated earlier, the draft Rules were circulated by staff to the Town Centre and Added Area PACs, both of which recommended adoption of the Rules withaut further comment. The only difference in the proposed Rules from the version presented to the PACs is that the proposed Rules are only applicable to the Merged Chula Vista Redeveloprrient Project Area. These new Rules will go into effect upon the approval and effective date of the Amended and Restated plan for the Merged Project Area. Stoff will prepare a separate set of Rules for the Bayfront/T own Centre I Redevelopment Project Area at a future date. The adoption of the Rules is not a project under CEQA because it cannot cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The Rules are purely an administrative toal to decide who gates to participate in a project, not whether a project is initiated or underiaken (see CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378 and 16160). Moreover, the Rules will not become effective until the complefion of the CEQA process for the Amended and Restated Plan. FISCAL IMPACf The costs assacioted with the 2004 Amendment have been included in the Agency's budget, and involve consultant and legal services, direct and indirect costs of publishing and maili ng public hearing notices, and other incidental stoff and overhead costs. Future tax increment revenues from the Added Area could offset these costs if the 2004 Amendment is adopted by the Cily Council. - As mentioned on page 6, a portion of the gross tax increment revenue generated by the Added Area is required to be shared with affected taxing agencies that levy taxes in the Added Area. These payments are mandated by Section 33607.5 of the Redevelopmenf Law, and equal . approximately 34% of the gross tax increment revenue generated over the 45-year time period the Agency may collect tax increment revenue from the Added Area. J:\COMMDEV\STAFf.REP\O2-24.04\Preliminary Reparl & OP Rules. feb 24 04 - Staff Report.doc ..1-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF. THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL TO AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, OF THE PREUMINARY REPORT FOR THE 2004 AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PlAN FOR THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, on August 15, 197B, the City Council of the City of Chula VISta ¡City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 1827 approving a redevelopment plan for the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project and has subsequently amended said redevelopment plan on May 19, 1987 by Ordinance No. 2207, on July 19, 1988 by Ordinance No. 2274, on November B, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2610, and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2817 ("Town Centre II Plan"); and WHEREAS, on December 29, 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2059 approving a redevelopment plan for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project and has subsequently amended said redevelopment plan on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2611 and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2818 ¡Otay Valley Plan"); and WHEREAS, on November 27, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2420 approving a redevelopment plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project and has subsequently amended said redevelopment plan on July 9, 1991 by Ordinance No. 2467, on November B, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2612, and on August 22,2000 by Ordinance No. 2B19 ('Southwest Plan"); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 2819, the Town Centre II Plan, Otay Valley Plan, and Southwest Plan were merged to establish the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan to facilitate the sharing of financial resources pursuant to Sections 334B5 through 33489 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 !t~. ¡law"); and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2947 amending the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan to eliminate the time limit on incurring indebtedness, pursuant to Senate Bill 211 codified in Health and Safety Code Section 33333.6(e)(2)(B); and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2949 amending the Merged Chulã Vista Redevelopment Plan to extend the duration of the plan's effectiveness and time limit to collect tax increment revenue by one year, pursuant to Senate Bill 1045 codified in Health and Safety Code Section 33333.6(e)(2)(C); and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ('Agency") is proposing to amend the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan to consolidate the constituent redevelopment plans into a single redevelopment plan document referred to as an amended and restated redevelopment plan, add property to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area boundaries, and, subject to certain limitations, extend eminent domain authority in the Town Centre II and Otay Valley constituent project areas ("2004 Amendment"); and WHEREAS, Section 33344.5 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 !t ~.) provides that the Agency shall prepare and send to each affecting taxing agency a preliminary report which shall include the information contained in Section 33344.5; and WHEREAS, a Preliminary Report has been formulated and received by the Agency in the form submitted herewith as Exhibit A. 3-f{ NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby authorizes transmitlal to affected taxing agencies, as required by law, of the Preliminary Report for 2004 Amendmert to the Redeve/oprnent Plan for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project in the form attached hereto as Exhibit . A. Presented by Approved as to form by ~rZr Laurie M. Madigan An Community Development Director ncy rney . J;ICCMMOEV\RE8OS1D2"- - & OP ..... . FOb .. 04 . - -.... ..:J - c¡ EXHIBIT A PREUMINARY REPORT FOR THE 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT .]-10 Merged Chula VISta Redevelopment ProjectArea Preliminary Report February 24, 2004 Ra:tevebpmentAgenc¥ of Chula VISta 276 Fourth Avenue Chula VISta, earlfbmia 91910 I~ '~~,CTI,\ ~;~=:¡-~ ø-.w 8p8vac,* Group, Inc. 217 North Main Street, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92701-4822 Phone: (714) 541-4585 Fax: (714)836-1748 E-Mail: info@webrsg.com 3- If Table of Contents Introduction ---..-.-------....----.- I Amendment Process ..............................................................................................ii ~- for the Amendment_-..-.--.--..-..-----.-._._...A-1 Geographic Boundaries......................................................................................Ar-1 Existing Project Area.....................................................................- A-1 Proposed Added Area.................................................................... A-1 Background ...................................................................................................... ...A-3 Consolidate Redevelopment Plans ........................................-.....-. A-S Include Added Area........................................................................ A-S Reestablish Eminent Domain in Otay Valley and Town Centre II . -. A- 7 A D8SCItptlon of. the PtaYalcal 8nd economIc ConcIItI- ExIstIng In tIHt Added Area.._...........--.-......-..-.......-.-...-..---.-...--..... B-1 Legal Context of Bli9ht.....................................................................................-:.8-1 Physical Blight....................................,........................................... 8-2 Economic Blight .............................................................................8-2 Inclusion of Non-Blighted Areas if Necessary for Effective Redevelopment..............................................................................8-3 Blighting Conditions in the Added Area..............................................................B-3 Unsafe and Unhealthy Buildings ................................................... - 8-5 Factors Preventing Economically Viable Use............................... 8-13 Incompatible US!'S........................................................................ 8-17 Vacant and Abandoned Buildings ................................................ 8-22 Low Lease Rates ..................:...................................................... 8-23 Excess of Businesses Catering Exclusively to Adults................... 8-26 .1-12... J:ICOMMDEVITAPIAIPIIOJECnNI ~ REPORT. FEB . D4 - 'I!XT.ooc -.- High Crime Rates..............................................,..................,....... 8-28 Properties Included for Redevelopment PUrposes...........................................B-30 Effective Planning and Implementation of the Project...........:....... 8-30 Impact of Conditions on Ajacent Properties......:........................... B-3O Imposition of Uniform Requirements over Geographically Defined Area............,.............................................................;..................8-30 Properties Share in the Benefits of Redevelopment..................... 8-31 Properties are Part of a Blighted Area.......................................... 8-31 A Det8nnlnatlon .. .to Whether the Added Area I. Pr8domlllately U rbanlzed . ........ ............. ... ....-.....-..... n..... ..... .-........ n............ o. C-1 A Pl'8llmlnllr)' A88asment of the PI'OpO88d Method of FI_dng, Including the ~Ic F888Iblllty and - ~for the DlY'lslon of Tax Increment ."-".".....""'.""'..-.....-..."'."'.-.'..."""'-..'...."'0.. D-1 Financial Assistanca from the City, County, State, and/or the Federal Government ................................................................................... 0-1 Property Tax Increment............................................................:... .. 0-2 Bondend Debt..........................;...................................................-.0-3 Lease or Sale of Agency-Qwned Property...................,................-. 0-3 Participation in Development........................................................_. 0-3 Other Available Sources.~......................................................"......_. 0-3 Projected Tax Increment Revenues .....................-.......................................... -. D-4 Reasons for the Provisions of Tax Inaement in the Added Area """"""""'" -. 0-7 A Description of the Projects PropoMd by the Aaency and How 'They WIll IIIIpI'OY8 or Alleviate PhysIc:81 and e-Ic Conditions of Blight ..... .......-.-..-.-...---....--......-.-.--...........-..... 0 E-1 Public Infrastructure Projects......................................................... . E-1 Community Facilities..................................................................... . E-2 Other Potential Redevelopment Projects.........,............................. . E-2 Photo 8urY8y..-................---..-...Appendbc A-1 3-13. .tICOIM>I!V\T ~ ~ - . FIB . .. - 1EXT .DOC n .lIb ududion In an effort to improve lis eIforts to 18Yi1a1ize. west CtUa Villa, the Redevelopment Açitn;¡ of the City d Chula VIIta ("Agency") has proposed en amendment to the previously merged Town Centre /I, Clay Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment Plans ("Amandrnettj. If adopIed by the City Council (lifter a public hearing scheduled IBIer this Spring), the Amendment would accomplish the following: 1) Consolidate the Town Centre II, 0Iay Valey, and Southwest Redevelopment Plans into a single amendl~cL~~_~þ/an1focument to be known as the Merged Chula VISta RedeveIopmerìt Plan ¡Plan"}, including updating the public improvement and facility prcjecIs rlSt in the Plan; 2) Add approximately 494 acres of property located !hroughout the westem part of Chula VISta to the Merged Chula Vista RedeIIe/opment Projeá Area ("Added Area"); and 3) Reestablish eminent domain authority for a period of 12 years on all property (except for residentially-ocaJpied property in a residential zone) in the Town Centre II constituent area of the Project Area. 4) Reestablish eminent domain authority for a period of 12 years on all property . in the Clay Valley constituent area of the Project Area. As a part of the Amendment process, this Preliminary Report ¡Report") has been prepared in accordance wtth the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safely Code Section 33000 m §§g. flaw'). This Report describes the purpose of the Amendment, and the implications Öf the proposed Plan, and the Agency's proposed overall redevelopment program. Pursuant to the infonnation required by Section 33344.5 of the Law, this Report has been divided into the following sections: SECTION A The Reasons for the Amendment. SECTION B A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in the Added Area. SECTION C A Detenninalion as to Whether the Added Area is PnIcIominantly Urbanized. ~1-1'" ROSENOW SÆVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEvEloPMeNT AGENcY OF TIE CITY OF QUA VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 -I- CHUIA VISTA REDEVEl.oPMENr PROJECT AREA PREUMINARY REPORT SECTION D A Preliminary Asæssment of the Proposed MeIhod of Fmancing. ,~ the Economic Feasibility and the Reasons for the Division of Tax lnaement. SECTION E A Desaiption or the PItJjects Proposed by the Agency and How the Proposed Projec:Is WBllrnprovoe the Prcject Area and Alleviate Bight. Amendment Process The Law permits redevelopment agencies to 8ITI8nd redevelopment plans to moc\Ify limitations and expand boundaries to facIIIate the elimination of blighting conditions. The Law prescribes a specific process involving preparation of various. documents. including this Report, consultation with affected taxing agencies, and participation and input from affected residents, business owners, -pmperty1Ml'lel'8-ancI-oIher slakel.oklt..E.. The Plan is scheduted for consideration by the Agency and City Council at a joint public hearing later this year. All Project Area property owners, business owners, and other govemmerlal agencies will be mailed noIice of this joint public hearing. 1-1 S- ROSENC7N SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. REDEVEl.OPMENT AGENCY OF THE CI1Y OF CHUlA VISTA FEBRUARY 8, 2004 .11- CHUlA VISTA REDEvE1.oPIoENT PROJECT' AREA PREUMINARY RePORT It He as 0.-. for the Amendment Geographic Bound;¡ries The Added Area is Iocat8cI within the COIpOriIte boundaries of the City of ChuIa VISta, San Diego County ("Countyj, CalIfornia. Chula VISta is located in the South Bay area of the greater San Diego metropofiIan area, 7 miles south of the City of San Diego Downtown and 7 mDes north of the U5-Mexico border. Chula VISta covers an area of approximately 32,572 BaeS, contains 64,440 housing units, and the City's population in 2002 wasest!mated at 191;090, making ChuIa Vista the second largest city in the County, according to reports from Geographic Applied SolUtion. ExIs1Ing PIaject AnIa The existing Redevelopment Project Area consists of !he previously merged Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment Project Areas. The totaJacreage of.the _existing Project Area is 1,896 aa'eS, or 5.B% of the City; most of this property is in commercial and industrial use. Prapoøed Added AnIa The Amendment proposes to inCOl'pol'ate additional tenitory (known as the "Added Areaj to the existing Redevelopment Project Area. The Added Area would increase the size of the merged Project Area by 494 acres (approX¡mately 21%), bringing the total to 2,390 acres. The parceJs that comprise the Added Area lie along the major commercial and industrial roadways in the westem part of Chula VISta (Broadway, Third Avenue, E Street, H Street, and other pocket areas in the northern part of the City) that is not already in the existing Redevelopment Project Area. A few residential properties are also included in the Added Area, in order to potniaIly consolidate the necessary land assembly and eIfec:tuate future redevelopment. projects. A more thorough description of these properties is provided below. By including all the proposec properties, redevelopment efforts such as infrasÞuclure and capital project improvements 1M1i be eIfectIve in developing the entire PrOject Area. The Added Area is comprised of commercially and indusIriaJly zoned property, though not all property in the Added Area is currently used for these pu'pOSeS. The major land ~ in the Added Area include commercial, indusIrial, and residential. OIlIer land uses incka:Ie vacant, reaeationaI, Institutional, and public right r:Away. Table A-1 presents a land use breakdown of the Added Area. J-/fo . . ROSENCMI SÆVACEK GROUP. INC. ~ AGENCY OF THE CITY OF QUA VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 -M- aiULA VISTA REDE\IE1.OPMeNr PROJEcT AREA PREUMINARY REPORT ADDED AREA Land Use Count of Parcels Parcel Aa8age Commercial 385 65.59% 305.84 61.86% Industrial 52 8.86% 49.E 10.00% Institutional 7 1.19% 7.39 1.49% RecreeIion 2 0.34% 1.04 0.21% Residential 54 9.20% 30.44 B.1~ Misœllàneous 49 8.35%' 48.65 9.84% V8C8nt 38 6.47% 24.78 5.01% SublolaJ 587 100.00% 467.6 94.59% Publici RIght of Way 0.00% 26.n 5.41% ToteJ 5B7 100.00% 494.37 100.00% Source: Metroscan The boundaries of the Project Area are illustrated on Exhibit A-1. .1-/7 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVaOPMENf AGENCY OF 1ME CITY OF CHUIA VISTA FEBRUARY 9, 21104 - A-2 - 0tUI.A VISTA REDE'IEI.oPMENT PROJECT AAEA PRELIMINARY REPORT j-Ig Background The City Of Chula VISta ("City") curenIIy has five redev8Iopment constiIuent areas. which were IegaIy esIabIished between 1974 anc/ 1990. UnIke the neighboring cIies of National City, Imperial Beech and Coronado that have virtually their entire city within a redEMIIopment prcject area, only 1 0% of the City of ChuIa Villa is currently IocatacI wilhin a redevelopment prtIjec:t &rea. These five existing Redevelopment Prcjeå Areas comprise approximaIeJy 3,257 8CI8S of property. The Amendment aII'ecIs ttvee of these fiveconslituent 8I'888-Town Centre II, Clay Valley, and Southwest, whiCh as cIesafbed in the next paragraph, were previously merged to form what is known as the Merged Chula VISta Redeveiopment Prcjeå Area. The Amendment proposes a modest increase in the . total amount of property within the City that would be included i1 a redevelopment project &rea. while reinstating eminent domain (except for residentially occupied property in a residential zone) within the Otay Valley and - nTCWtTfCêmre II cól'llítitUer1tareas. What is now the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Projed Area (Town Centre II, Clay VaHey and SouItMest) originated on August 15, 1978, when the Chula VISta City Council approved a recIeveIopment plan for the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area. The original Town Centre II Project Area was enlarged on May 19. 1987 to include several noncontiguous areas in west Chula VisIa The Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan underwent additional amendments in 1988. 1994, and most recently in 2000, though none of these added territory to the Town-Centre II Project Areâ. Major land uses in the Town Centre II are the ChuIa VISta Shopping Center regional mall, the Civic Center, and other commercial and residanIiaJ uses. The Otay Valley Redevelopment Plan was adopted on December 29,1983 and includes commercial. industrial, and vacant properties along the south side of what is now referred to as MaIn Street, east of Interstate 805. The Otay Valley - Redevelopment Plan has been amended lwice since its adoption. though none of these amencIments modified the boundaries of the original Clay Valley project Area. The Southwest Redevelopment Project Area includes industriaJ, commercial, and residential properties in the 8OUthem part of the City, along Main Street (west of II'1I8n!IaIe 805). Broadway and ThIrd Avenue. The SouII?NeSt Redevëloprríent Plan Was originaØy acfopted on November 27, 1990. and amended shortly thereaItar on July 9, 1991 to include a amaH amount of additional area. Several other amendmenIs oca.nedbelween 1994 and 2002, though none of these modified the boI.ndaries of the Southwest Projed Ales. On August 22, 2000, the City CoImcII merged the Town Centre II. Clay VaIøy, and Southwest ÆIdeYeIopment areas by adopting a series of plan amendrnenIa. The a~ merger cid not alter the ~ recIeveIopmert plans themselves, but authorized the use of tax i1cremert funds throughout the Itne merged project areas. The proposacI Amendment is intended to consolidate the three separate l-Ier ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. EDEVElOPMENT AGENCY OF nE CITY OF CHU.A VISTA FEBR!JARY 8. 2004 -M- CHUI.A VISTA REDe\'ELoPMEHT PROJECT' AREA PRElJIlNARY REPORT -..- redevelopment plans into a single document for IItI'88mined lIdmini8lration 8I1d consis1ency with CUJTeI't Law. More recently, the CIty Council amended the existing Redevelopment Plan to rescind the tine limit to incur debt (11 January 2004) and extend the duration rif the Plan's eIrecIiYeness 81d time period to coIIeå tax increment revenue by one IIIddiIionaI ~ (in February 2004). The Added Ante adjoins much rif the. existing merged Project Ante 81d incorporates the majority of the I8I'IIIIiniIg commerc:iaIy ZDned property along major west ChuJa Vista arI8riaIs IIœ Bro8dway and Third Awnue. Though CUfI'8ntIy outside the existing merged Project Area. the Added Ante faces many of the same land use problems of the existing Project Areas, such as obsolete strip commercial dIMIopment that lacks parking and contains several incompatible land Uses. n.e and other physical problems, coupled with serious economic problems including high crime rates and low lease rates, forestan revitalization of these areas. Section B of this Report elaborates on the specific bjighting conditions in the Added Ante. The- riiembëï8H Of the AQencySoard arel1lSpOnsibIe for ~ and implementation of redevelopment programs in the Town Centre II, Clay Valley, and Southwest constituent redevelopment project.. areas that fonn the Merged Chula VISta Redevalopment Project Ante. The Agencys redevelopment successes during the past years include rehabltation of older commercial buildings in downtcvm, major renovations at the ChuIa Vista Shopping Center, streeIscape and public infrastructure ÍTlpI'C)V'eInens along Main Street and Broadway, construction of new public facilities and development of affordable housing. At the same time, the Agencys errons are ina8asingly becoming insufficient to meet the magnitude of the problems in the older Bts of the CIty. With the development of new, contemporary neighborhoods. and commercial developments east of InŒirstate 8OS,residents in the western part of Chula Vista face a lower standard of public infrasIructure, obsolete and deteriorating neighborhood retail aRIaS, concentratiòn of car accidents, and higher crime rates. The City is investing a significant amount of resources in the western part of Chula Vista beyond redevelopment resources. The ongoing General Plan update places a high priority on establishing a new vision for older parts of the community, while the recent ChuIa Vista Economic Development Strategy delineates opportunities to enhance industrial and retail areas in the City. HCNIIeVW, for the General Plan and the Economic Dewiopment Strategy to be successful, financial ancIland acquisition resources wiD be needed because the private sector alone has not demonstratecI an ability to remedy the physical and economic conditions. GO\I8I11/I1enta1 assistance is necessary. to remove major impediments to development and bigger projecIs that Wl1 remove bjighling influences and improlle the affectecI areas. The specific goals of the Amendment are clesaibed below. l-J-o ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. '. EDEvEI..oPMENr AGa/C( OF TIE CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 -~- CHUIA VISTA REDEVELOPMeNT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT -..-- c.""",,-,IIJ.lllr ~_..... The Amendment would enable the Af1s«:Is l8deveIoprnent work in the western part of ChuIa Villa and the 8XÍSÜIg redeJ8loprnent project areas in particular. The three exIsIirtI constiIuent l8deveIopmert p/81s, Town CentIe II, Clay VaIf!Jy Road and Southw8st were adoplBd between 1978 and 1991, and each plan was prepared by diII8r8rt sIIIII' and consuIt8nIs and bII88d ~ the practices and statutes at that time. As a f1I8UIt, the policies and IarvJege within these plans dill'er dI an 1ÜC8IIf. As a I8IUIt, administration of the plans can be cIiIIIcúIt due to these incai 18istel1CÏes. For example, implemena6on of a project on Broadway or Third Avenue could inYoIve review of twQ or three difr8rent redevelopment plans, a confusing and unnecessary process for staff and potential private sector developers and property cwvners. By consolidating the three separate redevelopment plans into a single plan, the A1;Jency would be able to more efficiently administer project implementation, and provide the general publiconerel8lively concise redevelopment plan (instead of three very dIIrerent documents). Include Added AI88 The Amendment also allows the expansion of redevelopment tools into 494 aaes of property that currently does not faD within the existing PItIject Area. Incorporating these addIionaI properties in the western part of Chula Vista into the redevelopment program provides incentives to property owners to renovate and redevelop their properties, While enabling the Agenr::y to more consistently implement improvements along all of Broadway, ThitI Avenue and other blighted areas in the City where redevelopment tools do nOt exist In some cases, inåusion of these additional parœJs is necessary to eIfectiveIy implement redevelopment programs in the existing Redevelopment Project Area. The Added Area is generaßy charac:leriz:ed by blighting conditions such as unsafe and unhealthy buildings, incompatible uses, factors that hinder the economically - viable use, abnormaHy low lease rates and excéss vacant Jots and abandoned buildings, excess of businesses catering exclusively to adults, and high crime rates. Section B demonstrates in detail the physical and economic blighting conditions in the Added Area. Exhibit A-2 displays the boundaries for the Added Area. ~~~, ROSENOW SÆVACEK GROUP.INC. EDEVEI.OPMENT f1oDéHCY OF TI£ CITY OF a-tUI.A VISTA FEaRUARY 9. 2004 -M- CHUIA VISTA REDEVElOPMENT PROJECT MEA PREI.1MINARY REPORT ~.,,"í .. I I ., , , 1 L_...- + ...... QuM '"'*.......... PIq8CI- . eatIIbII: Þ.2 ¡Idec""" ~Mlp 3 - :2..?- ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROIJP.INC. . EDEvElOPMENr AßÐK;Y OF TIE CI1Y OF CHUt.A VISTA . . FEIIRIJAAY 9. 2004 -Ml- CHUI.A VISTA REDEVaOPlolENr PROJECT AREA PREUI8iARY REPORT ~ I L I . """"'. En*I8It DaInIIn In Otay V8I8y ... TCIIMI C8I*- R The Amendment also proposes to reestablish eminent domain authority in the Otay Valley and Town Cenbe II constIIuert areas (except for I'8SiderœI uses on residentially zoned property). Though rweIy U88d, emi1ent domain is an esII8I1tiaI 1001 when the. Agency )8tic:ipI!Ø& in pmjecIs involving assembly of property, particuI8rIy in areas Iik8 Clay VsIey and Town Centre " where 8888ITIbIy of undersized parcels in mbœd ownership fIusIraI8s etror1sto dewIop contemporary uses. In adcIIion, the abllly to condemn property is one prac:ticaJ way to compel owners to redevelop their property through the owner perticipation process. M. the time of their adoption, both the Town Centre II and Clay Valley constituent areas permitted the use of eminent domain on all property. ConsisIentwilh statutory limitations, the time Omit to commence eminent domain expired 12 years following their adoption in 1990 in Town Centre II and 1995 in Otay Valley. The Law permits Agencies toextenclltl1s lime 1ir11itbylif þI8rI ~ Accordingly, the proposed AmencIment would establish a new 12.year time Umit to commence eminent domain in the Otay VaI1!Iý and Town Centre II ccnstituent areas, commencing from the dale the Amendment is ac:Iopted-exœpt that condemnation authority would not apply to occupied residential uses located on residentially zoned property. (Nola: the Otay Valley constituent area aJnentIy has no ~Dy zoned property.) Extension of this tine limit provides the Afency the option to use eminent domain in the future, though there are no plans to acquire any property at this time. The Amendment would also establish eminent domain authority for 12 years in the Added Area, but again this authority would not apply to occupied residential uses located on residentially zones property in ltIe Added Area. Though residential property in .residential zones would be exempt from eminent domain by the proposed Amendment, emiÔent domain would be available to the Agency on resiclerœl property in norH'eSidential (commercial and IndustriaQ zones. In most cases non-residential uses are Iocatød in non-residenIiaI zones in the Project Area. However, there are eight mobIe home parks (seven in the Added Area and one in Town Centre m and two other I8Sidential parcels within the Added Area that are located in commen:ial or other I1OI'H8Sidentia zones, that could be subject to eminent domain acquisition if the Amendment is approved. In lis other redeYeIopment areas, the Agenr:¡s policy has been to retain eminent domain in areas where incompatible residential uses exist; though there may not be plans to acquire or redevelop these I88idenIiaI uses today, over the next SENeI'aI years, i is conceivable that some residential uses could be RIdeveI oped in the fuI1n as the City looks to inpIemert the General Plan go8s to inprove west ChuIa VISta. Eminent domain is an important tool for the ~ 88 it seeks to ac:Idress blighting concItions such 88 consolidating and redeveloping parcels that are undersized, lack parking and conIain obsoIeIe buildings that stille economic growth in the area. -1-'-3 ROSENOW SÆVACEK GROUP. INC. EDEVElOPMENT ÞDÐK:Y OF 11E CITY OF CHIAA VISTA FEIIR\JMY 8. 2004 -",,7- CHUI.A VISTA REDEVEI.OPMENI' PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT II A D sac. ~ of the . PhysiœI 8Id Economic: c:o.wIlWIs ExistLlQ in the Added AI8a This Section describes the bBghting condiIions that exist wIhin the Added Area. The Added AI8a is characIerized by both physical and economic blighting conditions as defined by Law. The conditions found in the Added Area include the following: . UnsafelUnhe8lthy Buildings - Due in large. part to excessive lot coverage that inhibits safe onSite parking and circulation, over 50% of the buildings in the Add8d Area are unsafe, resulting in a disproportionate number of traIIic accidents and serious building code violations. This concition is most severe in areas around Broadway and Third Avenue. . Factors Preventing Economically Viable Use - Over 50".4 of the properties on Broadway were rated fair or poor for partång availability due to insulf"lCient lot aaeage ancf setbacks. . Incompatible Us. - Approximately 60% of the residential use parcels are located adjacent to industrial and/or commercial uses, resulting in a below market property values of these residences. . Abandoned Buildings and Exceaa V8C811t LoIBl Low Lease Rates - The average retail lease rate within the Added Area is $1.32, approximately 43% lower than areas outside the Project Area. . Excess of Businesses Cat8r1ng Exclusively to Adults - The Added Area has 26 times mOAt liquor stores and 41 times more bars per square mile than the City as a whole. . High Crime RatIts - Crime rates in (among all reported crimes) in the Added Area are more than 8 times greater than the citywide aime rates. This Section of the Report describes the preliminary findings of blight in the Added Area. . Leg;:¡1 Context of Blight SectIons 33030 through 33039 of the Law desaibe the concIIions that constituIe .. blight in a redevelopment project na. A blighted area Is one that necessitates 3-;¿ý ROSENoW SPEVACB< GROIJ". INC. REDEVElOPMENT Þ/ieIC( OF TIlE arv OF Qi1JI.A '-lIST A FEBRUARY e, 2004 .8-1. CHtM VlSfAREDEVEI.OPMENTI'ROJECT .MEA PREUMINARY REPORT the creation of a redevelopment project area, because the c:ombinaiion of conditions in an area c:onstil1te a burden on the community, and camot be aIIeviaIød by private enterprise, governmental action, or both. Section 33030 of the Law defines a bligttecl area as one that ~~ both of the following: " " To be blighted a project area (in this case the "Added Areaj must have at least one physical blighting conärtion and at least one economic blighting condition, as defined in Section~1(a) and (b), ~. PhylicalBIght Section 33O31(a) of the Law desaibes physical conditions that cause blight as one or more of the following: . Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. Serious building code violations, dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical construction, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors can cause these condItions. . Factors that prevent or substai1tially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or 1oIs. This condition can be caused by substandard design,lriadequate size given present standards and market concIitions. lack of parldng, or other similar factors. . Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the econòmIc development of those parcels or other portions of a project area. . The existence of subdMded lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and dewIopment that are in multiple ownership. EICononIk BlIght Section 33O31(b) of the Law describes economic conditions that cause blight as one or more of the following: . Depreåat8cI or stagnant property values or inpaired Investments, inducing, but not necessarIy linited to, those properties contai1ing hazardous wastes. .J - "-~ ROSENOIV SÆVACEK GROUP. INC. REOEVEl.OPMEN1' N3B«:Y OF THE CITY OF CHUI.A VISTA FEBRUARY 9, 2!104 . B-2 - CHl1A VISTA REDE\IEI..OPMEN PROJECT AAEA PR8.IMINARY RePORT . AbnormIIIIy ligh. business vacancie&, abnam1aIy low IBIse nd8s, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive VIIC8I'It IoIs within an area developed for urban use and served by uIities. . A lack of necessary commercial facities that are nonnalty foIn:I Í1 ~, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks 81d other lending inslitulions. . Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to aduas, which has led to problems of public safety and -!fare. . A high aime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and -'fare. Section 33030(c) of the Law also states that a blighted area may be one that co~n$ inadequate public improvements, facilities, or utilities when other blighting conditions are present. IncIu8Ion of Nor.-IIIwIÄ.d Al881f ÞIac . . -:I for E:If8dh6 "...eop.....11 Section 33321 of the Law states that non-bJighted areas can be included if they are necessary for effec:tive redeveJopmert, the law defines as follows: A project area may include lands, buldings, or imprt)VelTlenls whiåt are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, bUt whose inclusion is found necessary for effective redevelopment of the area of whiåt they are a part. Blighting Conditions in the Added Areé1 This section presents a detailed analysis of blighting conditions within the Added Area. RSG documented current conällions based on Interviews with Community Development, Code Enforcement, Public Works, File, BuiIdi1g, Planning, and Police Department, and disrossions with local realtors, analysis of local real estate and economic data, and review of various repor1s and studies. The following Table 8-1 lists the individuals consulted. 3-ti ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROIJP.INC. REDEVELDPMEIIT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUIA V1ST A FEBRUARY 8, 2004 - B-3. CHUIA VISTA REDEvaOPMENr PROJEcT AREA PREUMINARY REPORT - . ---.. - MERGED CHUlA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA N8me 1ltIe CIUIi J.~ II8rt Ber1amin TI'8Cy C. CI8rk R8IaI Broker Vall Ccmrnen:i8II1rck1nge ~ Cullen R8I8II Broker W8IIh F"1II8I1Ci8I Cammerci81 X8viIr DIll Velie Camnwnity c-Iapment SpecIeJiet ChuIe VIIC8 CorrIIII81IIy D8wIapment DevId Eieenber¡¡ SeIg881t CI8IIe VIIC8 PaIiœ DIpertnent Jm~ Fire MInheI 0IIIIe VIIC8 Fire D8per!ment Glen Goagine Deputy CIty AIIDm8y ChuIe VillI CIty A1Iamey's 0IIice LeII8ni HIr8 Senior Community DIMIIapment SpeâeJiet CIwIe VillI HoueIng DivI8Ion Joen Hughes Senior Code Enfaoœment 0IIIcer ChuIe VillI Code EnfIIrcernent L.upjta Lopez Reeldentieillroker CeoIury 2t All Reel E8I8Ie S18ve Morris Cr1me An8Iy8t ChuIe VillI PoIIœ DIpertnent Nency Roes GIS Speclerlllt ChuI8 V.. Tec:I1noIogy InformeIIon GIS Luci8nd8 Smith Lead ProgremmertAnelysi Chule VillI IIu8ineis Llcenee John StIlI Convnerc181 Broker Rocke & A'ia1f1t Commen:iel Reel Es1a1e MIguel TIIpie PrincipII Community D8veIopment Specialist ChuIe \II8Ia Commurity DeII8Iopment K8r8n WOQ\Jn Permit ~ S!m!!~ . Chulù"B1aBuiIdIrvDepedment In addition, RSG conducted a parcel-by-parœl field survey of thePrcject Area in February 2003 and agai'1 in October 2003. The purpose of the fiek survey was to locate and evaluate the exterior blighting conciIions in the Added Area. Each parcel was evaluated based on the physical conädion of the structure, the concfltion of the lot, the land use and the land use compabbirlty with sulTDunding uses. The following a'iIeria were included in and evaluated during the survey. . Damaged/deteriorated waD materials . Damaged/deteriorated roofing . Damaged/deteriorated fou1dation . Damageclldeteriorated overhangs/posts . Damaged/deteriorated porchtstairs . Damaged/deteriorated rafters/framing . Damaged/deteriorated doorslwindows . Damaged/deteriorated wiringlÙbTIties . Conditions that resulted in safety hazards . Lackofparking . Inadequate seIbac:k& causing land use conßicts . Insulliciä loading areas 1-t}..7 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVElOPMENT N3Ð/C'( OF 11£ CITY OF CHU.A VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 . 8-4. CHUIA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECr AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT . Ingrss/eglws problems . Vacancies exœecing 20% of the gross building area . Abandoned builclings . Incompatible uses OnlY 88ÅOUS DhvsicaJ or economic conditions were noted prcpe¡ties needing repainting, new signage, or general clearop, while prcminent within the Added Area, were not identified as a part of the field survey because these COI1dIIons were not deemed to be a refl8ble and consistent measure of physical or economic blighting conditions. A property was considered blighl8d if some or all of the above criteria were present. The types of blighting conditions noted within the Added Area include unsafe and unheaIIbyfactors._that hinder the economically-Wlbleuse,H1çompatible use, abandoned buildings and excess vacant lois, low lease rates, excess adult businesses and crime rates. U""" 8IIdI UnhuIII.~ BuIldings II8c:IIgroInI Prior to the construction of Interstate 5, Broadway was the primary nortlH;outh route between Mexico and Southern CaIifomia. The commercial conidors and trailer home par1œ on Broadway and Third Avenue evoNed in the early 1960 IÍ'Om the demand of inaeasing travelers and vehicle transportation to the Mexican border. Serving as transit corridors, the building size and site layout of the commercial stores supported travelers with smaJlloIs and setbacks. N. about the same time, mobile home parks developed along Broadway and Third Avenue. When the City emerged into a bedroom community and experienœd rapid population growth, Broadway and Third Avenue became - inaeasingly well- traveled and denser commercial uses moved into the area. The density resulted in tighter spacing between buildings especiafty in and around the moble home par1<s. The increase in population also resulted in the surge of number of passenger vehicles, which escalateclthe demand for parking. Coupled with the growth factor and demand for parking, the existing commercial areas lacked the lot size to accommodate contemporary building development standards such as setbacks and parking, and consequently, resulted in unsafe conditions today. The mobile home par1œ also pose a safety concern as the growth of popt.iJation and housing. cosIs conllict with the physical constraints of the site, jeopardizing setbacks and fire truck access. g.,........... De8Ign The primary problem with Added Area properties is !he fact that approximately 50% of the parcels are not designed in such a way to leave enough space around the building for parking and ensite circulation. So while !he buildings themselves .3.. ¿f ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. . REDEVEI..OPMENr AßliHC( OF l1iE CIlY OF CHUI.A VISTA FEBRUARY 9, 2004 .~. CHUI.A VISTA REDEVEI.oPMeNTPROJECT AREA PR8J1INARY REPORT may not be deteriorating ¡, 8V8I)' case, the def8c:tNe design of the buildings, inâuding the excessive lot c:overage IiI1d posIioning of thebuilcing on the lot, results ¡, serious safety h8zards. TheIle problems include a high COIICelIb.6..1 of car accidet1s and code violations in Added Area properties. Due to ímUfiden! . seIbacks, parking is timll8d and vehicles are fNquenlly ob&enIed parked on sidewiIIks and ingressIegress areas, posing serious hazards to oIher drivers as well as pedestriallS. DI.ring the SUI1Ie)', ROO noI8d at least 50% of the commercial properties on both Broadway and Thlro Avenue contained one or more vehicles parked on portions of the sidewalks or in cicuIation paIhs. The correlation between the lack d circulation and parkilll is evident as business 0WI18I1I and residents must make comprtll'nises bølween P81dng and safe cil'allalion. Without proper circulation space, drivers are forced to maneuver through narrow lanes, aeating a higher tendency d traßic accidents. Due to the highly subdivided nature of properties in these areas, many parcels have separate ingress/egress to Broadway or Thiro Averoe. This compounds the probIems-Jn-the8e-areas,Net-GAlydethese œnEfiIions-on-many pili ceIa, but also the relative excessive rnønbers. of curb cuts for ingressIegress reduce the availability of street parking. Without suI6cient parking spaces, customers leave the area to shop elsewhere where parking is readily avaÐable or are forced to park on circulation access or sidewalks. Another design deficiency that is common along Broadway and Third Avenue occurs when a car is forced to reverse to exit, and is blinded on cars parlced on the street. As an existing car attempts to reverse into the traveling lane and is blocked by parlcedcars, this creates opportunities for car accidents to OCCUI". The following illustration demonstrates this trafIic hazard: 3 -.2..' ROSENC7tN SPEVACEK GROIJP,INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF lIE CI1Y OF CHuI.A. VISTA FEBRUARY 8, 2004 . U - CHUI.A VISTA REDEYEl.DPMENT PROJECT AÆA PRELIMINARY REPORT --.. - The lack of access space and shortage of parki1g both contribute and impact - trafIic conditiOns. The following table inålCBtes that Broadway is the stIeet with the highest trafIic accident OCCUIT8nce in the city based on the number of accidents per linear foot. : SELECT ADDED AREA LOCATIONS Total Total Average Ratio to Accidents Distance FU Accident - City (Feet) Citywide 831 856,327 1030.48 1.00 StreeIa with Highest # of Accidents Broadway 108 24,728 228.96 4.50 Palomar Street 31 12.176 392.77 2.62 H Street 90 42,954 477.27 2.t6 1/ TI'BfIIc IICCIdents I8por18d from July 1, 2002 through Ðeœnber 31, 2002 Chula VI8III PoUce [)epartment The number oftrallic accidents on Broadway is 4.5 times higher lhanthe citywide average. Exhibit B-1 shows the location of the traIIic accidents fi'om July 1, 2002 through Decèmber 31, 2002. The number of traffic accidents Is also concellbdhod on E Street, between Fourth and Second Avenue as shown in the ~ -.3.0 ROSENOW SPEVACB<: GROUP, INC. REDEVaoI'MEHr AGeNCY OF THE CIlY OF CHU1A VISTA FEBRUARY 8, 2004 - 8-7 - CHUIA VISTA REœ\lELOPMENT PROJECT .AREA PRElIMINARY REPORT extJIl This œndition persisIB in aI parts of the Added Area, particularly along Broadway and Third Avenue. LEGEND + IIorId c:hiIIa -- Rollo",... -. Pro8otAno . .r_- &hItiI B-1 Tr8IIIcAcciderá WfhIn Ihe Addiod Ne8 :¡ - ~( ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP.IHC. REDEvElOPMENT N3F!1IC'f OF 1ME CIiY OF CHUIA VISTA FEBRUARY 8. ~ - B-I- CHULA \/1ST" REDEVE\.OPMENT PROJECT MEA PRalMINARY REPORT ........ Code VIoI8IIan8 ... If t.. ......... ~ The mmber aI serious building code violations per parcel in the Added Nea is more than nine tines higher than the ENeI'IIge citywide, ~ to recent data procI.nd from the City's Code Enforcement DeplII'tlllenl More than one out of My five parcels in the Added Area had a code violation cIed in 2001. More than 75% aI the building code violations in the Added Area are COIIC8I dialed along the Broadway corridor. Within the Added AnIa, pørceIs on Broadway alone had 113 of the 139 code violations within the Added Area duing 2001. In total, 107 (18%) of the Added Area's 587 parcels had one or more of these code violations during 2001. By contrast, less than 2% of aD parcels citywide had a code violation that same year. The density of code violations is attributed to i1s lack of parking and physical lot constraints that entices property owners to over utilize their property, thereby violating municipal code. Accordirg to Teresa Broussard,a SpecialistaUhe City's Code Violation Department, one of the moat common violations in the Added Area is building without pennit. Attempting to operate a business effectively despite lot size limitations, business owners construct structures illegally knowing that they otherwise would not be approved. These concIitions also exist in mobile home parks, where occ:upanli¡ lie. skiling building codes in an attempt to make1heir space livable in the face of costly housing 'prices. Ms. Broussard indicates that the types aI code violations foIA'Id in mobile home parks include building without pennlt. The conflict between the property owners' desire to ímpro\(e the buildings and to rnèet today's building codes is evident from the high concentration of code violations. The number of code violation occurrences in subareas C-12, C-9, A, C-2, C-9, C-10, C, C-11, B-2, and C-7 is greater than 5 times the citywide average based on the number of code violations to the number of parcels. A summary Qf building code violations is presented in the Table B-3 below. 3-.32- ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEIIElOPllENT ÞœNCY OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 21104 - B-8. CHUlA VISTA REDEvElOPMENT PROJECT AREA PREUMINARY RePORT -.,..----- ---- ADDED AREA - Code VIOlation Total NIIIIber 'II. ofViol8llona RatIo Sub8rea 0ccI.nencea of P8IC8I8 to PIIn:eI8 toCily CItywIde AV111'88 1,123 47.1123 2.34% 1.00 Added ,.,. St8tl8tlca HIghway I4IIntIr8tat8 805 11.- 3 eo 5.00% 2. 13 (Su~ A-1, A-2) North ThIn! Avenue"" 4 37 10.8t% 4.61 (Subareas B-1, B-2) SouIhIC8nÞ8I Third Avenue Area 19 183 11.66% 4.97 (Subareas 8, C, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C~) NorthtCentr8J Broadway"" 94 276 34.06% 14.53 (Subllre8sA, C-7, C-S, C-9, C-10. C-11) South BI'IIIIdw8y & WII81 Felrfleld 19 51 37.25% 15.90 (Subllrua.C,12. C-13) Total Added Area 139 587 23.88% 10.11 1/ Blålding code violations reported for year 2001 Source: Chula VISta Code Enfcrcement Department Exhibit B-2 presents the location of the code violation occurrence within the Added Area the year 2001, provided by Cools VISta Code Eliforcement Dèpartment. 1-33 - ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AOENCYOFTtE CITY OFOiULA. VISTA FEI!RUARY 8. 2004 - B-tO - CHUlA VISTA REDEVEl.oPMENT PROJECT AREA PRB.1M1NARY REPORT LEGEND + =::::..:;;,--Prqect- - . Codi - 0CCInn.. ~ lite Added ANI 3-.3'1 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVEI.OPMEHf Af1IE1oK:( OF '!HE CITY OF CHUI.A "IIISTA FEBRIJARY 9, ZOO4 .8-11. CHULAVlSTAREDEVELOPMENTPRaJEcT AREA PREUMINARY REPORT Struchnl cIeI8I ioration is also evident in some portions of the Added Area, according to field inspecticns c:onduc:IBcI ~ RSG over the past 10 months. The photo survey contained in the Appendix of this Report indudes specific examples of bûIdings in disrepair that pose safety risks to OCCUp&nl&, i~ buildings on Trousdale erNe and Press Lane, the 200 block of Brœdway, the 300 bbck of Broadway, the 400 block of Broadway, the 1100 block of Broadway, Third Avenue, and Glover Avenue. Common structural problems included weøthered and neglected building exterior materials such as sIdirç, roofing, window frames, and other aiticaI structural elements. Prolonged decay of these conditions can lead to a wealœning of slructlnl integrity, increased fire susœptibiHty, weaIher- induced damage, and wood infestation. fire "-* ComtTIeR:iaIanc:l mobile home properties-in the Added Area IackStJfficient space for par1<ing, which forces customers and residents to congest parcels with parked vehicles. This ciFa.lmstance mates serious safety risks due to impaired access. WIthout proper access, firefighters and emergency equipment cannot figlt the fire eIf8ctiveIy and wast& valuable tine when forced to extend the fire hose. For example, a commercial medical office buiking on Third Avenue had cars parked on both sides of the on siteciFa.llation area, fimiling the width of the throughway to less than ten feet. According to Jin Geering, the FIre Marshall at the Chula VISta Fire Department, the minimum fire truck ciFa.l1álion width is 20 feel Thus, partdng deficiencies can pose serious safety risks to building occupants when emergency vehicle access is limited. For mobile home páiks that were developed decades ago, an increased demand for parking and additional improvements have resull8d in shortage of space and sacrifices buffering space between each unit and lire truck access. Trained RSG field surveyors visitecI each.mobiIe home park in February 2003 and assessed the throughway width between mobile homes. RSG estimates that nearly 75% of the throughways in the Added Area's StMII'I mobile home parks have less than 20 feet width as cars are par1œd on the side(s) of the street. Umlting the width of the access. This condition is found in subareas A, B, C, and C-13. The pictures from the field survey in Appencix A exhibit this condition. The construction rnateri8I ànd the. distance between the mobile home park units are also more SUiœpIibIe to the &pI88d of lire. Mr. Geering also indicated that lightweiglt consIructian material is more susceptible tt? lire damage and spread of fire. The closer the sbuctures are located next to each oCher, the faster the fire wiD spread. Since the mobile home units were not bu8t with lire raI8d walls, the units will bum faster than oCher types of residential units; In some cases, occupants have worsened the lire safety of buIdings by using highly flammable ma\eriaI Oks plywood to make exIerior repairs. The cornI:Iå I8tion of the lack of sullicient space for fire truck access, 1i9htwe/ght construction material, and the 1 -..J S- ROSENON SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVEI.OPMENT AGENCY OF 11£ CIlYOf CHUIA VISTA FEBRUARY 8, 2004 . 8-12 . CHULA VISTA REDEvElOPMENT PROJECT" AREA PREUMINARY REPORT close . proximity at the mobile home perk makes the III'BII mare vulnerable to fire damage in the event at a fire. """'."IlapJll8ilIltf Thus far, the eIforts of privaleenterprise and govemment agencies have been unable to sustain a widespread eIfart to carrec:t unssre and II'IheIIIIhy car 1CIiIi0i1S in the Added Area. The cost to redesign the layout of the buildings in the Added Area is cIIIiaII to CI\I8I'COI1'18 because It often requires acquisition and redesign of properties in mbœd ownership. Property owners do not have the financial power to acquire neighboring sites fer expansion pt.I'pOSeS espeåa/Iy when retail commercial lease nås on Broadway and Third Avenue are 43% below the city average retail rents, suggesting that there is insutliåent revenue set aside for capital improvements or an inœntive to undertake a small scale redevelopment effort in the face of depreciated market values. By.expanding the Plan's aultlolity.to the Added Area, the.AgencywouJd have many tools to repair or redevetop unsafe and unhealthy conditions in the Added Area. For example, the ~ could also work with property owners to create shared parking areas where feasible, or redevelop blighted properties. The Agency could afso research and identify traffic acådent hot spots and invest in capital improvement projects that will deaease traffic problems such as adding signals or signage. F8ctars PnNe."..I:caIIDnJk;.4r\llallle~. According to the Law,factors such as a lack of parking, inadequate size. and substandard design can be an Ï('1dícalion of blight. in a project area if such conditions prevent or substanlialy hinder the economically viable use of buUdings or 1oIs. Based on ROO's field survey and other studies conducted by \he City, the Added Area contains many parcels that have serious p¡rking and design problems that signific:anUy hinder their economically viable use. The Added Area consists mainly of retaD and commercial land uses, many of which lack off street parking and are dillicult.to access from the busy streets, especially along Broadway, Third Avenue, and Trousdale Drive. RSG estimates that over 50% of the parcels have insufficient lot size andfor setback to support onsite parking and rely on street parking. This condition is evident in subareas A, A-1, B, C, C-12, and C-13. The lack of setbacks constrains the expandability of the builcfmg, pedestrian improvements, and other infra&tructure improvements. When parking is not readily available, potential customers are forced to spend more time locating a space, creating inconvenience and loss of sales. Generally, consumers look at convenience as ... aIIribuIe when cIeciding if heIshe wBl shop there. WIh the emerge¡ ICe of large reIaII œnI8rs wiIh acœssibIe parking in other parts of the City, retaB. shops on Broadway and ThIrd Avenue camet compete efreáiveIy in the City. 3-.3J, ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENf AGENCY OF lIE CITY OF CHII..A VISTA FEBRUARY 9, 2004 - a.:13. CHUIA VISTA REDEvElOPMENf PROJECT AREA PREIJM1NARY REPORT Most of the lots within the Added AI8a camot acc:ammoclale cantemporary retail development without first COIIIIOIidati..g ownership cI ~ I8'C8Is. AcaJrding to the Dollars and CenIs of ShcIppirç Center (2002), the median buildÌl1; 8ize of the smallest anchored tønønt was 17,640 square f8et. Taking into account space for onsite parking and oIher seIbIIcks, this tra'1sIates into a mí1inun let size of 0.81 &aes. The median size of c:ommerci8llols within the Added Area is 0.31 acres, approximalBly 3B% of the lot I8C\iremert for an anchor tønII'It. In fact, the CJ\/\!II'WhekÌlIg majority of the Added Area's commercial lots (79%) do not meet this minimum sIandard. ConIIequentIy, without irIcenIMIs to consolidate awnership and a8IIIe larger paroeIs of contiguous ownership, the Added Area stagnates and prcMdes any a limled range of retail needs. As descrb9d later in this Report, the limillld range of ÆIIaiI in the Added Area is dispn:Jportionately shifted towards r¡quor stonIs and bars that further undennine the character of the Added Area as a retail destination. IIro8dw8y "" _____n --- -- -- The majority of the buildings on Broadway were constructed IUOU'Id 1969, thus prior to todaýs retail standards. Therefore, many of the buildings' layouts do not accommodate for parking or traffic access. As Broadway evolved into a prominent retail corridor, many - of the buildings became relail use to accom~ the demand despite the fact that many of the lots haw no or little front setback for parking and ingress/egress. - However, with - the population growth in the city, parking demand spilled over onto and overaowded.the streets. The reliance on street parking and the lack of onsile parking continues to be problematic; Street parking alone cannot sustain the continuous growth of the city. In 2000, the City perfonned a swwy of Broadway's parking condition. As Table B-4 inälCates, approximately 50% of the sites rated either fair or poor, indicating lack of available parking on Broadway. BROADWA Y P,\I\v.I~G CONDITIOi~S TABLE 8-4 ADDED AREA Total Rated Pãrking Availability Rating Perœnt Subarea Parcels Good FairlPoor FairIPoor A 243 187 56 23.0% C-7 8 3 5 62.5% c-s 2 1 1 50.0% C-10 13 7 6 46.2% Total 286 198 68 25.6% Source: Broadway Revitalization Study, City of Chula VISta A parcel is rated fair when the property lacks on-siteIoIf-eite )81ŒIg for business type; parking lots thai are not adequalllly landscapecIor maintained; ¡aking lots that are begiming to deIerIorate(asphaIt) while poor ratirIg reþle88Il1a no on- onsite parking and relies only on street parking. ExhIbit B-3 displays the parcell\ that Mn rated either fair or poor. 1-31 ROSENCMI SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEIIElOPMENT fItGEHC( OF l1iE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 - 8-14 - . CHIAA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT' AREA PREUMINARY REPORT \ LEGEND + IIorgodChllla\l!otaRe"","'_lPrqect- . - _.RotodFli'orPòorIorParking Bdllb!l1I-3 I!roIdway P8IIdng ~~M8p .1-3i ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. REDEVElOPMENT N3Ð/C'( OF TIE CITY OF CHUI.A 'VISTA FEIIRUARY B, 2004 . - B-t5 - CHlAA VISTA REDeVEI.OPMENT PROJECT AREA PRaIMINARY REPORT The median lot size within the Added Ares on Broadway is 0.31 acres and including the bulcling, limila the IMitable size for property owner to acid ~ to its business. Many owners have altemptød 10 add partcing on its front seIbIIc:k to accommodate for partdng demand, but the lengths of the søIbacks are so short that cars are parked on pørts of the sidewalk and/or less tIa1 ttwee feet frtJm the entrw1ce of the building. The lack of buffer between the aWmobile and building is a safety hazard because there is no buffer belween the C8' and the building or people palrollizing the store. When cars are parked partially on the sidewalks, the sidewalks are bIocIœdand pedeslrialls are forœd to shin rigtt of way with automobiles. ConsequenUy, this aeatesa high volume of traIIic acådenIs. . As shown in Table B-2 earlier in this section, Broadway has the higheslnumber of car accidenls in the City. ,.... A- Commercial properties on Third AlI8I1ue also suffer from inadequate parking areas. N.1east 19 (25%) of the 75 of1hepa~on Third Avenœwere TIDIed during the survey for insufticient parking, as evidenced by cars doub/e-pallœd (bIocki'1g another car), parking in unmarked areas, parldngon sidewÌIIks, or blocked or constrained ingresslegress. For example, the rnedic&il center on Third Avenue had cars parked on both sides of the on site ciit:ulation area, Iiniiting the width of the throughway to less than ten feet. As previously mentioned, the Fire Department has determined that throughways of at least 20 feet are needed for emergency vehicle access. Thus, parking deIiciencies can pose serious safely risks to buDding occupants when emergency vehicIè ~ is limited: The insufficient designated parking areas impact the economic weD being of the businesses by creating inCOl'N8flienœ for customers. For example, a business on 690 Block of Third Avenue had approximatBly 32 feet total from the front of the parlång space to the waR of another bulding. According to Architectural Graphic Standards (a thumb of rule guide book for archilecls), the ideal distance is 42 feet for a passenger vehicle to patk and ~ 10 exit. During the survey, RSG noted that customers would have to reverse at least three limes to maneuver the vehicle 10 exit. TnIu8d8Ie DdV8 This street mainly consists of auto repair shops and CJIher industrial facilities. During the survey, cars occupied both sides of Trousdale Drive and its neighboring stræIs, and little space was available on ITI81)' properties for ensile parking and truck deliveries. Cars were also parked on pecIesIrian walkways or bIocIœd other cars, signalilg the lack of suIIicient onsiIe parking. Sidewalks and pedestrian aosswaIks were also nonexistent in many areas, which create a safety hazard as c:ars ... sharing the same rigIt-of-way as pedestrians. Why ItedIIuoII a p III8ItT As previously menIioIlEId, the privata sector alone cannot eliminate the blighting condItions due to its exIraordinary costs. The common problem on Broac:tWay .1-3 'I ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVElOPMENT AGENCY OF THE cnY OFCHUIA VISTA FEIIRIIIIRY 8. 21104 -B-t6- CHUIA VISTA REDE\IELOPMENf PROJECT AREA PRBJMINAAY REPORT -- .-. and Third Avenue is Insutlicient lot aaeege that IimiI8 onsIIe perking and tndIic ciraJIaIion space. According to recent dell8lopmelll costs of Bini. projects, the construction costs of SUlface or subIerraneen )8tcIng range from $5,000 to $20,000 per space, demanding on the type of consIrucIion. Even if a property owner was able. to acquire and clear nearby parcels, the peving and conslruction costs are expensive and infeasible. Induslrial business DIIIII1eI'S camot charge lis customers for parking and camol generate higher I8IIIaI income by providing parking on a fimited basis because the surrouncIing properties haw a more direct influence on lease rates. Through the tools of redevelopment, the ~ can implenient programs to provide incentives to ensure thai: future development in the Added Area provides sufticient par1áng and loading area. In areas such as Trousdale Drive where sidewalks are incomplete, the Agency could invest in sidewalk: prcjeds that would provide safer pedestrian areas. IncoIIIpIIIIaM . U8e& Incompatible uses in the Added Area were identified duri~ the field survey and subsequently analyzed to ascertain the extent that incompatibilities hindered the economic development of the area. Based on field observations, some of which are specificaDy cIocumenled in the photo survey in the Appendix of this Report, incompatible uses were- evident on 21 clilferent Added Area sIr8eIs, including the following: 1 ) Anita Street - 2) Broadway 3) Casselman Street 4) Manor Drive 5) E Street 6) Ganelt Avenue 7) H Street 8) I Street 9) J Street 10) Jefferson 11) K Street 12) MaåISOl1 Avenue 3-4°. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYOFTtE CI1Y OF CHUIA VISTA FEBRUARY 8, 2004 .6-17. CHUlA VISTA REDEVElOPMENT PROJECT AREA PREUMINARY REPORT 13) Mankato Street 14) Mcintosh Súeet 18) 0akIawn Avenue 18) Quintard Street 17) Roosevelt Street 18) Second Street 18) Third Avenue 20) Vance Street 21) Woodlawn Avenue Within the Added Area, incompatible uses occur between commercial uses and adjacent residential mobile home park properties in subareas A, B, 8-1, and C. Land use incompatibilities in these 8e8S stem from growth in west Chula' Vista that has inaeased the intensity of traIIic and development in these areas. Lots in these areas are underW.ed, so properties lot coverage is typically higher in these areas, which reduces setbacks andsþace for parking and bufI'ers to adjacent residential uses. Because these lots were not subdivided to accommodate this type of development, conflicts _between remaining residential uses occurred. Table 8-5 lists the number of incompatible uses within the aI'fecI8d subareas. Overall, 82.2% of the residential use parcels within these four subareas were located next and/or adjacent to parcels of inck.lstriallWld commercial use. INCOMPATIBLE USES 1 ABLE 8-5 ADDED AREA Number of Residential Use Number of % of Incompatible Subarea Parcels Incompatible Use Use to Parcels A 11 8 72.7% B 27 25 92.6% B-1 3 1 33.3% C 4 3 75.0% Total 45 37 82.2% Source: ROO FIeld Survey The conftict from residential use locating on a reIaD corridor (Broadway and Third Avenue) is evident among the mobile home parks. In one instance. an automobile parts store was built so close to a mobIe home I*k that the exterior ~-c.l' ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVB.OPMENT AIJ/E1C'( OF TIE CITY OF CIiUI.A \/ISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 - 8-18 - CHIM VISTA REŒVEI..OPMENT PROJECT AREA PREUMINARY REPORT walls of the buildings nearly touch each anoIher. ÑI example of this concition is shown in the photo survey in the Appendix to this Report. Exhibit 8-4 locales the parœ/s with ncompatlble LISe. 1-'1"2- ROSENC7N SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF me CIlY OF CHUlA ~A FEBRUARY 8. 2004 - 11-18 - CHUIA VISTA REDEIIELOPMENT PROJECT .N!EA PREUMINARY RE PORI' .\ LEGEND + II8rICI CIúa Villa ~ Prqec:t - . - ~U.. E!xhIbII B-4 ~ U.. "'* tM-AddId Ar'II 1-4.3 ROSENCtN SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OFTIiE CI1Y OF CHU1A VISTA. FEBRUARY 8. 2004 . B.æ. CIU.A VISTA. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NŒA PREUMINARY REPORT Other land use incompatibilities exist between small Added AAla commercial properties and lldjllcent residenti8l areas. Added Area properties generaDy abut existing single-family neighborhoods, and lack proper buffers belween the resIcIentiaI uses. 'These land use pattams create additional conflicts between Added Area and adjacent properties that affect property valws. According to a local residential real estate agent, Lupila Lopez of Century 21 All Real Estate, financing to purchase a home that is adjacent to a non- residential lot is more difficult as lenders are more reluctant to lend money to those types of properties. In addition, homes that are adjacent to Added Area commercial or industrial properties have lower values than simUar homes that are in areas further from these negative influences. Residential units neighboring a commercial use also experience nuisance such as noise, traffic, and fumes, which impacts quality of life and property values. Table ~ presents an analysis of single-family residential home sales for the 12-month period of October 2002 through September 2003. The analysis concluded that Properties. closer to the.AdcIEId.Area tOld for 18% less than homes in the City, ancl11% less than comparable homes in the same zip code over this time period. HOi\1E SfllES PRICES NFAREST ADDED AREA TABLE B-b MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Sales Median Difference Price from City Average - 200' from Added Area 21 $ 300,000 -18% 300' from Added Area 35 320,000 -11% Chula Vista (Zip 91910) 646 372,000 50/0 Chula Vista (Zip 91911) 610 335,000 -6% City of Chula VISta (All Zip Codes) 1,256 354,000 0% Nõte: Comparison based on aU home sales in Zip Codes 91910 and 91911 from August 2002 through September 2003 Source: Metroscan and DataQuick Real Estate News Why R8d8. ølop..-tf Despite the fact that mobile home uses conflict with SUlTOUnding commercial uses, property owners have little incentive to independently redevelop their parks consistent with the. General Plan because comrneråaI uses permitlBd in the area do not command nøtœt rents as cornp¡nd to the greaIar ChuIa VISta market area. Thus, providi1g economic ElIBislallce to property owners is one way in which the Agenr:f can faålitate redevelopment rl these Ù1COI'npIIibIe uses. 3-4V ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP; INC. REDEVEl.OPMENT AGENCY OF 11£ CITY OF CHUIA 'oilS! A FEBRUARY 9. 2004 - B-21 - CHUI.A VISTA REDEYEI..OPMENT PROJECT NIEA PRELIMINARY REPORT The ÞQeno¡ would be requnct to SlIt aside lit least 20% of its annual tax Increment I'8Y8nUeS from the Added Area, which can be used by the Þgerc¡ to increase the supply of IIII'oIdIIbIe housing, MIl therefore, CIIfer mare housing altemaliwls to lower income residents of the Added Area,wh/Ie relieving the pnt8SUI1J on residents to ive among incompøtI:IIe U88S. The Afln:y cauId also address land use incorrtp8libilli by in8taIIing buIrers (such as such as walls or landscaping) to reduce I1UÏIIImes between existing dIMI/oped properties and encourage development of more compøtlble dev8Jopmen\s in the future that mitigate fuI1n land use conflicts. v-.t 8nd 1UI.1IIDI18d... 1 . - The Added Area contains several vacant or abandoned builclìngs, some of which have remained unoccupied for years despite the relative affordabiflly of Added Area cornmeråal rents. Table B-7 presents a list of the vacant and abandoned buildings in the Added Area based on field observations. ....---------'_.__n. _____m___-.._m u_--.._u V¡,Cf\lJ: AtW Þ.Ef,f;OGr,EJ) BUILDINGS ì ABU: B.7 ADDED AREA Vacant Buildings Abandoned Buildings 11 0 Broadway 200 Broadway 600 E Street 380 Broadway 600 E Street 1400 Bay Street 470 Broadway 900 Third Avenue 390 Broadway 950 Third Avenue 600 Broadway 650 Third Avenue 530 Anita Street 360 E Street 1/ The location of the parcels are approxlma1e address, since some of the parcels do not have street address. One block may be listed twice for having more than one parcel qualify in that category Source: Metroscan and RSG Survey Abandoned blildlngs in the Added Area are also targets for crininal activities like trespassing and vandalism. For example, the buildings on Industrial Boulevard between Moss S1IMt and Naples Street are vacant wIIh rusting roof, patched walls, boarded and broken windows, and showing other signs of deterioration. The detelioraIion signals a lack of interest for the property and is an easy target for trespassers and vandarlSll1.1ñe bulkIng is COII9I8d in graIIiti on the e>cterior walls anct the EIQUipmènt on the roof. Most of the windows on the buildings are shattered, which poses a safety threat to trespamrs. Speàfic examples of these condIIions throughout the Added Area are conIained in the photo swvey in the Appendix to this Report. J-4Ç" ROSENON SÆVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEIIEI.OPMENT AGENCY OF '!HE CITY OF CHUIA VISTA FEBRUARY 8, 2004 .. . ~. . CHULA VlSfA REOEVELOPMEIIT PROJECT AREA PRElIMINARY REPORT' AÞandor1ec:I buildÎ/Vl aRt also a saf8ty ~ to tm:I I I ! 111. For 8X8I1*t, thIt 950 Block d Third Avenue ccntai1s two abIIndcn8ct buildings, rA- which one suIrers from serious fire damage and !he other one shows signs d deterioration. The sbucture with the fil'8 damage contains graffiti, Whiål suggesls Ilespas&ers' pI8II8I'1C8 even though the property is fenced in. . The )ClItion of thIt roof has collapsed and foundation is missing in some areas, which questions the sIruduraf inlegrityofthe building. Neglected, abandoned and vacant buftåll1gS are not only a problem for the IIII'ected parcels, but impair invesbnent and aeaIe problems for SUl'1'ÐUnding proPerties as WBII. The "broken window syndrome" is evident in areas where negIectød buildings exist. CIted in many safe neighborhood programs, this phenomenon establishes that negIec:ted properties (InCluding those with just one broken window) are more fikely to attract further vandaism and vagrancy as perpetrators target neighborhoods Where property owners appear to be less concerned about what ocaJl1I in these areas. These physical conditions create an environment tbatappearSto beinclison:ter, I1IÍ88S faar&, anG åemÐl1lflæSthe community, while undennining commerce. It is indeed evident that even though not every building in the Added Area is abandoned, their presence is seen in terms of higher ai'nes, a limited appeal of the area and devalued properties. Why..... Ilaplllo.oltT The City cannot compel property. owners to occupy vacant buildings, and often has limited means to enforce its codes on vandalism with disinterested or absentee landlords. When property owners are unable or unwilling to maintain their buildings and keep them occupied, the Agency could use the Plan's tools to provide assistance to these owners when appropriate. In addition, the Agency could worK as a conduit between prospective tenants and the real estate corrmunity to help expedite absorption of vacant space. In other instances, the Plan pennits the Agency to acquire properties, including eminent domain acquisition, as a means to remove these bI'¡ghting conditions and nuisance properties from !he Added Area. Low L-. RaI8s Based on leasing activities reported in the San Diego Daily Transaipt for the latter part of 2002, Added Area retail properties face dramatically lower lease rates as compared to other retail properties in ChiM VJsta. The average retail lease I'8\e within the Added Area is $1.32, approximately 57% ofthlt cfty average (not including the existing conllliluent areas). CoinclclenUy, the highest rental rate within the Added Area is $1.BO, Which is the same as the lowest rental rate of other parts of the CIty, as shown in the following table. .1-t./<.ø ROSE!'IOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REOEIIEtOPMENr AGENCY OF '!ME C11Y OF CHUIA '\IISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 . -1.,'¡3 - CHUlA VISTA REDEVElOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRa1MlNARY REPORT -----~ -- ADDED AREA VERSUS CITY ADDED AREA OTHER PARTS OF CITY 2/ AddIws L8M D8I8 RentlSF ~ L8M DIII8 RøntISF 111 BI'OIIdw8y 12/1812006 $ 1.77 801 E. P8IomIi Street 11ØJ2OO7 $ 2.38 1177 Broadw8y 11/1512006 1.32 801 E. Palomar Street 11ØJ2OO7 2.30 1172 Third Avenue 91812006 1.32 601 E. PaIom.. Street 119/2007 2.54 45 N.Broadway 91812006 1.60 303 H Street 1012712006 1.80 1172 Third Avenue 7I23l2OO6 1.09 583 Teløgl'lh Canyon Rd. 9/1112006 2.02 1655 Broadway 5/1812006 0.99 1172 Third Avenue 9I8l2OO6 2.25 347 East H Street 4/1912DO6 1.29 561 Telegraph Canyon Rd. 8114/2006 2.21 1261 ThIrd A1I8nU8 4I3I2DO6 0.99 347 E. H Street 4/1812006 3.06 AV8I1Ig8 $ 1.32 $ 2.32 1/ Lease sul'II8)' Indudes the most recent eight æ- under 5,000 sq. fl in each category 2/lnclude areas within the City that are not part of the ConstItuent Areas ---~-- ---_n_____~- ----~--~---- ----- - ----- ----- ------------ Source: San Diego Dally TranscriPt According to Tracy Clark of Volt Commercial Brokerage, the lower lease rates among retaß properties in the Added Area are primarily due to the shallow and small configuration of existing IoIs that are under mixed ownership, which pravents the development of contemporary shopping centers that feature more accessible parking areas and anchor tenants to attract a diverse customer base. Generally, contemporary retail centers with anchored tenants have higher customer draw power Clue to their - brand recagnItion and reIaI synergy. tlierefore justifying charging market rents. As slated eariier, approximately 79% of the Added Area parcels do not meet the minimum lot size necessary to be redeveloped into a contemporary retaß use that can command beIIer tenants, parking and rents. Michael Cullen of Walsh Financial Commercial brokerage also suggested that the lOI1lIeI' rents in the AdcJ.ed Area are a result of the aime problems evident in the area, and speculated that redevelopment of the Added Area could counteract criminal ac:Iivities, and thereby trigger more businesses to move into the area and lna-ease patronage of Added Area reIaiI properties. These changes could positively affect lease rates in the Added Area. As shown in Table B-9 below, depressed relaillease rates impair the private sectDr to invest in Added Area properties. Table B-9 presents a real estate construction pro fortna using typical real estate market conditions In the Added Area, including lease rates, undersized parcels and QIher factors. These economic conditions aeate a rmr;or di8incenIive for the private sector to redevelop their prcperties because the rents in the Added Area market area are not high enough for an investor to realize a reIIm on their construction costs. 1-- c¡. 1 ROSENCM/SPEVACEKGROUP,INC. REDEVEI.OPMENr N3f!N::Y OF 'Q£ CITY OF CHUIA VISTA FEIIRUARY 8, 2004 .~4. CHIJLA VlSTAREDEllELOPMENTPROJECr AAEA PREUMINARY REPORT - - ADDED AReA ~ ToI8l P8r BId/SF 1 43,560 sf FAR 0.25 IrnpnI\I8In8Id Size 10,880 ~ Rate (NNN)lSFJMO 81.32 La8n Amount 8O'J(, LiV 1.283,387 118 1- Pro 10l1li8 GIoIa Po8nIi8J Income t72,498 t6 V8œncy and CoIIecIians Lola 7.00% t2,075 t Grou EfI8ctIw Income t60,0 15 Opel'8llng ExpIIMM Property Management 5.00% 8.021 1 ReM""'" 2.00% 3,206 0 NNN ChIllg8S 3-00% 4,8t3 0 Total Operating Ex>ena5 (ExcludIng NNN charges) ~1~;ö42. 1 Net Operating Income 144,381 13 C8pit81ízatianRete 9% Pr-øpetty Value $ 1.f1N,D4 $ 147 Coat Pro 10l'1li8 Al:qulsltion CDIIIs 1/ 55 /SF 2,385,809 220 Hard CoII\S 5 /SF - Demolition Cast 217,601 20 Shell Construction $55.00 /SF 598,852 55 Tenent Improvements 810.00 /SF 108,800 10 Site Work $3.50 /SF t52,0161 t4 Off SIiø 50.000 5 TotIIl H8I1I Coets S 1.128.114 S 104 Soft Coeta ArchIt8ctlnI and EngiMering 5.00% of hard cost 56,408 5 Permils and Fees $4.00 /SF 43,560 " School PlIes $2.tO /SF 22.889 2 - Broker F- $3.00 /SF 32,670 3 InIeI8at 89.303 6 LoIIn Points t.50% 19,251 2 leg8Iand Accoúnting 50,000 5 Contingency 5.00% of hard coot 56.408 5 Dev8loomentIManaaement 5.00% ofhardcoot 56.408 6 Total SolI CD8IIt S 408.870 S 37 Tø/aI Co8å $ 3.no.784 $ 381 T8fJ8t""""" 10.110% ofCœt m.071 3fI R8c1- GAP A88Iatonc8 S 711.831 S 25CI " --""""'IIuIng--~....-.g¡ --.RSG Table B-9 demonstrates these problems based on a small scale prototype development in the Added Area, using construction costs from RSG's experience in the mar1œt area. The major de\IeIopment cost involves acquisition of developed properties under mixed ownership. Unlike purchasing vacant land, 3-4f ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVEl.OPMENT N3EJICY OF 11£ CITY OF CHUlA '\IISTA FEBRUARY 8, 2004 - B-Z5 - CHUlA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT N!EA PRELIMINARY REPORT poIeI1iaI developers must 8180 pIRt8se ~ I'IOIICOI ~ buildings on Added Area pItIp8I1ies. Given the high density and lot coverage.1II'I'1OrÇ many Added Area p¡rceIs (as shawn by the lack of pMŒ¡g) d8v8Iopers 8'e facing the economic c:haIIerQe of ptI'Chasing properties with eØting sIruc:Iures that are two to three times larger tI1II'1 what can be bI.it at IDday's dewIopment sIandan:Is. There is simply not enough rert-based project value for the private sector to offset these extraordinary costs. In the example U88d In Table 8-9, a small one acre retaR development could require a subsidy of more than $2.7 mIIIon-cIose to two times more than the value of the prqect ba8ed on CU18I1I rental rates. lnaeasing the rert rates to cover this gap is not feasible, since redeveIopi1g one of 494 acres In the Added Area would not trigger an incaase in Added Area lease rates overall; rents in the market area have a signIIicant influence on the rents that can be chaJged at specific projects. Based on these difficult redevelopment economics, it is not surprising that there has been little change to the Added Area. Why ~........-.t? The lack of private investment in the Added Area has created a disadvantaged and deteriorated retail corridor. Through redevelopment, the Agency could place investment in areas where private investment does not exist. In addition, the Agency could engage in capital improvement projects by proving designated parking areas and ftmd a Storefront Renovation Program that provides rebates to merchants and property owners who make improvements to the exterior of their building. These improvements would _assist the commercial stores in the Added Area to become more attractive and competitive. EJa:ess all Br ~ III .. CaIIedng ExI:IuIIwIy to Adults Relative to the City, the Added Area contains high concentrations of businesses that cater exclusively to adults. According to the Yellow Pages, the Added Area contains 32 bars and 25 liquor stores, all of which occur in much higher concentrations per square mile than the rest of the City. The number of bars per square mile is 43 times higher than the rest of the City; the ntimber of liquor stores per square mile is also high at 26 times the City average, as shawn in Table 8-10 below. .1-'1-, ROSENCMI SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REœvaOPMENT NÐ/C'( OF TIE aTY OF CHUI.A VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 - ß.28 - CHIA.A VISTA REDEVEl.OPMENf PROJECT AREA PREUMJARy REPORT ADDED AREA City of Chula VISta Added Area Ar8B (sq. nvl 51.18 0.77 liquor Stor8 ., of Liquor Stores 25 10 ., of LIquor SIDres per sq. ml 0.49 12.95 ., of Liquor Stores Ratio to City 26.50 Bars ., of Bars 32 21 ., of Bars per sq. ml 0.63 27.19 '# of Bars Ratio to City 43.48 Source: y"lIow Pages Because the majÇllity of the Added Area CO!Jf!ÎSt$oLsmalLloIs - that adjoin residential neighborhoods, the high number of these establishments that cater exclusively .10 adults impacts many residents. Consequently, social and economic problems. arise. Accordi/1; to Sergeant David Eisenberg with the Cools VISta Police Department, the Added Area is "1IWB8h in alcohol" and he estimates that many of. the patrons are not local residents. ProlIferation of these businesses is oII8n an unfortunate consequence of lower income areas, according to Sergeant ClSEII1berg, and perpetuates the aiminaf and economic problems in the Added Area. According to the City's Police Department data for 2002, reported aimes nearby these properties are higher than the City average and contribute to the fact that the Added Area has higher aime rates than the rest of the City. Evidence of the deviant behavior that 8UITOUnd8 these adults-only busi1esses is exemplified by compari/1; the location of the police "hot spots" where they receive the highEist portion of their 911 cds. The high percentage of adult businesses in the area and the subsequent inaease in crime that is associaIed with thèse types of businesses pose serious problems for public ~ and welfare. Table 8-11 shows that the crime rate with 200 feet of Added Area bars and liquor stores is more than 16 times higher than the City crime rate and double the crime rate in the entire Added Area. -1 -~() ROSENOW SÆVACEK GROUP, INC. REDE1iELOPMENT AGENCY OF '!HE CI1Y OF CIU.A VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 . ~. CHIJ..A VISTA REœVEl.oPMENfPROJEcT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT ADDED AREA Total Area Crimes RatiolD Crimes (Acre) Per Aae CIty City of Chula VIsta 7,160 32,572 0.22 1.00 Added Ar8a 943 494 1.91 B.65 Within 200 Feet of Added Area Bars and Liquor Stores 222 60 3.70 16.79 11 Part 1 and Part 2 Clime reported from July 1, 2002 through December 31,2002 Source: Chula Vista Police Department WIly.," "rl!~ Redevelopment of the Added Area can address the proliferation of liquor stores and bars in many ways. For example, the Plan enables the Agency to use tax increment financing to partner with local investment on redevelopment projects. lnaeased pU¡Iic and private sector investment in the Added Area would indirecHy create a more desirable location 01IeI' lime. ConsequenUy, a wider range of retail and service businesses would consider locating In the Added Area and eventually counteract the proflferation of marginal and detrimental businesses. HIgh CrIme RaI8s ROO analyzed Chula VISta Police Department crime reports from July through December 2002 for the entire City and the Added Area. Based on lI)is data and interviews with Police Depa¡1ment oIficiaIs, it is clear thai the Added Area faces severe crine problems. High crime rates are a burden on the City because they generate calls for service and demand a disproportionate level of aIIenIion by the Police DePar1ment. According IQ data þrOVidedby the Police Depar1ment, aims rates in the Added Area accounts for more than 8 times greater than the citywide average on a square mile basis as shawn on Table 8-12. ~ - Sf ROSENCNV SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDE\IELOPMENT Þ.GeNI::i OF TIE CITY OF CHUIA VISTA FEBRUARY I. 2004 - 8-28. CHUI.A VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT ADDED AREA AND SELECT LOCATIONS To1IIl Area Crimes Ratio ID Crimes (Acre) Per Acre CIty City of Chula VIsta 7,tBO 32,572 0.22 1.00 A 535 113 4.72 21.40 C-7 18 3 5.29 24.02 B 97 66 US 6.64 C 55 55 1.01 4.57 C-9 1 2 0.66 3.00 B-2 8 12 0.66 2.98 C-13 8 24 0.34 1.53 A-1 11 33 0.33 1.51 B-1 2 6 0.32 1.47 C-12 21 74 0.28 1.29 Entire Added Area 943 494 1.91 8:65 1/ Part 1 and Part 2 crime reported from July 1, 2002 through Deœmber31, 2002 Source: Chula Vista Police Department The types of aimes I1!pOrted in the Added Area during this period include possession of ilegal substance, robbeIy, assault, domestic violence, burglary, theft, and vandalism. Sergeant David Eisenberg with the PorœDepartment provided a detailed description of the nature of aiminal activity in the Added Area. According to Sergeant Eisenberg, properties along BroIIdway and Thirtl Avenue are highly impacled with crimes, in Iatge part because the gen8ra1 area is surrounded by high concentrations of parolees, sex crime registrants, and narcotics registrants. Approximately 1,100 of these individuals reside in Chula VISta, and Sergeant Eisenberg estimates that the vast majority resides in and artIU'1d the Added Area. Added Area businesses and residents are also atrected by the presence of two . long-standing gangs, including the Otay and 8anio Chula. VISta, who target Added Area properties and patrons. These ~ and other minals also engage heavily in narcotics activity that occurs alClill these corricIors in the Added Area, and the Police Department has found some businesses in the Added Area that operate as "fronts' for illicit activities. Why ""'~IDpment'1 The Plan can be either cirecIIy or incfireclly effediw in improving public safety by targeting specific 'hot spots' to imprcM housing I1IBI1agemert, increasing property owner attention and maintenance, and removing abandoned and . neglected buildings. The ~ can also help develop cominLl1ity facilities that ~-~2.. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEvEi.oPMENr AOENCY OF THE CITY OF CHlJIA VISTA FEBRUARY 8, 2004 - - - CHUI.A VISTA REDEVElOPMEI!IT PROJECT AREA PRaIIotINARY REPORT 88M!I the needs of the Added Area and greaI8r W8It CIUI VISta area to provide more slier school BCIivIIies as posIive option to garv¡ and nan::aIics. Properties Included for Redevelopment Purposes ConditioÌ1s ~ blight pr8dominate throughout the Added Alee. .f and to the extent that certain properties 81'8 not Individually blighted, their inc:Iusion in the Added Area is necessary for the foIowing reasons ancI recIewIIopment purposes; (1) in order to eIrecINeIy plan and C8ITy out recIe\I8Iopment of the entire Added AIea; (2) because such properties are impacted by the conditions existing on adjacent properties, ancI colT8åion of such conditions may require the imposition of design, development or use requin!ments on the standard properties in the event they are rehabilitated or rec:hweIopect by their owners; (3) to. impose uniform requirements over a geographically defined and identified area of the CIty; (4) bec¡¡ul38.~pro~v.riIl~_in ~.PI"IYI!~~!JC:I~ic~ that \\1111 accrue to the area through the elimination of substandard conditions, including the replacement or provision of new public improvements and facirllies within or servinQ the Added Area; and (5) because such properties are part of a blighted area. DI'8ctIve ...... 811d1mplem........,. of the Project The development poIsntiai of certain sJIes within the Added Area may be limited or infeasible because of the need for additional space, vehicular access, paoong; setback requirements, and other similar planning factors. These limitations may be reduced or efminated when adjacent properties are included in a proposed development &ite. In some instances, however, the adjacent properties may not evidence IndMdual blighting concitions, but their inclusion in the Added Area is necessary .In order to efI'ectiveIy plan and C8ITy out redevelopment of the entire Added Area. Impact of-CondIIIaI. an A4acM1t PI......... On occasion, a standard building or group of buildings can be adversely impacted by the blighting conditions existing on adjaœrt properties and the correction or aIIaviation of these conditions may invollle analyzing ancI treating the blighted and standard properties as a whole. ImpasIIIan of UnIrann R8q.IL -. -... CIINI" G8a..........; D8INd ANa It is good planning and economically sensible to impose uniform development and use provisions on all properties v.thin a geographically definable area; it also conforms to the common noIIon of fair play. J-:r-3 ROSENCMI SPEVACEK GROu', INC. REDEvElOPMENT AGENCY OF T1£ CITY OF CHUlA VISTA ~8.2004 - ß.3O. CHuLA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PREL1MINARY REPORT ----, PhIl' 1>. -- ---In the ........ at '" 1111 .1 h&.. .-.4 A very ~ inducement to property owner COOperation in tIie redevelopment process is the potential of substaltial pUjic inYoIvenient in the form of public imprD\lel11el'llS If the condition precedent to cbC8Inhg such public improvements is for property owners to cooperate with the redfMIopmert agency In the rehabilitation, development, mainI8nance and use d !heir properties, then It is equitable that all properties sharing the public benefit from such improvements should be requirad to conform to the same conditions. PIapMth.. .. P8rt of . ......... AnIII As reported, there are many physical and economic blighting conditions in the Added Area, the incidences of which vary from block to block, but when the sum efI'ect is examined the combined impact characterizes the area as blighted. The success of the different programs and public improvements proposed is dependent on the inclUsiOn of all propertieS thSt-arean intØgr8ì part of the whole Added Area. " . '/ - rl ROSENaN sPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEIIELOI'MENr ÞœH:;y OF THE CITY OF CHulA VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 . £1.31 - CHUI.A VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJEcT AREA PREUMI<IARY REPORT -- .. II A Detennination- to WIIetIø- the. Added Area is PledominateIy UrIaIizIed Under Section 33030 of !he Law, a blighted ... is one that is, at !he lime of adoption, predominantly urbanized (not less than 80%), which is defined in the Law as foUows: . Has been or is developed tor I.Iban uses; or . Is charad:erized by the existence of subdivicled lots of irregular tom and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness, and development that are in riïi.J1tií)le éíWI1frifùP;ói" .. . . . Is an integral part of one of more areas developed for urban uses, which are St.m)I.Inded or substantiaUy surrounded by parcels, which have been or are developed for urban uses. . Parcels separated by only an improved right-of- way shall be deemed adjacent for the purpose of this subdivision. . The Added Area encompasses an area of approximately 494 acres, inclusive of public right-of-way. A total of410 acres, or 83 % dftheAdded Area, is urbanized. - Urbanized areas include parcels that either have been or are currenUy developed for urban uses. No part of the Added Area is characterized with irregular or inadequately shaped parcels pursuant to the definition contained in Seáion 33031{4) of the Law, nor is any part of the Added Area in agricultural use. Exhibit C-1 depiás the specific location of nonurbanized parcels in the Added Area; the remaining Added Area properties are urbanized. - '1 - ~-S ROSENCNV 8ÆVACB< GROUP. INC. REDE\IELOPIIENT AGENCY OFlHE CITY OF CHlJl.IIo. VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 - c..1. CHI.lA VISTA REDEVELOI'MENT PROJECT AREA PRalIINARY REPORT \ LEGEND + IIorgodCllUla -- nld.,I1",...d PI\t8Ct...... . - Non u-.¡>- ExhIIit C-1 Urb8nIz8IIon r.IIp '.?-S"""c. ROSENOW SÆVACEK GROUP. INC. nEDEVEI.OPMENT AGENCY OFTIiE any OF CHulA VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 .c.Z. CHulAVlSTAREDEVEl.OPMEHTPROJECT.AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT n A PI eIImir& y Ass e s sment of the PI ~ sed MsIIlOd of ~ ~ the EcoiIomIç Fe asibility and the .-0.-. for the DivIsion of Tax Increment The Agency anticipates that redevelopment of the Added Area would be financed by the following resoII'C8S: --1) FllISncial..assisIance from the City, County, State of California andI("~-ederaI Govemment; 2) Tax increment revenue; . 3) Bonded debt; 4) Proœeds from lease or sale of Agency-owned property; 5) Loans from private financial institutions; and 8) Any other legally available source. The more typical sources of redevelopment financing that may be employed with the Added Area are desaibed below. FIIWICi8I A IIII ta. ~ flam the CIty, County, ..... 811&'01' the Fed8raI GcMIrrIm8d The Agency may obtain loans and advances from the City for planning, construction, and operating capital for administration until such time that sufficient tax increment revenue is raised to repay loans and provide other means of operating Capital. The City may also defer payments on AQenr:;¡ loans for land purchases, benefiting the Agency's cash flow. Such assistance is anticipated to be employed to meet short-lenn cash flow needs, as the City's General Fund cannot cany exI8nsive levels of AQenr:;¡ debt at the risk of IhraaIening the Clty's own cash balances. As available, other funds such as state-apportion road funds and federal Community Development Block Grants will be ap:II'OpIia\eI used to pay the costs of Project implemelllatiOl L The Aqeoof and CIty will also pursue other available grants and loans; adcIIionaIly, the City or otherpub6c agencies may issue bonds on behalf of the At¡Jeoo¡ and provide in-kind assistance. '. J-~7 . ROSENC7N SPEvACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVEI.OPMENT AGEN!)Y OF TI!E CITY OF CHUI.A VISTA FEIIRUARY 8. 2004 - [). t - CHIAA \lIST A ~ PROJEcr MEA PRFt 'UlNA.." ..1=1>nR'1' --, ~ 1;)< T8x Ib.._..m 1ñe.AQenr:y may use property. inaement as pn:Mded for Ì'I Section 33670 c:A the Law, and is authoriz8d in the Plan to employ tax Increment financing to r.nierwriIB praject CO&tII. Tax inaement revenue may only be used to pay indebtedness incun8d by the Agency; indebtedness i1cIudes principal and interest on loans, monies advanced, or debIs (whether ñmded, refInded, assumed, or otherwise) incun8d by the Agenr;y to ti1anceor ÆJfinance, in whole or in part, recleJ8lopmert activIIies. Indebtedness may be Ì'ICIm!d within time IimIIs presaibed by the Plan; while, the Amendment does not 8It8r these time . limits to incur debt for the preexisting constituent areas c:A the Projeå Area (Town Centre II Original, Town Centre II Amendment, OIay Valley, Southw'8St Original, and Southwest Amendment), the Agency may subsequently rescind these tine limils in accordance with Section 33333.6 of the Law. As for the Added Area, the Agency may incur debt for a period of 2(}-years foJIowing adoption of the Amendment. Project Area tax increment revenues are statutorily required to meet specific statutory obligations, as well as discretionary projecIs. As required by the . Law, not less than 20"-' of the annual gross tax increment revenue is set aside into the Agency's affordable housing fund for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of laIN and moderate-income housing. The remaining 80% of the tax increment revenue will be used to pay for taxing entity obligations (pinuant to fiscal mitigation agreements as applicable to the preexisting constituent areas of the Project Area, and separately, statutory taxing agency payments required by Section 33607.5 of the Law), debt service costs, and other program e.xpencfllures. Program expendiIu'es include commercial façade programs, infrastructure, capital facility, and economic development programs throughout the Project Area. Tax increment revenue may be collected for a period of 45 years foIlOYIing adoption of the Amendment within the Added Area, and for a shorter time period for the variouspreexi&ting constitUent areas c:A the Project Area. In addition, these preexisting constituent areas of the Project Area are also subject to a imft on the amount of tax increment revenue the Agency may collect; these tax increment 6mlts remain unchanged by the Amendment. The chart balaIN summarizes the various time and financial 6mils in the Plan affecting the collection of tax increment revenue: ,:?-S"f ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGee( OF 11iE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA FEBRUARY 8, 2004 - 0-2- CHUlA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ~ PREUMiNARY REFORT ,. ... t- n- UIIIIt ... ..-. UooIt... (' -AoII-a T8x ~ D8IIt C8II8ct..... ~ ......... --- ...... --- 0I8y1l8llllv No 1in8 UnI t2fa/2D34 $115.000 000 T-. C8nIno U 0ItIInI No 1in8 UnI 8If5/3128 $100,000,000 T-. C8nIno. ArI8Id8d No 1in8 UnI 711- ~ 0ItIINI . No 1in8 LinI 1112712D4t $150,000.000 ' ~AmIndOd No 1in8 UnI 711112DG PIÐPC*d Added Ar8I 20 V- FoIc:IwiIg 4S V- FaIoMIng NatAppic8blo' AdapIion of AdapIIon of Anwånent AnwDI8rt 11 AIþt8d ...Ullyby" -' pr!œÎIIIIIDC. 2J No tax incI8rrIIJnt.-.. Iin1I8qUÍIId for ...........ntllo PrIIjec:t Area Iller Jm.oory I, 1994. . r me -10 incur cIobt for 811 but the Added Ar8I- - by the CIty Ccu1ciI in .I8nu8ry 2004 puI8U8f1t 10 Sec\toII33333.6 of the 1.810. ... ... Banded Debt Under the Plan, the Agency would have a capaåty to issue bonds and/or notes for any of its purposes, payable in whole or in part from tax increment revenue. Many redevelopment agencies in the state employ bond financing as an integral component of their overall redeveIopment-financing program. The Plan permits the Agency the ability to incur such bonded debt, and contains a $175 mftIion limit on the amount of bonded debt principal which may be outstanding at any one time. Leese or Sale øf AgencyoOwned PIap8It,y The Agency may seD, lease, or otherwise encumber its property holdings to pay the costs of project imp/ementation. - Part! t II"'. kt DIMIlapm...t If the Agency enters into agreements with property owners, tenants, andIor other developers that provide for revenues to be paid or repaid to the Agency, such revenues may be used to pay project implementation costs. oø.- A¥8II8IIIe Saun:es Any other loans, grants, or financial assistance from the. federal gowmment, or any other pubfic or private scuœ win be utl'IZed, as available and appropriate. The Agency will also consider use of the powers pI'CMed by Chapter 8 (RedeveIopme¡t ConsIruåion Loans) of the Law to provide corisIruction funds for appropriate projects. Where feasible and appropriate, the Agency may use -. "1 - ~-, ROSENOW SPEVACeK GROU', INC. REDEllELDPMENT AGENCY OF 'nIE CITY OF CHUlA VISf A FEBRUARY 8, 2004 . [).3. CHUIA VISTA REDEVEI.OPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY RePORT 888888ment district and/or MIIIIo-Roos bond financing to pay for the costs of publcinfraslruct1n, facIiIies, and operations. Projected Tax Increment Revenuf's The primary source of project financing is ricipaIød to be lax ina8ment nMII'IUe. This Report contains a preliminary forecast of lax' inaement revenues from the Project AIea, balled on 8IM!InII assumptions noted below: Notø: BecIIuse the Amendment does not d8c:t the fInancia hits of the exI8IIng 0Iay Valley, Town Centre II and Southwest conatItuent al'll88, this section only analyzes the tax Increment revenues 888OCIaI8d with the Added Area. 1) 2OC)3.44 Bas. Year Value for Added Area: Assuming the Agency adopts the Amendrrtent as schedí,itecftfiíSSpnng-; lIïe AdœifAïiEï WOiiTêrrilêeiVe tax inaement revenue beginning in December 2005 based upon the inaemental growth in assessed values above the 2003-04 base year value. On February 4, 2004, the County Auditor Controller provided the Agencý a base year report indicating that the 2003-04 local secu-ed and unsecured values for the Added Area totaled $433,932,779. On January 29, 2004, the State Board of Equalization reported to the Agency that the Added Area had no nonunitary utility value in 2003-04. The base year values of the preexisting constituent areas of thé Project Area are unaffected by the Amendment. 2) As88888d Value GrowIh Ratøs: RSG conservatively applied a 3% annual growth rate to secured assessed values, and no increase on unsecured or. utility assessed values. If the Amendment is adopted, the Agency would coHect gross lax increment revenue from the Added Area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Redevelopment Law for a 45-year period. The Law requires that the Agency deposit 20% of this gross tax inaement revenue into the Agency's housing fund. In addition, the Agency would be required to share a portion of its nonhousing fund revenues with the atrected taxing agencies pursuant to Sections 33607.5 of the Redevelopment Law ("Taxing Agency Paymentsj. These Taxing Agency Payments would start in the fiIst fiscal year the Agency would receive tax increment revenue from the Added AIea (assumed to be fiscal year 2005-06), and continue through fiscal year 2048-49. According to Section 33607.5 of the Law, beginning in the fist payment year, tbe Taxing Agency Payments are equal to 25% of the Added. Area's annual nonhousing tax increment revenue. These Taxing Ageooy PaymenIs 8'8 subjeá to two subsequent Inaeases. The first increase in Taxing Ageooy Payments WOÙId take eIfect in the eleventh payment year, when the Agerv;y would be required to pay 21% of the incremental increase in nonhousing tax inaement '3-'° ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEvEI.OPMENr AGENCY OF l1£ CITY OF CtM.A 'oAST A FEBRUARY 8. 2004 - 0+ a«JLA VISTA REDEVELOPMeNT PROJECT .AREA PRE1.JMINARY REPORT --- exœedi'.g EIII1CUIts in the. 1BnIh payment year. The Law further provides for a second inaease Ì"I the Taxing Ags¡ncy Paymants that commences Ì"I the thirty..first: payment year r:l14% of the incrernerUI increase in nonhouslng tax ina8ment RMI1UIIS Ì"I axœss cI the IhirtieCh YI'I". In tctaI, the Agenr;j wiD Ihar8 approximately 34% rAils grœs tax increment revenues with the 8IfecII!IcI taxing agencies. Each taxing agency is entitled to their respective share of the Taxing Agency Payments. AI agencies receive their share r:l the $tabaory Payments, except for the City of San Diego, which,by Section 33607.5 of the Law, is only entitled to its share of the first 25% of the Taxing Agerv;y Payments. The foIcwing is a list r:l atrecIBcI taxing agencies in the Added Area, accon:ing to the Courty's base year report 1) City of Chula VISta 2) San Ðieg~County-Genenil¡Func:I 3) Chula VISta Elementary School District 4) National CIty Elementary School District 5) Sweetwater Union High School District 6) Southwestem Comml.U'1lty College DiStrict 7) San Diego County Superintendent of Schools 8) County WatBr Authority 9) Metropolitan WfIb!Jr District The actual amount of the Taxing Agency Payments wi. vary based on the amount of tax inaemerrt 1'EM!I1ues- collected by the Agency each year. A forecast of Taxing Agency'Payment8 has been included on Table D-1. Should actual tax increment revenues exceed or fall below these projections, actual Taxing Agency Payments would be higher or lower. Between fiscal year 2005-06 and 204849, ROO estimates that the Added Area c:c:Ud generate approxirnalely $199 million in gross tax inaement revenue. Msr deducting the Taxing I¥Jenc:f Payments descriIed abo\<e, approximately $92 miIion would be deposited to the Agerv::y's nonhouSing fund for redevelopment projects, and 8nother $40 mIion could be deposited i1to the Agency's housing fund for affordable housing projects. These prqecœd Added Area reveræs would augment Projec:t Area revenues from the existing CXII'IStiIuent In8S and be avaDabIe to fu1d projects tIToughout the Projeå Nea. '-f./ ROSENOW SÆVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVEl.OPMENT AOfiNCY OF TIE CI1Y OF CHUIA VISTA FEBRUARY '8. 2004 . D-S- CHUI.A VISTA REDE'IELOPMENr PROJECr AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT -.-. -- I\DDB) NfEA v- PID8cIod - - - _T.. IicIu*Ig "'-'* Not - - Talol -- - FIn! tDTIDIIoç -- u.- - Agora. -- So,", 0.0% IWIE 883,7511,- «1.174.114 433.1112.778 - 4011.171,425 «1.174.114 44$.746,538 11,812.780 2IJO6.O8 417,738,- «1,174.114 487.812,812 2J.m.803 2311;7118 47,1180 47.880 143,87V 2IJOII.G7 _,270,725 «1.174.114 470""""- 38,812.080 -.121 73,024 73,024 218,072 211OM8 ~,171,848 «1,174,114 _,880 48,4211.181 484.202 ',840 88,840 288,521 2IJO8.48 _,474,212 «1,174,114 481,148,1211 112.715,547 1127.115 125¡Q1 126.431 3711,283 _'O 470,188,438 40.174,114 810,342,1552 71.408.773 784,088 112.820 112.820 458.4118 2O1G-11 4M.27S.4II1 40,174.114 824,447.805 80,814.828 806.1'" 181.030 t81.030 543,088 2011-12 -,801,- «1,174,114 538,875.810 105,043,011 1.œo.430 210,088 210,088 830.258 2012-13 513,7e5.747 40,174,114 l1li3.-,881 120.1XJT,0I2 1.200.071 240.014 240,014 720.042 2O1~14 52e,178.718 40.174,114 -.3112,1133 135.420.054 1.354.201 210.840 270,840 812.520 2014-15 848,054.181 40,174,114 5115,228.188 151.288.418 1.512,854 302.1181 302,581 807.772 2015-18 881,405,703 40,174,114 8O1.57t,817 187.847.038 1.878,470 3a5,284 382,785 878,412 2018-17 578,247,875 40,174,114 818,421,888 184,488,210 1.844.812 388.878 <\24,744 1,051,170 2017-18 588,886,311 40.174.114 835,788,426 201,838,848 2,018,388 4O3,1n 4811,8113 1,128,111 20-'~1~~ fI1~~L1~ 49.174,11~~ ~,8:!I.284 218'~L~ :z.!!r.~--~._~Æ!! ~,~ 1.203.300 201- 831,887.O8/j 40.174,114 872,041.1711 238.118.400 2.381.084 4711.217 822.083 1.282.- 2020-2'1 880,823,077 40,174.114 880,887.181 257.084.412 2.570.- 814.128 881.821 1.-.- 2O21~ 870,347.788 40,174.114 710.521.883 278,588,104 2,785,88'1 8113,178 783,872 1,448,041 2022-23 880,4811.203 40,174,114 730.1112.817 288.888.838 2,888,l1li5 183,388 837,878 1,535,818 2II2W4 711.171.M8 40.174.114 711,348.083 317,413,284 3,174.133 834.127 811,806 1,825,402 2IJ24.25 732,507,107 40.174.114 772,881.221 3311,748.442 3.387.- m,m 882.418 1,717,570 ~ 754.482.320 40,174,114 704,858,- 380.723,855 3,807,Z57 721,447 1,073,287 1,812,8Q2 2O28-Z7 777,118.7110 40,174,114 817.280.804 383.388,125 3.833.581 788,718 ' 1.158,1512 1,110,283 2027-28 aoo-.2114 40,174,114 840,804- -'871,8211 4,088.718 813.343 1.242.375 2.010,- 2IJ28.28 824.~,202 40,174.114 884.817,318 _,884,837 4,308,&16 811.388 1.330,743 2,114,734 2028'-30 l14li,171,488 40,174.114 888,380,812 485,417.833 4.1564.178 810.838 1,421,781 2,221,881 2030-31 874.851.7113 40.174.114 814,825.107 480,~,128 4.808,831 1181.788 1.518,510 2,331,835 2031-32 800.l1li1.347 40.174.114 041.086,"" 507.132.882. 5.071.327 1.014.285 1.812,072 2,44c,&89 2032-33 1127.818,188 40,174.114 &88,082.202 534,19,423 5.341.584 1.088,318 1.711,530 2.581,745 - 8116.755,830 40,174,114 11&5,828.744 881,8l1li,885 5.818,870 1,123,884 1,813.873 2.882.- 2034-35 884,428,2l1li 40,174.114 1.024,802,413 580,888,834 5,808,888 1,181,338 1,818,488 2,805,888 2035-38 1.013,"'".1"" 40,174.114 1,054,1115,282 820.202,- 8,202.025 1,240.- 2,081.248 2.800.374 2O3W7 1.044,378.883 40.174.114 1.084,1564,087 850,821,318 8,1108,213 1,301.243 2,207.2M 2.57,716 2037-38 1.076,711.382 40.174,114 1.115,885,488 881,1182.717 8,818.527 1.a83,aos 2,357,847 3,097,875 2038038 1,107,882.724 40.174,114 1,148,1118.838 714,224,088 7,142.241 1.421,448 2,612,548 3,201.243 2038-40 1,141.222.205 40.174,114 1.181.3118.318 747,483,540 7.474,835 1.484.1127 2,872.088 3,307.810 2O4G-41 1.175,458,871 40.174.114 1,215,832,885 781,700.208 7,817,002 1.8113,400 2.838,435 3.417,187 2041-42 1.210,722,838 40.174.114 1,260.888,752 818.883.873 8,188.840 1.833,828 3,005,701 1,630,011 2042~ 1.247.044,317 40,174.114 1.287.218,431 8&3.285,852 8,832.857- 1.708.671 3,180,045 3.848.240 2043-44 1.284,455,848 40.174,114 1.324,8211,780 880,888,881 8,808,870 1,781,384 3,368,81t 3.786.857 2044-45 1.322.888,318 40.174,114 1.383.183,430 828,230,851 8,282,307 1,858,481 3,&44,581 3.888,284 2045-48 1.3112,878,11&5 40,174,114 1,402.863,108 888,820.330 8.888.203 1.937,841 3,735,081 4.018.271 2048-47 1,403.558,386 40,174.114 1,~,733,478 1,008,800.700 10,088.007 2,018.eo1 3,831.317 4.147,088 2047-48 1.445,888,1'" 40.174,114 1,485.840.280 1,061,807,481 10,518,076 2,103,815 4,133,430 4.281,830 2Q48.4/I 1.4l1li.038.130 40 174,114 1.52e.210,244 1.095.277.485 10,852.775 2,180.556 4.341.808 4.420.814 TOI8I 188,73Ii.738 38,747.147 67,O3O.sao 81.858,028 N8I-_(8I8%DIIcounIR818) 38,303.784 7,88tJ.757 11.1152.281 1UIMI,738 100% 20% 34% "'" [1-' 2.. ROSENOIV SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF 11£ CITY OF CHUIA'\'ISTA FEBRUARY 8, 2004 -1).6. CHUIA VISTA REŒVEI.OPMENT PROJECT MEA PREUMINARY REPORT ----. Re<lsons for the Provisions of T<lx Increment in the Added Area Tax inaement financing will be an eesentiaI component of a successful rec:I8IIe!opment program in the Added Area. As demoIlIIIriIted in SecIiori B of this Réport, many of the Added ANa blighting conditions 818 aIIribuIøcI to a lack of firw1cia1 il1C8l1lives for redeæ/opment, suå1 as I9de8ign and I9COnstrucIion of obsolete properties. Mar1œt values and development constraints have caused infiII properties to remain uncIev8Ioped for decades, even as the greater City of Chula Vista area has experienced an unprecedented housing boom. While there are other means to raise public funds without lax increment financing, these techniques would ultimately resUt in higher. taxes or inaeased development costs, beth .of which are counlerprociJctive to resolving the unique isSues In1tieAddedAnta... -Forexample;certllîffþlÖCîmfj\:Mimen!Scou1â-œ financed by creating an assessment district, but the property owners would probably not support aeation of the district because many cannot sIrord the cost of additional laxes (two-thirds of the voters must approve fonnation of such a district). Tax increment financing provides a dedicated source of revenues for the Agency to invest into housing and redENeIopment programs, without burdening property owners or residents with additi_onaI COlIs that they cannot afford. ~ AOEÆY OF m: CITY OF CHULA. VISTA ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 8. 2004 - 0.7- CIU.A VISTA REDEVElOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT II A Desc.~ of the ~ Pk..posed by the . ~ How TIIØy W". Impruue or AleUiat£ . . and Ecoßomic CõIwI... of BIght The Plan incorporates a list of the inliastnJctuœ and pubic faCIlities prcjeds proposed to be implemented by the Agency throughout the Project Area. In addition to these projects, the Agency win employ other tools necessary to allevië the blighting conditions. as clemO!1$b'at$d in Section B of the Report. The projects proposed by the Agency include the following: PubIc II*88IIIIcII88 Prajects Improvements to Project Area public infrasInJcture are iritended to alleviate traffic congestion and improve publiC safety, remove costly impediments to cIeveIopment,and upgrade infrastructure to contemporary standards to stimulate private development. The proposed trafficlèilt:Ulation improVement projects - shall include, but are not 6mllecJ to roadways, landscape, street lights; pedestrian walkways, bridges, interchanges, roadways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parking, street widening, street rights, traflic signals, over or underpasses, utility undergrounding, bicycle paths, streetmeclians, trails, and trolley CRI!ISings. The proposed sewer and drainage improvement projects shaI include, but are not limllecJ to, monitoring systems, sewer paraIe/s, drainage, sewer lines, wastewater treatment facilities, flooding systems, floor control dkes, and sewer systems. The proposed utility and communication improvement projects shall include, but are not limited to, electrical distribution systems, natural gas disbibution systems; cable lV and fiber optic communication systems, water disbibution systems, and windbreakers. Further compl"lBI1C8 with General Plan, zoning standards, and environmental review may be necessary for these proposals to come forward. Projects include, but are not limited to the following: . StreetIEntrvwav Beautification. ConsIruct streetscape. inprovements at key Project Area locations, inåuding Fcx.rlhAvenue and Highway 54. . Main Street Imcrovements. Construct street improvements along Main Street to improve traffic flows and upgrade c:haracIer of right-of-way. 3..;.' c.f. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF TI£ CI1Y OF CHUlA VISTA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 -E-t. CHUI.A VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY RePORT . Broadwav ~~. ImpIemert a variety at sIr88t and other applicable improvernera along Broadway, from H Streetto L Street. CanIn8II8y r...... Community faality irnplO't'8l1l8rå enhance the ablity of the CIty to provide a commeIlSI.I1IIe level at 88Mœ demands at Project Area and -.t ChuIa Vista residents and businesses. Improved seMoe levels can. ekWaI8 the appeal at Project Ar9a real esIate, thInby posIIiveIy aIrecIi1g property values. OCher blighting CO! dIions that can be addressed through the proposed conlnl.rlity facilities improvement projecIs shall include, but are not imiIed to per1cs, open speces, schools, school facilities, fire and police facilities, communication systems, bbraries, fire proIøc:tion, culural ceners. community centers. èIty maintenance facilities, plazas, reaeationaI facilities, playgrounds, and civic center. FUJther complanc:e with the General Plan, zoning slandards. and _~~I~ 111.8)'- ~necessary for these ~Is to. ~ ~rd. oø.-........... RedImIlapm811t PriIj8cIs; 'The Agency may consider participation in other redevelopment projects to reduce bliglt and achieve other redevelopment goals. Except where noted, most of the projecIs are in the conceptual stages and no fonna proposals have been submilled to the city or Ageint::f. Thus, each of these projects is subject to further disa8lionary actions and is not being approved specificaIy reviewed as a part of the adoption of the Amendments. Further CQrnpiiance with- the General Plan, zoning standards, and environmental review may be necessary for these projects as proposals come forwart, These projects include, but are not limited to, the following: . WfI4! Commercial Proiect. Redevelopment at property at the comers of Third Avenue and E Street for retail and other comrnerdal use. . LandislPaâfic Scene. Adoption of specific plan and development of approximately 152 residential units at the corner of Third AYeI1U& and Davidson Street. . SUHSD Joint Proiects. The Agency and the Sweetwater Union High School DIstrict may consider one or more planning agreements to implement a series d improvemerts to a.mmt and fúure SUHSD properties that serve the Amended Project Area. The projecIs may include redevelopment of the existing DIstrict headquarters and corporate yard on Fifth Avenue with approximately 200 RI8idenIIaI units, the WII1dmII Farms property at Third Avenue III'1d Alvarado SIr8at for Disbict headquarters, residential and commercial uses. . Duke Enerav Plant Relocation. FaciItateI raIocation and reuse anellor . relocation of power generating facI&ty within the Amended Project Area. ..1 -for ROSENON SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVEl.OPMENr AGENCY OFTI£ CITY OF CHuI.A. VlSfA FEBRUARY 8. 2004 -E-2- CHUIA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MEA --..-...-.---- . Bavfront Commons. Develop approximately 2,000 residential units, 3 hoI8Is, and 150,000 square feet of ~~ retail COIldueiCiai use withi'1 the Bayfront n&. . BavfrontlPort ~- Plan. Partiåpate with ChuIa VIsta and the Port of San Diego on development rn:I implementation of Port Master Plan for Bayfront 8198. Other than the projects listed above, other redevelopment tools include the authority to acquie and rehabilitate property, relocate property owners, and assemble sites for development as mentioned in Section B. For example, the lack of parking, circulation space, designated pedestrian walkways, and proper setbacks within the Added Area could be addressed by acquiring vacant siteS to develop designated parking where parking shortages exist or consolidate shared parking areas. These projects would relieve the reliance on street parking and create buII'ers for pedestrian walkways, provide building setbacks, and address insullicientcirculationspace.lnrelum, the improvement in circulation and public right of way will lessen the concentration of automobile accidents. The Agenc¡ could also fund improvement programs to strengthen the constnJclion material that are susceptible to fire. Through redevelopment, the Agency would have the financial power to revitalize the Added Area by providing a designated source of funding to stimulate private investments, provide incentives for development to occur, and improve quality of life. 3-" ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REOEVElOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA FEBRUARY 8, 2004 -E-3- CHUI.A VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PRO.JEC'r AREA PRELIt.IINARY RePORT In Photo SIney 1-'7 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVB.OPMENT AGENCY OF iHE CI1Y OF CHIJI.A VISTA OCTOBER 30. 2003 - APPENDIX A-1. CHUIA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECï MEA PREUMINARY R EPORT Unsafe and Unhealthy Buildings The following photographs depict examples of unsafe or unhealthy conditions among Added Area parcels. These conditions are evident throughout the Added Area, due to dilapidation, substandard building materials, inadequate setbacks and poor lot design. . Photo 1: Bay Boulevard. This abandoned structure suffers from years of neglect and deterioration as apparent in the photo exhibit above. The building is also a target for graffiti. The connection between the roof framing and the walls seem to have also broken apart. 1-(pf( ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30. 2003 APPENDIXA-1 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 2: 200 block of Broadway. The distance between the mobile home units is less than the 20 feet required by the Fire Department when cars are parked on both sides. This condition can hamper emergency vehicle access into parts of the mobile home park. J-~c:r ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 3D, 2003 APPENOIX A.2 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 3: 200 block of Broadway. The auto repair shop operators park their cars on the street or on the edge of the property line due to the lack of proper setbacks and off street parking. Vehicles must reverse out onto the street to leave the repair shop, but are often blindsided by parked cars on the street, blocking the views of passing vehicles. Broadway has a high accident rate due to the presence of these unsafe conditions. 1-10 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -3 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 4: 300 block of Broadway. The windows on one side of the residential unit of this mobile home unit is completely boarded up. The Fire Department has stated that because mobile homes are generally constructed of lightweight materials, they are more susceptibie to fire darnage. This unit's plywood exterior is particularly vuinerable to fire darnage. Photo 5: 400 block of Broadway. This residential unit suffers from serious deterioration to an exterior wall, with the wood siding peeling and coming apart. Part of the window frame is aiso deteriorating. 'J-7( ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -4 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT , " Photo 6: 1100 block of Broadway. The commercial building exhibits signs of deterioration to the façade, roof, and exterior wall material. The framing support for the roof is exposed and unprotecled, which is susceptible to water damage and dry rot. Photo 7: 100 N. Glover Avenue. The buildings on this lot are dilapidated and in need of repairs to the doors, windows, walls, and roofing material. The iot is also overparked. 3-7"2- ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -5 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELlMII<ARY REPORT Photo 8: 700 block of Third Avenue. This residential unit suffers from deterioration to the roof to such an extent that a plastic sheet is used as a protection against rain. 1-?:3 - ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REOEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 3D. 2003 APPENDIX A -6 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A REA PRELIMINARY REP ORT Photo 9: 900 block of Third Avenue. The structure in the foreground is abandoned and completely boarded up. The buiidlng displays serious deterioration to the roof, exterior wall material, and foundation. The structure to the rear suffers from fire damage with large portions of the building burnt. Graffiti can also be seen, suggesting trespassing onto this unsafe and unhealthy property. 1-7c.¡ ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A.7 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 10: Trousdale Drive at Press Lane. This structure behind the building to the right has fire damage (part of the exterior wall material and framing are burned). ]-7Ç" ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -8 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A REA PRELIMINARY REPORT Factors That Prevent or Substantially Hinder Viable Use The following photos exhibit examples of factors that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use of buildings or lots, taken from the field survey in February 2003. RSG estimates that over 50% of the properties on Broadway, Third Avenue, and Trousdale Drive suffer from this blighting condition. Photo 11: Broadway at Mcintosh Street. The front setbacks of the buildings are so limited that cars are forced to park on the edge of the property line and on Ihe sidewalk at times. 1- 7G:. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE en,. OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A.9 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT -- -. Photo 12: 100 block of Broadway. This iot does not have sufficient parking as parked cars are blocking ingress/egress to the property. Photo 13: 400 block of Broadway. Most of the retail sites on Broadway have little or no setbacks, lacking onsite parking and relying solely on a limited amount of street parking, which not only creates a parking shortage as shown in the photo, but hinders pedestrian and vehicle visibility. 1-'17 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30. 2003 APPENDIXA-10 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 14: 400 block of Broadway. Most of the rnobile home park residents park their cars on both sides of the streets, limiting adequate space for traffic circulation and emergency vehicles to enter in the event of a fire. Photo 15: 600 block of Broadway. The parking of this repair shop is limited as cars are stacked next to each other, limiting the access of other vehicles. Note that a portion of the sidewalk is used for parking. .1-7V ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 3D, 2003 APPENDIX A .11 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A REA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 16: 600 block of Broadway. Another sel of retail stores that have no setback to each other or front setback to accommodate for onsite parking. The parking on the street serving these retail stores is also completely full. Photo 17: 800 block of Broadway. The lack of proper front setback creates a pedestrian danger when cars reverse to exit the store. ?¡- 79 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OFTHE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -12 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 18: 300 block of E Street. This auto body shop Use does not have sufficient parking for its inventory, so it parks the cars on the driveway blocking the ingress/egress to the property. Photo 19: First Avenue and C Street. The front setback of the site is so small that when a truck (as shown above) is parked, a third of the truck is on the sidewalk. Note the lack of space between the car and the front of Ihe building. J-'8o ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENOIXA-13 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT '1 Photo 20: 500 block of H Street. The retail strip in the photo above has no on site parking as the front setbacks of these buildings are approximately five feet from the sidewalks. Photo 21: 600 block of E. Manor Drive. The parking lot of this retail store is completely full. However, as the car (on the right) reverses to exit, the car crosses part of the pedestrian walkway and presents a threat to pedestrians, 1-V I ~ ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC, REOEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30. 2003 APPENDIXA-14 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A REA PRELlMII;ARY REPORT Pholo 22: 1400 block of Orange Avenue. lack of loading/unloading areas create a problem, where delivery trucks are forced to unload in the parking lot impeding vehicular movement within the site and limiting emergency vehicles ability to access buildings in the event of a fire. J-~2- ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REOEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OCTOBER 3D, 2003 APPENOIXA-15 CHULA VISTA REOEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 23: 200 Palomar Street. The steep slope of this property is challenging for cars to enter and exit the site. This restaurant also only provides four to five parking spaces. Photo 24: 200 block of Quintard Street. This furniture store uses the limited amount of onsite parking for loading and unloading. When properties lack onslte parking and space for deliveries, customers and business operators are inconvenienced and local brokers indicate an associated .detrimental affect on property values. 1-~3 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -16 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 25: 200 block of Quintard Street. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters are lacking on the south side of Quintard Street creating a safety hazard as cars are sharing the same right-of-way as pedestrians. The lack of cul'bs and gutters contribute to drainage problems in the event of rains. J-'6<1- ROSENOW SPEVACEI< GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30. 2003 APPENOIXA-17 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 26: 600 block of Third Avenue. This lot not only lacks sufficient parking to support the commercial uses but also forces customers to reverse into oncoming traffic in order to exit from the property, presenting a threat to on-coming traffic and pedestrians. J -~.s- ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -18 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A REA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 27: 700 block of Third Avenue. The parking 101 of this site is poorly configured requiring autos to back into the pedestrian right of way and into heavy traffic in order to exit, presenting a threat not only to oncoming traffic but pedestrians as well. :1 - r¡tc ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 3D, 2003 APPENDIXA-19 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 28: 700 block of Third Avenue. This building was originally built for residential purposes but has since then been converted to a commercial use. Therefore the space exhibits inadequate parking and limited vehicular access required for cornmercial usage. These conditions also translate to a reduction in the econornic weil being of the business and lirnits the highest and the best use of the property. '3 -<¿ 1 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CI1,. OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30. 2003 APPENDIX A -20 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A REA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 29: 900 Third Avenue. Due to the physicallimitalion of the site and lack of proper setbacks, people are forced to parallel park their cars or park on the side setback as shown in the photo above. Photo 30: 900 block of Third Avenue. Cars from the adjoining commercial property are parked on this vacant land, as the commercial use does not have enough parking to accommodate the vehicles. -1 - rC( ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30. 2003 APPENDIX A -21 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 31: 1400 block of Third Avenue. This commercial store uses the limited amount of onsile parking for loading and unloading purposes. This inconveniences customers and business operators, which relates to delrimental affect on property values as indicated by local brokers. J -CjC¡ ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -22 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT Photo 32: 300 block of Trousdale Drive. This lot lacks sufficient parking to support the commercial uses. The white vehicle on the left side of the photo is parked on part of the pedestrian right-of-way. Photo 33: 300 block of Trousdale Drive. Sidewalks are lacking on the south side of Trousdale Drive creating a safety hazard as cars are sharing the same right- of-way as pedestrians. Cars are also parked on pedestrian walkways. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -23 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT ) - ?O Photo 34: 300 block of Trousdale Drive. The trailer above is being stored in the public and pedestrian right of way indicating that the commercial center lacks sufficient parking and/or storage space. The trailer also creates a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OFTHE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30. 2003 APPENDIX A -24 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT þ... REA PRELIMINARY REP ORT 3 -q ( incompatible Use As mentioned in Section B of the Report, many of the residentiai units are located next to and/or directly across from auto repair shops, gas stations, or on busy comrnercial streets, subjecting the sensitive residentiai uses to nuisances and impairing property values. Photo 35: Broadway at Casselman Street. A home is located next to an auto repair shop where excess auto parts are stored adjacent to the home's perimeter fence. The noise, fumes, and undesirable sight of the repair shop are a nuisance to the residents. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -25 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT J -q L Photo 36: Broadway at Flower Street. The vacant residential unit shares a driveway with the neighboring auto repair shop. The house is located on a heavy retail concentrated street with a lack of buffers for noise and traffic. Photo 37: 200 block of Palomar Street. The residential unit is surrounded by a regional strip center. A chain link fence provides virtually no buffer between the commercial use and the residence. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPEND!X A -26 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT J -93 Photo 38: 400 of Broadway. The wall of the auto parts shop adjoins a mobile park horne. This portion of Broadway has one of the highest rates of traffic accidents and code violations in Chula Vista. Photo 39: 400 Block of Woodlawn Avenue. The residential unit on the left is situated next to a gas station where traffic and gasoline fumes are a nuisance. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REOEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -27 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT 3 -91 Abnormally High Business Vacancies and Abandoned Buildings The Added Area has an abundance of business vacancies and abandoned buildings, with a concentration in areas mentioned in Section B of the Report. The following photos exhibit some of the vacant and/or abandoned buildings. Photo 40: Bay Boulevard. This abandoned residential unit is located between the Western Sail Faciiity and residential neighborhood. The building is covered in graffiti and parts of the exterior wall are falling apart. ROSEI<OW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -28 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT !l -9 S- Photo 41: Bay Boulevard. A vacant site that IS a target for iliegal dumping. Note the furniture on the right side of the photo. Photo 42: Broadway and Naples Street. The building is vacant and abandoned, and covered in graffiti. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A .29 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT 3 - 9~ Photo 43: Broadway and Palomar Street. The industrial building next to the railroad tracks is vacant. The building is also deteriorating as it remains vacant. Some of the windows are also boarded up. Photo 44: 100 block of Broadway. This building is abandoned and does not have the proper setbacks, sufficient lot size, or design for modern retail operation. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A-3D CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A REA PRELIMINARY REPORT .J - 97 -- - Photo 45: 100 block of Broadway. The retail store is vacant. Photo 46: 200 block of Broadway. The former gas station is abandoned and vacant with the windows and doors completely boarded up. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, iNC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CiTY OF CHULA Vi STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -31 CHULA ViSTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMiNARY REPORT 1 -9f Photo 47: 300 block of Broadway. The building in the middle is completely boarded up with deterioration to the roof and framing. Graffiti can also be seen on the abandoned building, Photo 48: 300 block of Broadway. The building is vacant and blocked by the masonry wall, limiting its street visibility, essential for retail operation. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30,2003 APPENOIX A -32 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A REA PRELIMINARY REPORT d-~'7 Photo 49: 400 block of Broadway. Another vacant retail store. The Winston Tires business has relocated to a larger site elsewhere. Photo 50: 400 block of Broadway. The building above is vacant and a target for graffiti. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIXA-33 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT 3 -I f) 0 Photo 51: 1100 block of Broadway. The retail center next to Costco is vacant and is a target for graffiti. Photo 52: 600 E Street. The retail store is vacant with parts of signs on the ground. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REOEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 3D, 2003 APPENDIX A -34 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A REA PRELIMINARY REPORT 3-/01 Photo 53: 700 E Street. The former gas station is vacant. Photo 54: Glover Avenue and E Street. The vacant retail store is completely boarded up. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -35 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT 3 -/0"2- --- Photo 55: Third Avenue and Glover Avenue. This building is marked with graffiti and part of it is boarded up. The building is also tucked away in the back of the lot and lacks street visibility. Photo 56: 600 block of Third Avenue. Another vacant building with graffiti. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENOIX A -36 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT 1- { D 3 --. Photo 57: 1000 block of Third Avenue. The vacant building has no windows for retail operation. The building is also covered in graffiti. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A .37 CHUlA VISTA REOEVElOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT J - ¿ 0 'I High Crime Rates Photo 58: Broadway and H Street. Another site covered in graffiti. Photo 59: 500 block of H Street. Graffiti marking in a residential neighborhood. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -38 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT ---- ..J-I()~ Photo 60: 3300 Main Street. Another site covered in graffiti. Photo 61: 200 block of Quintard Street. Another building with graffiti. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REOEVELOPMEI<T AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENOIX A -39 CHULA VISTA REOEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY REPORT J-(O' Photo 62: 900 block of Third Avenue. Abandoned building with boarded up windows with graffiti. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VI STA OCTOBER 30, 2003 APPENDIX A -40 CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A. REA PRELIMINARY REP ORT J -ID7 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AMENDED AND RESTATED RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION AND REENTRY PREFERENCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OCCUPANTS FOR THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, Section 33345 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 m~. ("Law") provides that redevelopment agencies shall adopt rules goveming participation and reentry preferences for property owners and business occupants in connection with the adoption of a redevelopment plan ("Rules"); and WHEREAS, by previous action duly and regularly taken, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted redevelopment plans for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project, Town Centre II Redevelopment Project, and Southwest Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plans"); and WHEREAS, each of the three Redevelopment Plans delineates a redevelopment project area (individually, "Project Area" and collectively "Project Areas"); and WHEREAS, by previous action duly and regularly taken, the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan, Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan, and the Southwest . Redevelopment Plan were merged in accordance with the provisions of the Law, with these Redevelopment Plans referred to as the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project, but each of the three constituent plans retained its own governing rules relating to participation and reentry preferences for property owners and business occupants ("Separate Rules"); and WHEREAS, in an effort to provide uniform procedures throughout these three constituent redevelopment project areas that constitute the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project, the Agency prepared, made available for public inspection, and circulated to the Town Centre and Added Area Project Area Committees draft amended and restated rules governing participation and reentry preferences for property owners and business occupants ("Draft Rules") in conjunction with the proposed 2004 Amendment to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2003, the Town Centre Project Area Committee reviewed the Draft Rules and recommended that the Agency adopt said rules; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2003, the Added Area Project Area Committee reviewed the Draft Rules and recommended that the Agency adopt said rules; and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Rules is not a project under CEQA because it cannot cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment The Rules are purely an administrative tool to decide who gates to participate in a project, not whether a project is initiated or undertaken (see CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378 and 16160). Moreover, the Rules will not become effective until the completion of the CEQA process for the Amended and Restated Plan. 3-102 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the RedevelOpment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby adopts final Amended and Restated Rules Governing Participation and Reentry Preferences for Property Owners and Business Occupants for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area, in the form attached herewith as Exhibit "A.. and these Amended and Restated Rules shall supersede in their entirety the Separate Rules. Presented by Laude M. Madigan Community Development Director J'ICOMMDEVIRESOS\02-24""",,",'""""Y""" . OP ...... Fob 24 04 - T~ Ro....doc ,3 -10' EXHIBIT "A" AMENDED AND RESTATED RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION AND REENTRY PREFERENCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OCCUPANTS FOR THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA .J-lllJ --- - Merged Chura Vista Redevelopment Project . Rules Governing ParticiPation and . by~ Owners and Business Occupants February 24, 2004 RedeveIopmentAgenc¥ of the City of Chula VJS1a . 276 Fourth Avenue - Chula VJS1a, California 91910 ~ ~ Spøvacek Group, Inc. 217 North Main Street, Suite 300 Santa Ana, Califomia 92701-4822 Phone: (714) 541-4585 Fax: (714) 836-1748 E-Mail: info@webrsg.com i-If ( _._, Rules Goverrmg Participation and Prefèft!llCeS by Property Owners and Bus81ess Occupants Merged Chula VIsta Redevelopment Project Table of Contents Section I. Purp,o- and Intent................._.........._.............................. 1 Section II. General Definitions .............................,............................. 1 Section III. Opportunities for Owner Participation and Preferences to Business Occupants to Reenter In Business within Redevelopment Area ................................................................,.......... 2 Opporbmlties for Owner Participation ................................................ .-...... 2 Preferences for Persons Engaged in Business In the Project Area ........ 2 Section IV. Methods of Participation and Limitations Thereon........ 3 Methods of Participation ...............................................................................3 Limitation on Participation Opportunities...........................:....................... 3 Establishing Preferences Among Owners........................................... ....... 4 Section V. Methods for Extending Reentry Preferences and Limitations Thereon ...............................~............................................4 Methods for Extending Reentry Preferences ...................................... ....... 4 Limitations on the Extension of Preferences ...................................... ....... 5 Establishing Preferences Among Business Occupants Seeking Similar Preferences.............................................................................................. ""'" 5 Section VI. Participation Procedures................................................, 6 Notice and Statement of Interest......:.................................................... ....... 6 Participation Agreements ............................................................................. 7 ,3-/(2.. J'ICOMMDEV\TAPIA\PROJECTSIBIG AMENIJMENT\OWNER PARTICIPATION RUlES - FEB.. ".DOC Section VII. Enforcement ...............................................................-.. 8 Section VIII. Amendment of Rules ............."......"....................m_.. 8 Map of Project Area.................................................................Exhlblt A Statement of Intentat...."'."'....-...........................-..-...._...Exillbit B .1-1'3 J""',,",OEVITAPIAIPROJECTS\8IGAMENDMENTIOWNER PARTICIPATION RULES -FED" ",.DOC Rules Gøveming Pa1iGipaIian and PI eØ ences by Property Owners and Business Occupaa Its Merged Chula VIsta Redevelopment Project Section I. Purpose and Intent These rules are adopted to implement the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project ('Project") regarding participation and the exercise of preferences by property owners and business occupants within the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area ¡Project AreaÎ. These rules set forth the procedures goveming such preferences and participation. The Health and Safety Code of the State of California Section 33000 ~ ~. requires the adoption of these rules by the Redevelopment Agency otthe City of Chula Vista to permit participation by owners of real property and the extension of preferences to persons engaged in business within the boundaries of the Project Area to reenter the redeveloped area to the maximum extent feasible consistent with the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for the Project. Section II. General Definitions As used herein, the following definitions apply: A. 'Agency" means the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista. B. 'Business Occupanf means any person, persons, corporation, association, partnership, or other entity engaged in a lawful business within the Project Area for so long as such Business Occupant remains in business within the Project Area. C. 'City' means the City of Chula Vista. D. 'Disposition and Development Agreement" means a contractual agreement between a developer and the Agency that sets forth terms and conditions for the sale and the development of a property within the Project Area. E. 'Long-Term Lease' means a lease of real property with a term of twenty (20) years or more, with at least ten (10) years remaining on such term. F. 'Owner' means any person, persons, corporation, association, partnersl1ip, or other entity holding recorded fee tiUe to or a long-term lease of real prop arty in the Project Area for so long as such Owner holds such title or long-term lease. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE crrv OF CHULA VISTA FEBRUARY 9. 2004 -1- MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMEr-IT PLAN ..1 - II 'I- OWNER PARTICIPA1l0111 RULES G. .Participanf' means an OWner who has entered into a Participation Agreement with the Agency. H. "Participation Agreement". means an agreement entered into by an Owner with the Agency providing for such Owner to participate in the redevelopment of property within the Project Area in accordance with the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan and these Rules. I. "Plan" means the Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project. J. "Project Area" means the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area of the Agency, which is described in and is subjed to the Redevelopment Plan, as depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto. K. "Rules" mean these Rules Goveming Participation and Preferences by .property GwneÆand 8usiAess -Oœupams; Section III. Opportunities for Owner Participation and Preferences to Business Occupants to Reenter in Bu5iness within Redev",lonment Area OpportunIties for Owner Participation An Owner of real property within the Projed Area shall be extended an opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of the Owner's property in the Project Area, if such Owner agrees to participate in the redevelopment in conformity with the Plan and these Rules, and such -Owner is qualified to undertake and complete the identified redevelopment projed as determined by the Agency. PI e.b ellCeS for Persons Engaged In BusI.- In the Project ArM Business Occupants engaged in business in the Project Area shall be extended a reasonable preference to reenter in business within the proposed development site if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed by the Plan and these Rules as determined by the Agency. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OFlHE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA FEBRUARY 9. 2004 -2- MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMEN,. PLAN .J -lIr OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES Section IV. Methods of Participation and Limitations Thereon Methods of P'- ~ Participation methods include: 0) remaining in substantially the same location either by retaining all or portions of the property, or by retaining all or portions of the property and purchasing adjacent property from the Agency or joining with another person or entity for the rehabililaöon or development of the Owner's property and, if appropriate, other property, or (10 submitting to the Agency for its consideration another method of participation proposal pursuant to these Rules. An Owner who participates in the same location may be required, among other actions, to rehabilitate or demolish all or a part of hislher existing buildings. The Agency may also acquire the buildings only and then remove or demolish the buildings. Participation methods also include but are not limited to the Agency buying land and. iITlPro~J:mt~ ... a!fi¡jLITI!l.r:I5~t v,lilYILfrQID__Qwnen; and offering other parcels for purchase and rehabililaöon or development by such Owners, or offering an opportunity for such Owners to rehabilitate or develop property jointly with other persons Or entities. Umitation on PartlclpalJon 0pparb.nHies Owner Participation opportùnities shall be subject to and limited by factors and requirements including: 1. The Participant(s) must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Agency that the Participant is financially capable and has the qualifications and experience to perform any and all development, construction, modification, rehabililaöon, modemization, construction, land assembly, and/or acquisition of the subject property or properties in order that it will conform to the Plan, any specific plan or design guide, applicable zoning, building, and safety laws and regulations, and the redevelopment proposal, if any, contemplated by the Agency with respect to the subject property. 2. The Participant's proposed improvements and/or redevelopment conform or will conform to: the goals and objectives established by the Agency; the Plan; any applicable specific plan or design guide; applicable zoning, building and safety laws and regulations; and the redevelopment proposal for the development site approved by the Agency. 3. The Agency retains its authority to determine in its sole discretion wl1ether the Participant's{s') proposed development conforms to and furthers the goals and objectives of the Plan and any specific redevelopment proposals on the basis of all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the Participant's proposed development. ROSENCm SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CIlY OF CHULA VISTA FEBRUARY 9. 2004 -3- MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMEp.,,T PLAN J-I(fø OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES 4. The Agency shall consider whether the proposed owner participant development necessitates that 1he Participant and/or the Agency shall remove, relocate and/or install public utilities and public facilities detennined necessary by the Agency for the proposed development. 5. Consideration of the elimination and/or change of land uses, particularly nonconfonning land uses as specified in City codes. 6. The Agency shall consider the need to realign, abandon, vacate, widen, or open public rights-of-way and the indirect effects of such acts. 7. Consideration of any reduction in the total number of indMdual parcels in the Project Area. 8. Consideration of whether the proposal involves land assembly and development of areas for public and/or private development in accordance with the Plan. EstablIshing Preferences Among 0wneIs If conflicts develop between the desires of Participants for particular sites Dr land uses, the Agency is authorized to exercise its reasonable discretion and establish priorities and preferences among the Participants and to detennine a solution by consideration of" the proposals, including, but not limited to: development experience and qualifications, financial ability to perfonn, "length of time in the area, accommodation of as many potential participants as possible, and confonnity with intent and purpOse of the Plan. Participation, if and to !he extent feasible,may be available for two or more persons, finns, or institutions, to join together in partnerships, corporations, or other joint entities. To the extent multiple Owners are induded within a proposed development site, an Owner with a majority interest in the total proposed development site may be determined by the Agency to have a preference over an Owner with a minority interest in the proposed development site. Section V. Methods for Extending Reentry Preferences and Limitations Thereon Methods far Extet!dlng Reentry PI efb.1iIII1C6D Whenever a Business Occupant will be displaced by Agency action from the development site, the Agency will, prior to such displacement, determine: 1) whether such Business Occupant desires to relocate directly to another location within the Project Area, or 2) if suitable relocation accommodations within the Project Area are not available prior to displacement, whether such Business Occupant would desire to reenter in business within the development site or elsewhere in the Project Area at a later date should suitable aa:ommodations become available. For those Business Occupants who desire to relocate directly ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY DF CHULA VISTA FEBRUARY 9. 2004 -4- MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PlAN 3 -.117 OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES -.- - to another location within the Project Area, the Agency will make reasonable efforts to assist such Business Occupants to find accommodations suitable to their needs. The Agency will make reasonable efforts to assist such Business Occupants to find reentry accommodations at locations and rents suitable to their needs. Umitatlons on the ExtensIon 01 P."""'...~ The following are the minimum requirements that must be met by any business to establish its eligibility for the reasonable preference to reenter in business in the Project Area after displacement: 1. The business use proposed shall be consistent. with the land use standards of the Plan and any specific plan and development standards and criteria adopted by the Agency or the City. 2. The improvement on the business premises made or proposed to be madeshaJl (unless otherwise approved by the Agency) meet, or shaUbe brought up to meet, a structural condition equal to or better than that required for a new structure or improvement of equivalent size, location, use and occupancy as required by the building and safety laws and regulations then applicable in the City, and shall conform to the Plan. 3. The Business Occupant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Agency that Business Occupant is financially capable and qualified to perform any and all modifications or rehabilitation or modemization on the property- at the new location in order that it will conform to the Plan and capable of meeting the financial requirements to occupy space in the new location. 4, The business shall agree in writing that in the use, occupancy and .conduct of business in the premises, there shall be no discrimination based on any impermissible classification including but not limited to race, sex, marital status, color, creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, physical handicap, or medical condition. Establishing 1"1.-..... Among BusIness Occupants SeekIng SImIlar ~efèo8l1CØS If conflicts develop between the desires of Participants for particular sites or land uses, the Agency is authorized to exercise its reasonable discretion and establish priorities and preferences among the Business Occupants and to detennine a solution by consideration of the proposals, including, but not limited to: financial ability to perform, length of time in the area, accommodation of as many potential Business Occupants as possible, appropriateness of the type of business within the proposed premises or location, the feasibility of business success, and confonnity with intent and purpose of these Rules and the Plan. Participation, to the extent feasible, may be available for two or more persons, firms or institutions, to join together in partnerships, corporations, or other joint entities. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA FEBRUARY 9, 2004 -5- MERGED CHUtAVISTA REDEVELOPMEJ-¡T PLAN ..1-1'" OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES Section VI. Participation Procedures Notice and SIaIIeM..nt of InI8rest Before entering into any Participation Agreements or Disposition and Development Agreements relating to the acquisition, redevelopmen~ or rehabilitation of real property in the Project Area, the Agency shall first comply with these Rules relating to soliciting interest in owner participation from the Owner of the property that is the subject of the redevelopment proposal (i.e., the property that may be acquired, developed, or rehabDitated) and invite the Owner to submit a Statement of Interest for Participation (incorporated herein as Exhibit B) in the proposed development or in otherwise participate in the redevelopment project. The Agency shall send by first class mail, or other means detennined by the "Agency, -áStaI€menf OflnteresTìn-P-ãrtiCípïïtìoñto-eaCfiOWl1erWhose real property is the subject of the possible redevelopment project. Those desiring to submit a Statement of Interest in Participation must complete and retum the Statement to the Agency within thirty (30) days of receipt. Any Owner may also submit such a Statement at any time before such notification. All Statements of Interest in Participation received after the deadline for submission may be given consideration by the Agency, at their discretion, but in a priority secondary to those statements received by the deadline. Such Statement shall include - information requested by the Agency and shall be in the fonn requested by the Agency. The Agency shall seek to develop reasonable participation for those submitting such Statements whether to stay in place or to move to another location. At its discretion, Agency staff may determine that a participation proposal as set forth in a Statement does not meet the criteria set forth in Section IV and reserves the right to deny participation to an Owner on such basis. Participants and Occupants may appeal a staff decision to the Agency board. If a Statement is - timely received by the Agency (and also as to those Statements which are received after the stated deadline but the Agency, in its sole discretion, gives consideration), Agency staff shall evaluate the Statement and detennine whether the Statement and the nature of the proposed participation described therein meets the requirements of the Plan and these Rules. If a Statement meets the requirements and also proposes participation that is feasible, the Agency shall contact the Owner and discuss the Owner's next submittal to the Agency, which will be a formal proposal for the project identified in the Statement Agency shall provide the Owner with a list of infonnation and materials to be included in the formal proposal which shall include, as a minimum, a complete project description, the development entity including the identity of all indMduals and companies involved, a project pro forma including the sources and uses of funds, project financing, conceptual site plan including setbacks, layout of buildings, streets, parking, access, and circulation, a schedule of perfonnance or time line ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF '!HE CITY OF cHULA VISTA FEBRUARY 9. 2004 -6- MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN :J~If'l OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES for the development, and description of any development impediments including environmental matters. Owner shall submit the fonnal proposal within forty-five (45) days after I't3ceipt of written notice from Agenr::J that the Owner's Statement has been accepted for further consideration and that Owner is to submit the formal proposal. The Agency may in its sole discretion detennine that a participation proposal as set forth in the Statement is not feasible or in the best interest of the Project or the community, or is otherwise fimited by one or more of the criteria set forth in Section IV hereof.. In such event, the Agency may select a developer from among prospective Participants submitting Statements, and others invited to submit proposals. The Agency may also, upon review of timely submitted formal proposals, detennine such' proposal{s) is/are not consistent with the Plan or criteria in these Rules, or that one proposal is better suited, or that none of the formal proposals are consistent with the Plan or its goals and objectives or criteria in these Rules. The Agency retains and-shaU exercise-the discretion vested. in. it by law to consider and determine whether the Statement or formal proposals for redevelopment submitted by an Owner or Owners for participation conforms to, and meets the goals and objectives of, the Plan and these Rules. The Agency shall exercise said discretion reasonably, in good faith, and without discrimination. The Owner's participation opportunity shall be deemed conclude and completed upon the occurrence of any of the following: (1) the Owner fails to timely retum a Statement of Interest in Participation; (2) the Owner submits a Statement of Interest in Participation but Agency staff or Agency determines such Statement is incomplete or inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan and of the Agency with respect to the proposed project; (3) the Owner fails to timely submit a formal proposal; or (4) the Owner timely submits a formal proposal but the Agency staff or Agency determines that the formal proposal is inconsistent with the Plan or the criteria set forth in these Rules or another proposal better suits the property and goals and objectives.of the Plan and of the Agency with respect to the proposed project. Participation Agrewnøm. General Owners wishing to develop or improve their properties within the Project Area may be required, as a condition to Agency approval of such development, to enter into a binding written Participation Agreement with the Agency, if the Agency determines it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standards, restrictions and controls of the Plan, or of any design guide adopted by the Agency pursuant to the Plan. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUUI VISTA FEBRUARY 9, 2004 -7- MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMEW PLAN J OINNER PARTICIPATlOI>I RULES - I 2..0 Contents A Participation Agreement shall obligate the Owner, and the Owner's heirs, successors and assigns to acquire, rehabilitate, develop and use the property, as may be applicable, in conformance with the Plan and/or to be subject to such other provisions and conditions of the Plan as the Agency may require for the period of time that the Plan is in force and effect, excepting those provisions related to nondiscrimination and nonsegregation which shall run in perpetuity. Each Participation Agreement will contain such terms and conditions and will require the potential Participant to join in the recordation of such documents as the Agency may require in order to ensure the property will be acquired, rehabilitated, developed and used in accord with the Plan and the agreement. Participation Agreements will be effective only if approved by the Agency. Section VII. Enforcement . . .-. ..-..-..........-.... -..---.-....--.--.-...-....-.---.-....-..-... -----..-.---.-..--. ..-.--. In the event a property is not acquired, developed, rehabilitated, or used in conformance with the Plan, or is not the subject of an Agency determination of conformance or a Participation Agreement, then the Agency is authoñzed to (1) purchase the property, (2) purchase any interest in the property sufficient to obtain conformance, or (3) take any other appropriate action sufficient to obtain such conformance. Any acquisition of property by the Agency shall comply with applicable law pertaining to acquisition of property by a public entity. Section VIII. Amendment of Rules The Agency may amend these rules at any meeting of the Agency. No such amendment shall retroactively impair the rights of any parties who have executed Participation Agreements with the Agency in reliance upon these rules as presently constituted. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF lHE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FEBRUARY 9. 2004 -8. MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN :J -12..1 OWNER PARTICIPAll01\1 RULES It Map of Project Area ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FEBRUARY 9, 2004 -EXHISrr A- MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PlAN :1 -- I 2- "2- OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES ';!".~ . ';~t~~o~~ I \ ,,'..-. ¡¡;¡¡-_._- --,-.-.-- -=:= 0---_---- ----.-- 3 -113 -- ._, n Statement of Interest ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FEBRUARY 9,2004 EXHIBITB MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ..1 -12 c¡. OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA STATEMENT OF INTEREST IN PARTICIPATION I hereby express my interest in participating in the Merged Chula Vista Redeyelopment Project: 1. Name of Property OwnerlTenant Phone: 2. Home Address: 3. Address of Property owned or rented in the Project Area: 4. Name of business in the Project Area: 5. I own ( ); am a tenant ( ); and wish to rehabilitate ( ); build ( ); sell ( ) my present property. If tenant, indicate: month-to-rnonth ( ); or Jease ( ); expiration date of lease: 6. My present type of business is: 7. Nature of proposed participation: [ADD ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY] I understand that submission of this Statement of Interest does not in any way obligate me to participate in the Project, nor is submission of this Statement a representation or warranty by the Agency that I shall be selected to participate in the redevelopment of any real property. Signed: Retum to: TrtIe: Redeve/opmentAgency of the City of Chula VISta 476 Fourth Avenue Date: Chula VISta, CA 91910 Attention: :J -/2..Ç" PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: <I- MEETING DATE: 03/02/04 JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: a) RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TERMINATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT AND BAYFRONT MASTER PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH NORTH C.V. WATERFRONT L.P. b) RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 4/STHS VOTE: YESD N00 BACKGROUND At a joint presentation to the Board of Port Commissioners (BPC) ond the Chula Vista City Council ond Redevelopment Agency (Council) regarding the preliminary existing conditions, opportunities and constraints findings for the Chula Vista Bayfronf Master Plan (CVBMP), Port and City staff were directed to invesfigafe the opportunity to joint pion the bayfront. Joint planning would include Port properties located in fhe Chula Vista Bayfront, as well os City-jurisdictional properties locafed in the areo known as MidBayfront. Pacifica Companies, a group of diversified real esfate companies with an option fo acquire the privately-held portion of the MidBayfront properties, acknowledged both the direction given to staff and the substantial public comments received in support of joint planning, whereby they initiated discussions with Port and City staff fo further enable joint planning of the MidBayfront and Port properties. Pacifica and City staff have negofiated a Planning Agreement that acknowledges the termination of the previous Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) entered into between the City and North c.v. Waferfront loP. (a limited partnership formed by principals of Pacifica Companies) and establishes an agreement for joint planning the MidBayfront Properties with the Port properties. Port and City staff also propose to amend the Joint Planning Agreement entered into between the BPC and Council on October 8, 2002, to include the MidBayfront Properties within the CVBMP process. -4 -, PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: 4 MEETING DATE: 03/02/04 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency approve the Termination of the Exclusive Negofiating Agreement and Bayfront Master Planning Agreement with North C.y. Waterfront loP. It is also recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency adopt the First Amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District and the City of Chula Vista BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION The Chula Vista Master Planning Process confinues to be integral to the redevelopment of the Bayfront. On October 8, 2002, the BPC and the Council entered into a Joint Planning Agreement to plan approximately 300 acres under the ownership and jurisdiction of the Port. Subsequenf fo this action, the BPC contracted with Carrier Johnson/Cooper Robertson & Partners to provide design consulting services for the CVBMP study. The consultant team is comprised of three major disciplines: award-winning urban waterfront planning and design; market and financial analysis; and development of an extensive public outreach program. As part of its initial scope of work, Carrier Johnson/Cooper Robertson and Partners reviewed numerous background documents and held various meetings and interviews with Port and City staff, the public, and stakeholders in order to gather existing conditions, opportunities, and constraints data for fhe CVBMP. On July 29, 2003 the consultant team made a presenfation to the joint BPC and Council on its preliminary existing conditions findings for the CVBMP. No action was taken at that time; however, a joint planning process that would include the MidBayfront Properties info the CVBMP, was discussed. The various obstacles associated with this process, including the fact that the properties are separately held and that the majority of the MidBayfront properties are held under private ownership, were noted during this discussion. It was also noted that the regulatory and approval process for the Port Properties was separate from the MidBayfronf Properties, which are under City jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, it was determined that there was a need for greater cooperation and planning among the two areas and that land swap options should be considered. Since the joint meeting in July, fhe CVBMP team has engaged in extensive public outreach. A 20- member citizens advisory committee was formed and various public meetings provided forums for soliciting input for the planning process. The substantial comments received demonstrated support for joint planning and further investigafion of a potential land swap between the privately-held MidBayfront Properties and the publicly-held Port Properties. 4-d-. PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: 4 MEETING DATE: 03/02/04 Approximately 96 acres of the MidBayfronf Properties are held under private ownership. Pacifica Companies, a group of diversified real estate companies, holds an option to acquire this land. In April 2002, the City enfered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with North c.V. Waterfront loP. (a limited partnership formed by principals of Pacifica Companies) to prepare project plans for development of the MidBayfront Properties. Pacifico has since responded to the direction given to staff and to the substantial public comments received in support of joint planning by initiating discussions with Port and City staff to further investigate these opportunities. Pacifica and City staff have negotiated a Planning Agreemenf that acknowledges the termination of the previous Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) entered into between fhe City and North c.V. Waterfront loP. (a limited partnership formed by principals of Pacifica Companies) and establishes an agreement for joint planning the MidBayfront Properties with the Port properties. The Bayfront Planning Agreement contains the following provisions: 1. Developer agrees fo having the MidBayfront Properties included within the City/Port joint planning effort to develop the Port Master Plan. 2. Developer agrees to cooperate in good faith to facilitate the planning of the MidBayfront Property as part of fhe Port Master Plan. 3. Developer agrees to pay 25 percent (Pro Rata Share) of fhe total costs incurred by the Port and City for the joint planning efforts to develop the Port Master Plan. 4. Developer shall place a deposit with the City in the amount of $200,000 from which the City may withdraw the amount owed by the Developer for the cost incurred for processing the Port Master Plan. 5. Developer agrees that the City may consider a number of development alternatives for the Property, including an alternative identified through the Port Master Plan for consideration by the City council as part of the City's General Plan Update and Local Coastal Plan Amendment process. 6. Agency agrees to cooperate and consider supporting a land exchange between the Developer and the Port provided, however, the Council approves the land use designafion of the Trust Property to be exchanged for the Property or any portion thereof and all legal requirement for the land exchange are satisfied. 7. Developer agrees that they may elect to process applications for entitlements for development of the Properties in advance of fhe City's Planning Documents that incorporate the Port Master Plan if the applications are consistenf with fhe preferred alternative described in the EIR prepared for the Port Master Plan, at Developer's own risk. 8. City agrees that if the City's Planning Documents have been approved, Developer shall have 90 days to submit a preliminary master plan consisfenf with the City Planning Documents for development of the Properties to City. City agrees to review 4-3 PAGE 4, ITEM NO.: 4 MEETING DATE: 03/02/04 and consider such preliminary master plan and a new ENA between Agency and Developer for the Properties. An amendment is also proposed to the Joint Planning Agreement between the Port and the City that would include the MidBayfront Properties into the CVBMP process. The BPC will consider approval of the amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement af fheir regularly-scheduled meefing of March 9, 2004. Amendment No.1 to the Port/City Joint Planning Agreement would include the following provisions: 1. An overall work program will be prepared for the MidBayfront Properties to be incorporated in fhe CVBMP work program. 2. Funding for the CVBMP Joint Study Area planning efforts will be shared, wifh the Port contributing 37.5%, the City contributing 37.5%, and North C.v. Waterfront loP. contributing 25%. 3. The Port and City agree to work towards a joint recommendation to the BPC and Council/Agency; however, Port and City staff reserve the right to make their own recommendations to their respective legislative bodies. 4. The City shall be the final decision maker as it relates to land uses and planning for the MidBayfront Properties. 5. Port understands thaf City has a substantial public interest in fhe land use designation of the Port Property (Trust Property) that would be the subject of a land exchange with North c.V. Waterfront loP. Port agrees fo work cooperatively with the City in discussions concerning any such land exchange and the land use designation of Trust Property subject to such exchange. 6. City retains sole and absolute discretion over its own properties in deciding whether to enter into a land exchange with Port. 7. City may withdraw the MidBayfront Properties from the CVBMP process by providing the Port with 30 days written notice. In such case, the City and North c.V. Waterfront loP. shall each be responsible for its share of all invoices up to the Effective Date of the withdrawal. The next step would be for the consultant team to develop three preliminary planning concepts for the CVBMP study area and MidBayfronf Properties. If the Council and BPC approve the amendment to the Port/City Joinf Planning Agreement and the Council approves the City/Pacifica Bayfront Planning Agreement, it is anticipated that three preliminary planning concepts would be presented to the BPC and Council at a joint meeting on March 30. FISCAL IMPACT The City, Port, and the North c.V. Waterfront loP. would share the cosf necessary to complete the master planning for the combined CVBMP Study Area and MidBayfront Properties such that the City and Port's share would be 37.5 percent and the North c.V. Waterfront loP. share would be 4-" PAGE 5, ITEM NO.: 4 MEETING DATE: 03/02/04 25 percent, given that the privately-held land represents 25 percent of the total land to be included in fhe joint study area and that the Port/City Joint Planning Agreement contemplated that the two agencies would equally share cosfs. Payments for the master planning consultant contracts will be administered by the Port. The City and Port share will be paid through the use of Port/City Capital Developmenf Program by the process specified by the adopted Joint Planning Agreement. North c.V. Waterfront LP.'s share will be paid auf of the funds they will deposit with the City. ATTACHMENTS 1. Termination of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and Bayfront Planning Agreement 2. First Amendment to Joinf Planning Agreemenf Between the San Diego Unified Port District and the City of Chula Vista J,\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\O3-02-04\JPA Amend-Pacifica PAdac 4-~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND,REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE TERMINATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT AND BAYFRONT MASTER PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH NORTH C.v. WATERFRONT L.P. WHEREAS, Developer and Agency entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement on April 16, 2002, ("Previous ENA") in order to facilitate the development of a mixed-use real estate project upon certain real property comprised of approximately 126 acres, portions of which are owned by Agency and Chula Vista Capital ("CVC"). Developer submitted a preliminary concept plan for development of said project to Agency as contemplated in the Previous ENA; and WHEREAS, the Previous ENA provided for the development of CVC's property, consisting of approximately 97 acres ("Property"), and Agency's property, consisting of approximately twelve (12) acres ("Agency Property"). Both the Property and Agency Property are located within the City (collectively, "Properties"). Developer has executed an option contract with CVC for the acquisition of the Property ("Option Agreement"), a copy of which has been delivered to Agency; and WHEREAS, Developer and Agency acknowledge that the Previous ENA was terminated and is of no further force and effect; and WHEREAS, Developer, City and Agency desire to enter into this Agreement in order to facilitate the joint planning of the Properties with the San Diego Unified Port District's ("Port") development of the San Diego Bayfront Master Plan ("Port Master Plan"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and Redevelopment Agency do hereby approve, conditioned upon the Port's approval of the First Amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement, the Termination of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and Bayfront Planning Agreement ("Agreement") in substantially the form submitted as attached. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the final form of such Agreement on behalf of the City. The City Manager, subject to the review of the City Attorney is authorized to approve minor changes to the form of the Agreement deemed to be in the best interests of the City, approval of such changes to be evidenced by the execution of such Agreement. Presented by Approved as to form by ~~ Ann Moore Agency Attorney J:ICOMMDEVIRESOSIO3-02-04Itermination reso.doc 4-Co 1 --, RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WHEREAS, the San Diego Unified Port District ("Port") and the City of Chula Vista ("City") entered into a Joint Planning Agreement, dated October 8, 2002, for the master planning of a number of parcels totaling approximately 300 acres located along the Chula Vista bayfront and under the jurisdiction of the Port ("Joint Planning Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the master planning process for the 300 acres ("CVBMP Study Area") has been underway and will result in a master plan for the 300 acres; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2002, the City, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Waterfront L.P., entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") to facilitate the planning of approximately 126 acres of real property located within the City under its land use jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the 126 acres (collectively referred to herein as "Mid Bayfront Properties") identified in the ENA is comprised of 12.1 acres owned by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, 4.9 acres owned by B.F. Goodrich, 8.1 acres owned by SDG&E and 96.6 acres held under option by North Chula Vista Waterfront L.P. ("Waterfront L.P.); and WHEREAS, the MidBayfront Properties is located adjacent to the CVBMP Study Area, and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency along with Waterfront L.P. has been in a process of focusing on public outreach activities for project alternatives for the MidBayfront Properties; and WHEREAS, the ENA with Waterfront L.P., the City and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency has expired; and WHEREAS, the City, Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Waterfront Properties have entered into an Agreement to include the MidBayfront Properties into the Port's planning effort for the CVBMP Study Area; and WHEREAS, on July 29, 2003, a joint workshop of the Board of Commissioners and Chula Vista City Council directed the Port and City staff to consider the possibility of combining the planning efforts for the MidBayfront Properties with the CVBMP Study Area in order to create a master plan for both areas; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista do hereby adopt the First Amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement ("Agreement") with the San Diego Unified Port District and the City of Chula Vista in substantially the form submitted as attached. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the final form of such Agreement on behalf of the City. The City Manager, subject to the review of the City 1 4-, Attorney is authorized to approve minor changes to the form of the Agreement deemed to be in the best interests of the City, approval of such changes to be evidenced by the execution of such Agreement. Presented by Approved as to form by C^-~ Ann Moore Agency Attorney J:ICOMMDEVIRESOSI03 02 041Reso Amend JPA Agmt 2 4-r .-..-. ATTACHMENT 1 TERMINATION OF EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT AND BAYFRONT PLANNING AGREEMENT This Termination of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and Bayfront Planning Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into and effective as of , 2004, ("Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation of the State of California ("City"), REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political subdivision of the State of California ("Agency"), and NORTH C.v. WATERFRONT L.P., a California limited partnership ("Develope~'), with reference to the following facts: A. Developer and Agency entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement on April 16, 2002, ("Previous ENA") in order to facilitate the deveiopment of a mixed-use real estate project upon certain real property comprised of approximately 126 acres, portions of which are owned by Agency and Chula Vista Capital ("CVC"). Developer submitted a preliminary concept plan for development of said project to Agency as contemplated in the Previous ENA. B. The Previous ENA provided for the development of CVC's property, consisting of approximately 97 acres ("Property"), and Agency's property, consisting of approximately twelve (12) acres ("Agency Property"). Both the Property and Agency Property are located within the City and are more particularly described in Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated herein (collectively, "Properties"). Developer has executed an option contract with CVC for the acquisition of the Property ("Option Agreement"), a copy of which has been delivered to Agency. C. Developer and Agency mutually acknowledge that the Previous ENA has been terminated and is of no further force and effect. D. Developer, City and Agency desire to enter into this Agreement in order to facilitate the joint planning of the Properties with the San Diego Unified Port District's ("Port") development of the San Diego Bayfront Master Plan ("Port Master Plan"). Now therefore, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Developer, City, and Agency agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 Termination of Previous ENA 1. Termination. As of the Effective Date, Developer and Agency acknowledge that the Previous ENA and all rights and obligations of the parties therein has been terminated and is of no further force and effect, except that the rights and obligations set forth in Section 8.7 of the Previous ENA shall survive the termination of the Previous ENA. Developer and Agency mutually agree that neither party has materially defaulted or breached the provisions of the Previous ENA. 1.1 Hold Harmless. Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless Agency and City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against any losses, liabilities, damages, costs, claims, suits, actions or proceedings, judicial or administrative, for lof 7 4-9 SD\409919.2 02-26-2004 031550-0001 writs, orders, injunction or other relief, damages, land expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the termination of the Previous ENA. 1.2 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of Article 1 of this Agreement shall remain operative and will survive the termination of this Agreement as set forth in Section 5.5 herein. ARTICLE 2 Planning of Properties 2. Joint Planning Effort. 2.1 Port Master Plan Joint Plannina Process. Developer acknowledges and agrees to City's inclusion of the Property in the City and Port's joint planning effort to develop the Port Master Plan. City also agrees to include the Agency Property in its joint planning effort to develop the Port Master Plan. Developer understands that the Port Master Plan is currently being processed by the Port subject to the terms of a Joint Planning Agreement with City and the Port, adopted on October 8, 2002 ("Joint Planning Agreement"), and as amended from time to time. Pursuant to the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement, City will be responsible for the planning in conjunction with the Port of any real property within the City's jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Properties. Developer further acknowledges that City will be an active participant in the Port's planning process pursuant to the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement. 2.2 Cooperation: Developer agrees to cooperate in good faith and use its best efforts to facilitate the planning of the Property as part of the Port Master Plan. 2.3 Staff Meetings: The Port and City have already initiated regular meetings to discuss the processing of the Port Master Plan. The City agrees to endeavor to continue these regular meetings and to notify Developer of such meetings. In addition, the City shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that Developer has regular and continuous access to City staff during the joint planning process of the Property as related to the Port Master Plan. To implement this provision, the City staff will schedule regular meetings with Developer and others to facilitate the joint planning efforts of the incorporating the Property into the Port Master Plan. 2.4 Funding: Developer understands and agrees that a number of activities will need to be funded in order to complete the Port Master Plan in which the Properties is proposed to be incorporated and become a part thereof. Developer agrees to pay 25 percent (25%) ("Pro Rata Share") of the total costs incurred by the Port and City for all the work provided by consultants on and after January 30, 2004, for the joint planning efforts to develop the Port Master Plan which incorporates the Properties, including but not limited to costs incurred for the preparation of an environmental document, coastal commission processing efforts as described in the Joint Planning Agreement and the First Amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement and for all consultants deemed necessary by the City to fully and efficiently complete the Port Master Plan which will include the Properties. Developers shall also be responsible for paying all of the costs of additional consultants, related to the possible inclusion of the Agency Property in a land exchange or is necessary for consideration of a land exchange (for example: appraisers needed to determine the value of Agency Property if a land exchange is being contemplated by the Parties), if the City deems such other consultants necessary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer understands that Developer is solely responsible for all Developer's costs incurred for the planning and processing of the Properties and any land exchange contemplated by the Developer. City agrees to bear the costs of the staff time necessary to complete the planning efforrs for the Port Master Plan. Developer shall place a deposit with the City, within _1°- days of City Council approval of this Agreement, the amount of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) ("Deposit") from which the City may withdraw the amount equal to the Pro Rata Share of the last month billing received 2 of 7 4-10 SD\4099 I 9.2 02-26-2004 031550-0001 by the consultants, for work on the Port Master Plan, including any additional consuitants or processing efforts deemed necessary to complete the joint planning efforts, incurred on and after January 30, 2004. The amount of the Deposit was derived as a portion of Developers Pro Rata Share of the costs needed for the processing of the Port Master Plan and the Properties. Developer shall maintain and continue to replenish said Deposit as needed until Developer's obligations as set forth in this Agreement have been satisfied. At the end of each month the City shall determine the amount owed by the Developer and within fifteen days thereafter the City shall withdraw from the Deposit said amount due the City and shall send the Developer a billing statement that shows the withdrawal of said amount. Each billing statement shall be accompanied by a copy of the invoice for work incurred in the processing of the Port Master Plan or other relevant consultant work. Developer shall replenish the Deposit within fifteen days of being notified by the City that the Deposit had decreased to half of the total amount of the initial Deposit set forth herein. 2.5 Alternatives: Developer understands that City, as of the Effective Date, is processing an amendment to its General Plan and Local Coastal Program for land within the City (including the Property) and land outside the City's boundaries as it relates to its planning efforts. Developer further acknowledges and agrees that the City may consider a number of development alternatives for the Property including an alternative identified through the Port Master Plan for consideration by the City Council as part of the City's General Plan Update and Local Coastal Program Amendment process. 2.6 City's General Plan: Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, Developer acknowledges and agrees that the portions of the Port Master Plan which include any real property within City's jurisdiction (including the Properties), shall be required to be approved or denied by the City Council in its sole discretion as a part of and incorporated into City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program ("City Planning Documents"). 2.7 Land Exchanoe. Developer has represented to Agency and City that it is considering the feasibility of a land exchange with the Port pursuant to State law that would result in all or a portion of the Property being granted to the Port in exchange for all or a portion of Port Property ('Trust Property") being granted to Developer. Developer acknowledges that Agency and City have a substantial public interest in the land use designation of the Trust Property that would be the subject of the proposed exchange. Agency and City agree to cooperate and will consider supporting a land exchange between Developer and the Port provided, however, the City Council: approves the land use designation of the Trust Property to be exchanged for the Property or any portion thereof, approves the conditions imposed on any land exchange and all legal requirements for the land exchange are satisfied. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer understands and agrees that Agency and City shall take whatever steps Agency and City deems appropriate if Agency and City does not approve of the land use designation of the Trust Property that are the subject of the exchange or for such other reasons as determined by Agency and City. Developer further understands and agrees that Developer is solely responsible for pursuing any land exchange with the Port. City and Agency agree that Developer retains sole and absolute discretion to decide whether to enter into a land exchange with the Port and that nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as compelling Developer to accept any particular land exchange proposed by the Port or any other party. Developer understands and agrees that any discussion of a land exchange with the Agency Property will be considered by the Agency in its sole discretion as a separate and distinct transaction from the land exchange of the property. The Agency retains its sole and absolute discretion to enter into a land exchange with the Port and nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as compelling the Agency to accept any particular land exchange proposed by the Port or any other party. 3 of 7 4-(( SD\409919.2 02-26-2004 031550-0001 ARTICLE 3 Entitlements 3. Entitlements Processing. Developer understands and agrees that Deyeloper may elect to process applications for entitlements for development of the Properties in advance of the City's consideration of the City's Planning Documents that incorporate the Port Master Plan, only if such applications are consistent with the preferred alternative described in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Port Master Plan. Developer further understands and agrees that the processing of such applications in advance of the consideration of said City Planning Documents shall be at its own risk and expense and that such applications shall not limit the City's discretion in any way to approve or disapprove the City Planning Documents. 3.1 Public Hearinas for Entitlements. In the event that Developer chooses to process applications for entitlements in advance of the City's Planning Documents, Developer understands and agrees that no public hearing will be held concerning any entitlements for the Properties unless and until all of the following occur: (1) the Port Master Plan has been approved by City and the Port; (2) the City Planning Documents have been approved by the City Council; (3) the amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan required by the approval of the Port Master Plan and City Planning Documents has been approved by the California Coastal Commission; and (4) Developer is in compliance with all of the terms of this Agreement. 3.2 Preliminary Master Plan and New ENA. City and Agency agree that if the City's Planning Documents have been approved, Developer shall have ninety (gO) days to submit a preliminary master plan consistent with the City Planning Documents for deveiopment of the Properties to City and Agency. City and Agency agree to in good faith review and consider such preliminary master plan and a new Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("New ENA") between Agency and Developer for the Properties. During City's and Agency's review and consideration of the preliminary master plan and the New ENA, City and Agency agree not to solicit alternative development proposals for the Properties or to negotiate with any other person or entity regarding disposition or development of the Properties. For purposes of this paragraph "negotiate" shall mean to conduct communications or conferences of any kind with a view to reaching a preliminary or final settlement or agreement with respect to the development of all or any portion of the Properties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer acknowledges that the Agency or City may receive from time to time, unsolicited alternative proposals for development of the Properties. ARTICLE 4 Reservation of Discretion 4. Reservation of Discretion. Developer understands and agrees that Agency and City, in their respective legislative roles, reserve the right to exercise their discretion as to all matters which Agency and City are by law entitled or required to exercise such discretion, including but not limited to, entitlements for the development of the Properties, adoption of any amendments to policy documents (including the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Redevelopment Plan for the Bayfront Project Area), and any land exchange with the Port and Developer. In addition, Developer understands and agrees that the entitlements and any other documents presented to Agency or City, as appropriate, for consideration shall be reviewed and considered in accordance with applicable legal requirements, including laws related to notice, public hearings, due process and the California Environmental Quality Act. 4 of 7 4-12- SD\409919.2 02-26-2004 03 I 550-0001 ARTICLE 5 General Provisions 5. Addresses for Notice. Developer's Address for Notice: Pacifica Companies, Inc. 1785 Hancock Street, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92110 Attn: Ash Israni Richard Campbell Telephone: (619) 296-9000 Fax: (619) 296-9090 Latham & Watkins 701 "B" Street, Suite 2100 Attn: Allen Haynie Telephone: (619) 238-2835 Fax: (619) 696-7419 Agency's Address for Notice: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attn: Laurie Madigan, Community Development Director Leisa Lukes, Principal Community Development Specialist Telephone: (619) 691-5047 Fax: (619) 476-5310 Copy to: Ann Moore, City Attorney 5.1 Authoritv. Each party represents that it has full right, power and authority to execute this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder, without the need for any further action under its governing instruments, and the parties executing this Agreement on the behalf of such party are duly authorized agents with authority to do so. 5.2 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple copies, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one Agreement after each party has signed such a counterpart. 5.3 Entire Aqreement. This Agreement, together with all exhibits attached hereto and other agreements expressly referred to herein, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, warranties and statements, oral or written, are superseded. 5.4 No Third Partv Beneficiaries. There are no other parties to this Agreement, express or implied, direct or indirect. Agency, City and Developer acknowledge that it is not their intent to create any third party beneficiaries to this Agreement. 5.5Indemnitv. Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and Agency, their elected officials, employees and agents from and against any and all challenges to this Agreement, or any and all losses, liabilities, damages, claims or costs (including attorneys' fees) arising from or associated with investigating or pursuing joint planning or a land trade concept for the Property. including but not limited to any and all claims for interfering with any rights 5 of 7 4-13 SD\409919.2 02-26-2004 031550-0001 Developer may have concerning the Property such as development rights or prospective business opportunities. This indemnity obligation shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 5.6 Assionment. City and Agency would not have entered into this Agreement but for Developer's unique qualifications and experience. Therefore, Developer's rights and obligations under this Agreement may not be assigned without the prior written approval of the City and Agency in their sole discretion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, subject to the reasonable prior written approval of the City Manager and Executive Director, Developer may assign its rights hereunder to a new entity controlled by principals of Developer for purposes of processing entitlements for the Properties. Such new entity may include additional parties provided they are partners of Developer, or an entity controlled thereby, retains responsibility for fulfilling its obligations hereunder, and Developer retains material management control and authority over the entity and the Properties. 5.7 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall terminate upon the later of the approval or denial of the Port Master Plan by the City or adoption or denial of a land exchange between the Port, City, Agency and Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall this Agreement be in force and effect after January 2, 2006_. 5.8. Termination. Developer may terminate this Agreement and withdraw from the joint planning process of the Port Master Plan by providing the City with thirty (30) days written notice if Developer believes that the plans for the Property appear to be financially infeasible for Developer. Once Developer withdraws from the joint planning process of the Port Master Plan, Developer shall not apply for any entitlements for the Property under the City's Planning Documents that incorporate the Port Master Plan approved by the City Council, unless the amount of the costs as described in Paragraph 2.4 herein are fully paid by the Developer. Developer may however apply for amendments to the City Planning Document once approved by the City Council. Developer understands and agrees that Developer's withdrawal from the planning process shall not be used or considered evidence of economic impact, loss of investment-backed expectations, or diminution of value with respect to a takings claim or other similar causes of actions. The Developer shall be responsible for its share as provided herein, of the costs incurred by the consultant up to the date of the withdrawal. [ NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE] 6 of 7 4 -Ief SD\409919.2 02-26-2004 031550-0001 -.-. SIGNATURE PAGE TO TERMINATION OF EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT AND BAYFRONT PLANNING AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above, thereby indicating the consent of their principals. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE NORTH C.V. WATERFRONT loP. CITY OF CHULA VISTA a California Limited Partnership By: Stephen C. Padilla Deepak Israni, General Partner Chair Ashok Israni, General Partner Approved as to form: By: Ann Moore Agency Attorney / City Attorney Date: Approved as to content: By: Laurie Madigan Executive Secretary/ Community Development Director Date: J:lattorneylagreelTermination of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement 2 25 04 (Pacifica) 7 of 7 4 -IS- SDl4099 I 9.2 02-26-2004 031550-0001 ATTACHMENT 2 First Amendment to Joint Planning Agreement Between the San Diego Unified Port District And the City ofChula Vista WHEREAS, the San Diego Unified Port District ("Port") and the City ofChula Vista ("City") entered into a Joint Planning Agreement, dated October 8, 2002, for the master planning of a number of parcels totaling approximately 300 acres located along the Chula Vista baYITont and under the jurisdiction of the Port ("Joint Planning Agreement"); WHEREAS, the master planning process for the 300 acres ("CVBMP Study Area") has been underway and will result in a master plan for the 300 acres; WHEREAS, on April 16, 2002, the City, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Waterfront L.P., entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") to facilitate the planning of approximately 126 acres of real property located within the City under its land use jurisdiction; WHEREAS, the 126 acres (collectively referred to herein as "Mid Bayfront Properties") identified in the ENA is comprised of 12.1 acres owned by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, 4.9 acres owned by B.F. Goodrich, 8.1 acres owned by SDG&E and 96.6 acres held under option by North Chula Vista WaterITont L.P. ("Waterfront L.P.); WHEREAS, the MidBayfront Properties is located adjacent to the CVBMP Study Area, and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency along with Waterfront L.P. has been in a process of focusing on public outreach activities for project alternatives for the MidBayfront Properties; WHEREAS the ENA with WaterITont L.P., the City and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency has expired; 4-/~ WHEREAS, the City, Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Waterfront Properties have entered into an Agreement to include the MidBayfront Properties into the Port's planning effort for the CVBMP Study Area; WHEREAS, on July 29, 2003, a joint workshop of the Board of Commissioners and Chula Vista City Council directed the Port and City staff to consider the possibility of combining the planning efforts for the MidBayfront Properties with the CVBMP Study Area in order to create a master plan for both areas. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to amend the Joint Planning Agreement by adding the following provisions: I. Work Program. An overall work program will be prepared by City stafffor the planning of the MidBayfront Properties, to be reviewed and approved by the Executive Staff Committee. This overall work program, when approved by the Executive Staff Committee, will be incorporated into the CVBMP work program, and will ensure that the steps in the planning process are agreed to early, the scope of the effort is clearly defined, and the process will integrate into the planning process for the CVBMP Study Area, including when the team will communicate with the public and the policy makers. 2. Process. The procedures followed in the day to day course of the CVBMP Study Area will remain the same as set forth in the paragraph entitled "Work Program and Communications" of the Joint Planning Agreement. 3. Resources. The Port and City agree to support the planning process for MidBayfront Properties by committing the necessary staff resources. The parties agree to employ the same type of consultants used for the planning of the CVBMP Study Area. The Port and City further agree to proactively engage all staffing and consultant services needed to complete the master planning for the Mid Bayuont Properties concurrent with the CVBMP Study Area, including but not limited to Coastal Commission consideration of said properties in the master plan and environmental documentation. 4. Funding. The Port and the City agree to bear the costs ofthe staff time of the respective organizations..The parties agree to mutually employ consultants necessary to complete the planning and environmental review for the combined CVBMP Study Area and MidBayfront Properties, and processing Coastal permitting for the combined plans. Funding for all work provided by consultants on and after January 30, 2004 shall be shared by the Port, City and Waterfront LP. as follows: Port Share: 37.5% (for all work provided by consultants on and after January 30, 2004.) City Share: 37.5% (for all work provided by consultants on and after January 30, 2004.) 2 4-/7 No. CV Waterfront LP. Share 25% (for all work provided by consultants on and after January 30, 2004.) These percentage share funding responsibilities as described herein will replace the funding sharing formula described in the Section entitled "Cost Sharing" of the Joint Planning Agreement, for any and all consultant services provided after January 30, 2004. For all consultant work, before January 30, 2004, the Joint Planning Agreement funding formula shall still apply. The Port will administer the payments for the consultants services necessary to complete the master planning of the combined CVBMP Study Area and Mid Bayuont Properties. The Port shall provide the City with documentation regarding said payments to enable the City to collect Waterfront LP. ' s share of the costs. Nothwithstanding the foregoing the City is not responsible for WaterFront LP.'s payments. The City's share will be paid through the use of Port/City Capital Development Program funds. 5. Master Plan Collaboration. The Port and City staff agree to work in a collaborative manner with the consultant to achieve an integrated Master Plan that incorporates the MidBayfront Properties into the CVBMP Study Area while respecting the unique qualities of the MidBayfront Properties. [Do we need more planning points?] 6. Resolution of Issues. The Port and City staff agree they will attempt to resolve any disagreements expeditiously as provided in the Joint Planning Agreement, to achieve the goals set forth herein and in the Joint Planning Agreement and to work towards ajoint recommendation to the Port Board and City Council. 7. Citv Discretion. Notwithstanding anything herein, the City shall be the final decision maker as it relates to land uses and the planning of the MidBayfront Properties. Port understands and agrees that the City reserves the right to exercise its discretion as to all matters, which the City is by law entitled or required to exercise its discretion with respect to the MidBayfront Properties. In addition, the planning documents required to implement the Master Plan for the MidBayfront Properties shall be subject to and brought to City Council for consideration in accordance with applicable legal requirements, including laws related to notice, public hearing and due process. The Parties understand that portions of the Master Plan, which include the MidBayfront Properties shall be required to be approved or denied by the City Council in its sole and absolute discretion as part of and incorporated into the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program. 8. Staff Recommendations. The Port and City staff reserve the right to make their own recommendations to their respective legislative bodies. 9. Land Exchange. City understands that Waterfront LP. is considering the feasibility of a land exchange with the Port pursuant to state law that may result in all or a portion of the property under ownership ofWateruont LP. being granted to the Port in 3 L/-I(j exchange for all or a portion of Port property ("Trust Property") being granted to Waterfront, LP. Port and City acknowledge that both entities have a substantial public interest in the land use designation of the Trust Property that would be the subject of the exchange. Port understands that the City will take whatever steps City deems appropriate if City does not approve of the land use designation of the Trust Property that is the subject of the exchange or for such other reasons as determined by the City. Port and City agree to work cooperatively in discussions concerning any such land exchange and the land use designation of Trust Property subject to said exchanges. It is further recognized that the burden to substantiate that such land trade will provide to the Port land of equal or greater value is the sole responsibility of Waterfront LP. The parties acknowledge that any land exchange will be conditioned on the approval of the State Land Commission and any conditions that they would impose. 10. Citv Land. City retains sole and absolute discretion to decide whether to enter into a land exchange with Port concerning any property owned by the City or the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. Nothing herein shall be construed as compelling City to accept any particular land exchange proposed by the Port or any other party. 11. Termination. The City may withdraw the MidBayfront Properties uom the Master Plan planning process by providing the Port with thirty (30) days notice. The City shall be responsible for its share, as set forth in paragraph 4 herein, of the costs incurred by the consultant up to the effective date of the withdrawal. 12. Remaining Terms. All provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement remain in full force and effect. Any inconsistencies between this First Amendment and the Joint Planning Agreement with respect to the MidBayfront Properties will be resolved by using the provisions of this First Amendment. J:Attomey/AgreelJPA 3 2 23 04 4 4--11 San Diego Unified Port District City of ChulalRedevelopment Agency Peter Q. Davis Stephen C. Padilla Chairman Mayor/Chair San Diego Unified Port District City of Chula VistalRedevelopment Agency Bruce B. Hollingsworth David D. Rowlands, Jr. President/CEO City Manager/Executive Director .:/ - ;¿O ~u-~ (;2--f-, ~ Lrr- R.j- ( TERMINATION OF EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT AND BAYFRONT PLANNING AGREEMENT ~ This Termination of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement anciBayfront Planning Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into and effective as of , 2004, ("Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation of the State of California ("City"), REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political subdivision of the State of California ("Agency"), and NORTH C.V. WATERFRONT L.P., a California limited partnership ("Developer"), with reference to the following facts: A. Developer and Agency entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement on April 16, 2002, ("Previous ENA") in order to facilitate the development of a mixed-use real estate project upon certain real property comprised of approximately 126 acres, portions of which are owned by Agency and Chula Vista Capital ("CVC"). Developer submitted a preliminary concept plan for development of said project to Agency as contemplated in the Previous ENA. B. The Previous ENA provided for the development of CVC's property, consisting of approximately 97 acres ("Property"), and Agency's property, consisting of approximately twelve (12) acres ("Agency Property"). Both the Property and Agency Property are located within the City (collectively, "Properties"). Developer has executed an option contract with CVC for the acquisition of the Property ("Option Agreement"). . C. Developer and Agency mutually acknowledge that the Previous ENA has been terminated and is of no further force and effect. D. Developer, City and Agency desire to enter into this Agreement in order to facilitate the joint planning of the Properties with the San DiegQ..UAilied Port District's ("Port") development of the San Diego Bayfront Master Plan ("Port Master Plan"). Now therefore, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideratlo_n~ me receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Developer, City, and Agency agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 Termination of Previous ENA 1. Termination. As of the Effective Date, Developer and Agency acknowledge that the Previous ENA and all rights and obligations of the parties therein has been terminated and is of no further force and effect, except that the rights and obligations set forth in Section 8.7 of the Previous ENA shall survive the termination of the Previous ENA. Developer and Agency mutually agree that neither party has materially defaulted or breached the provisions of the Previous ENA. I 80\409919.2 lof 7 0)-02-2004 031S51J.000l 1.1 Hold Harmless. Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless Agency and City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against any losses, liabilities, damages, costs, claims, suits, actions or proceedings, judicial or administrative, for writs, orders, injunction or other relief, damages, land expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the termination of the Previous ENA. 1.2 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of Article 1 of this Agreement shall remain operative and will survive the termination of this Agreement as set forth in Section 5.5 herein. ARTICLE 2 Planning of Properties 2. Joint Planning Effort. 2.1 Port Master Plan Joint Plannina Process. Developer acknowledges and agrees to City's inclusion of the Property in the City and Port's joint planning effort to develop the Port Master Plan. City also agrees to include the Agency Property in its joint planning effort to develop the Port Master Plan. Developer understands that the Port Master Pian is currently being processed by the Port with City participation, subject to the terms of a Joint Planning Agreement with City and the Port, adopted on October 8, 2002 ("Joint Planning Agreement"), and as amended from time to time. Pursuant to the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement, City will be responsible for the planning in conjunction with the Port of any real property within the City's jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Properties. Developer further acknowledges that City will be an active participant in the Port's planning process pursuant to the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement. 2.2 Coooeration: Developer agrees to cooperate in good faith and use its best efforts to facilitate the planning of the Property as part of the Port Master Plan. 2.3 Staff Meetinas: The Port and City have already initiated regular meetings to discuss the processing of the Port Master Plan. The City agrees to endeavor to continue these regular meetings and to notify Developer of such meetings. In addition, the City shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that Developer has reguiar and continuous access to City staff during the joint planning process of the Property as related to the Port Master Plan. To implement this provision, City sti:ilnvill schedule regular meetings with Developer and others to facilitate the joint planning efforts of the incorporating the Property into the Port Master Plan. 2.4 Fundina: Developer understands and agrees that a number of activities will need to be funded in order to complete the Port Master Plan in which the Properties are proposed to be incorporated and become a part thereof. Developer agrees to pay 25 percent (25%) ("Pro Rata Share") of the total costs incurred by the Port and City for all the work provided by consultants on and after January 30, 2004, for the joint planning efforts to develop the Port Master Plan which incorporates the Properties, including but not limited to costs incurred for the preparation of an environmental document, coastal commission processing efforts as described in the Joint Planning Agreement and the First Amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement and for all consultants deemed necessary by the City to fully and efficiently complete the Port Master Plan which will include the Properties. Developers shall also be responsible for paying all of the costs of additional consultants, related to the possible inclusion of the Agency Property in a land exchange or is necessary for consideration of a land exchange (for example: appraisers needed to determine the value of Agency Property if a land exchange is being contemplated by the Parties), if the City deems such other consultants necessary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer understands that Developer is solely responsible for all Developer's costs incurred for the planning and processing of the Properties and any land exchange contemplated by the Developer. City agrees to bear the costs of the staff time necessary to complete the planning efforrs for the Port Master Pian and joint planning of the Properties. I S0\4099 19.2 2 of 7 03-02-2004 031S50.{)()01 Developer shall place a deposit with the City, within ten (10) days of City Council approval of this Agreement, the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) ("Deposit") from which the City may withdraw the amount equal to the Pro Rata Share of the last month billing received by the consultants, for work on the Port Master Plan, including any additional consultants or processing efforts deemed necessary to complete the joint planning efforts, incurred on and after January 30, 2004. The amount of the Deposit was derived as a portion of Developer's Pro Rata Share of the costs needed for the processing of the Port Master Plan and the Properties. Developer shall maintain and continue to replenish said Deposit as needed until Developer's obligations as set forth in this Agreement have been satisfied. At the end of each month the City shall determine the amount owed by the Developer and within fifteen (15) days thereafter the City shall withdraw from the Deposit said amount due the City under this Agreement and shall send the Developer a billing statement that shows the withdrawal of said amount. Each billing statement shall be accompanied by a copy of the invoice for work incurred in the processing of the Port Master Plan or other relevant consultant work. Developer shall replenish the Deposit within fifteen (15) days of being notified by the City that the Deposit had decreased to half of the total amount of the initial Deposit set forth herein. 2.5 Alternatives: Developer understands that City, as of the Effective Date, is processing an amendment to its General Plan and Local Coastal Program for land within the City (including the Property) and land outside the City's boundaries as it relates to its planning efforts. Developer further acknowledges and agrees that the City may consider a number of development alternatives for the Property including an alternative identified through the Port Master Plan for consideration by the City Council as part of the City's General Plan Update and Local Coastal Program Amendment process. 2.6 Citv's General Plan: Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, Developer acknowledges and agrees that the portions of the Port Master Plan which include any real property within City's jurisdiction (including the Properties), shall be required to be approved or denied by the City Council in its sole discretion as a part of and incorporated into City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program ("City Planning Documents"). 2.7 Land Exchanae. Developer has represented to Agency and City that it is considering the feasibility of a land exchange with the Port pursuant to State law that would result in all or a portion of the Property being granted to the Port in exchange for all or a portion of Port Property ("Trust Property") being granted to Developer. Developer acknowledges that Agency and City have a substantial public interest in the land use designation of the Trust Property that would be the subject of the proposed exchange. Agency and City agree-to cooperate and will consider supporting a land exchange between Developer and the Port provided, however, the City Council; approves the land use designation of the Trust Property to be exchanged for the Property or any portion thereof; approves the conditions imposed on any land exchange; and all legal requirements for the land exchange are satisfied. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer understands and agrees that Agency and City shall take whatever steps Agency and City deems appropriate if Agency and City does not approve of the land use designation of the Trust Property that are the subject of the exchange or for such other reasons as determined by Agency and City. Deveioper further understands and agrees that Developer is solely responsible for pursuing any land exchange with the Port. City and Agency agree that Developer retains sole and absolute discretion to decide whether to enter into a land exchange with the Port and that nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as compelling Developer to accept any particular land exchange proposed by the Port or any other party. Developer understands and agrees that any discussion of a land exchange with the Agency Property will be considered by the Agency in its sole discretion as a separate and distinct transaction from the land exchange of the Property. The Agency retains its sole and absolute discretion to enter into a land exchange with the Port and nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as compelling the Agency to accept any particular land exchange proposed by the Port or any other party. 3 of 7 I SD\409919.2 03-02-2004 031S51J.000l ARTICLE 3 Entitlements 3. Entitlements Processing. Developer understands and agrees that Developer may elect to process applications for entitlements for development of the Properties in advance of the City consideration of the City's Planning Documents that incorporate the Port Master Plan, only if such applications are consistent with the preferred alternative described in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Port Master Plan. Developer further understands and agrees that the processing of such applications in advance of the consideration of said City Planning Documents shall be at its own risk and expense and that such applications shall not limit the City's discretion in any way to approve or disapprove the City Planning Documents. 3.1 Public Hearinas for Entitlements. In the event that Developer chooses to process applications for entitlements in advance of the City Planning Documents, Developer understands and agrees that no public hearing will be held conceming any entitlements for the Properties unless and until all of the following occur: (1) the Port Master Plan has been approved by City and the Port; (2) the City Planning Documents have been approved by the City Council; (3) the amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan required by the approval of the Port Master Plan and City Planning Documents has been approved by the California Coastal Commission; and (4) Developer is in compliance with all of the terms of this Agreement 3.2 Preliminarv Master Plan and New ENA. City and Agency agree that if the City Planning Documents have been approved, Developer shall have ninety (90) days to submit a preliminary master plan consistent with the City Planning Documents for development of the Properties to City and Agency. City and Agency agree to in good faith review and consider such preliminary master plan and a new Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("New ENA") between Agency and Developer for the Properties. During City's and Agency's review and consideration of the preliminary master plan and the New ENA, City and Agency agree not to solicit alternative development proposals for the Properties or to negotiate with any other person or entity regarding disposition or development of the Properties. For purposes of this paragraph "regotiate" shall mean to conduct communications or conferences of any kind with a view! to reaching a preliminary or final settlement or agreement with respect to the development of all or any portion of the Properties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer acknowledges that. the Agency or City may receive from time to time, unsolicited alternative proposals for development of the Properties. ARTICLE 4 Reservation of Discretion 4. Reservation of Discretion. Developer understands and agrees that Agency and City, in their respe~tive legislative roles, reserve the right to exercise their discretion as to all matters which Agency and City are by law entitled or required to exercise such discretion, including but not limited to, entitlements for the development of the Properties, adoption of any amendments to policy documents (including the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Redevelopment Plan for the Bayfront Project Area), and any land exchange with the Port and Developer. In addition, Developer understands and agrees that the entitlements and any other documents presented to Agency or City, as appropriate, for consideration shall be reviewed and considered in accordance :with applicable legal requirements, including laws related to notice, public hearings, due process and the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. I SD\409919.2 40f 7 03-02-2004 031550-0001 ARTICLE 5 General Provisions 5. Addresses for Notice. Developer's Address for Notice: Pacifica Companies, Inc. 1785 Hancock Street, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92110 Attn: Ash Israni Richard Campbell Telephone: (619) 296-9000 Fax: (619) 296-9090 Latham & Watkins 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800San Diego, CA 92101-3375 Attn: Allen Haynie Telephone: (619) 238-2835 Fax: (619) 696-7419 Agency's Address for Notice: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attn: . Laurie Madigan, Community Development Director Leisa Lukes, Principal Community Development $pecialist Telephone: (619) 691-5047 Fax: (619) 476-5310 Copy to: Ann Moore, City Attorney - 5.1 Authoritv. Each party represents that it has full right, power and authority to execute this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder, without the need for any further action under its goveming instruments, and the parties executing this Agreement on the behalf of such party are duly authorized agents with authority to do so. 5.2 Counteroarts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple copies, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one Agreement after each party has signed such a counterpart. 5.3 Entire Aareemenl. This Agreement, together with all exhibits attached hereto and other agreements expressly referred to herein, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, warranties and statements, oral or written, are superseded. 5.4 No Third Partv Beneficiaries. There are no other parties to this Agreement, express or implied, direct or indirect. Agency, City and Developer acknowledge that it is not their intent to create any third party beneficiaries to this Agreement. 5 of 7 I SD\409919.2 03-02-2004 031550-0001 5.5 lndemnitv. Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and Agency, their elected officials, employees and agents from and against any and all challenges to this Agreement, or any and all losses, liabilities, damages, ciaims or costs (including attorneys' fees) arising from or associated with investigating or pursuing joint planning for the Property or a land trade concept for the Property. including but not limited to any and all claims for interfering with any rights Developer may have concerning the Property such as development rights or prospective business opportunities. This indemnity obligation shall not extend to any claims that City and/or Agency have violated the terms of any existing agreement between an entity or individual other than Developer or CVC and the City and/or Agency. This indemnity obligation shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 5.6 Assianment. City and Agency would not have entered into this Agreement but for Developer's unique qualifications and experience. Therefore, Developer's rights and obligations under this Agreement may not be assigned without the prior written approval of the City and Agency in their sole discretion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, subject to the reasonable prior written approval of the City Manager and Executive Director, Developer may assign its rights hereunder to a new entity controlled by principals of Developer for purposes of processing entitlements for the Properties. Such new entity may include additional parties provided they are partners of Developer, or an entity controlled thereby, retains responsibility for fulfilling its obligations hereunder, and Developer retains material management control and authority over the entity and the Properties. 5.7 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall terminate upon the later of the approval or denial of the Port Master Plan by City or adoption or denial of a land exchange between the Port, City, Agency and Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall this Agreement be in force and effect after January 2, 2006. 5.8 . Termination. Developer may terminate this Agreement and withdraw from the joint planning process of the Port Master Plan by providing the City with thirty (30) days written notice if Developer believes that the plans for the Property appear to be financially infeasible for Developer. Once Developer withdraws from the joint planning process of the Port Master Plan, Developer shall not appiy for any entitlements for the Property under the City's Planning Documents that incorporate the Port Master Plan approved by the City Council, unless the amount of the costs as described in Paragraph 2.4 herein are fully paid by the Developer. Developer may however apply for amendments to the City Planning Document once approved by the City Council. Developer understands and agrees that Developer's withdrawal from the planning process shall not be used or considered evidence of economic impact, loss of investment-backed expectations, or diminution of vaiue with respect to a takings claim,or other similar causes of actions. Developer shall be responsible for its share as provided herein, of the costs incurred by the consultant up to the date of the withdrawal. [NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE] I 80\409919.2 6 of 7 03-02-2004 031550-0001 SIGNATURE PAGE TO TERMINATION OF EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT AND BAYFRONT PLANNING AGREEMENT IN WiTNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above, thereby indicating the consent of their principals. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Stephen C. Padilla Chair NORTH C.V. WATERFRONT L.P. 'C.'Romo Urn'.... ~ By: Deepa Israni, General Partner ~Lul L. Ashok tsrani, General Partner Approved as to form: By: Ann Moore Agency Attorney I City Attorney Date: Approved as to content: By: Laurie Madigan Executive Secretaryl Community Development Director Date: J:\attomey\agree\Termination of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement 2 25 04 (Pacifica) 7 of 7 I 80\409919.2 03-02-2004 031550-0001 .~ ;ti._-(F-C"'; (._.,1-, ~ CA:' -t-I:- tI... -~ '-. I'Ll + 1'--- .-t'- First Amendment to Joint Planning Agreement Between the San Diego Unified Port District And the City of Chula Vista WHEREAS, the San Diego Unified Port District ("Port") and the City of Chula Vista ("City") entered into a Joint Planning Agreement, dated October 8, 2002, for the master planning of a number of parcels totaling approximately 300 acres located along the Chula Vista bayfront and under the jurisdiction ofthe Port ("Joint Planning Agreement"); WHEREAS, the master planning process for the 300 acres ("CVBMP Study Area") has been underway and will result in a master plan for the 300 acres; WHEREAS, on April 16, 2002, the City, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Waterfront L.P., entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") to facilitate the planning of approximately 126 acres of real property located within the City under its land use jurisdiction; WHEREAS, the 126 acres (collectively referred to herein as "Mid Bayfront Properties") identified in the ENA is comprised of 12.1 acres owned by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, 4.9 acres owned by RF. Goodrich, 8.1 acres owned by SDG&E and 96.6 acres held under option by North Chula Vista Waterfront L.P. ("Waterfront L.P.); WHEREAS, the MidBayfront Properties is located adjacent to the CVBMP Study Area, and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency along with Waterfront L.P_ has been in a process of focusing on public outreach activities for project alternatives for the MidBayfront Properties; WHEREAS the ENA with Waterfront L.P., the City and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency has expired; WHEREAS, the City, Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and Waterfront Properties have entered into an Agreement to include the MidBayfront Properties into the Port's planning effort for the CVBMP Study Area; WHEREAS, on July 29,2003, a joint workshop of the Board of Commissioners and Chula Vista City Council directed the Port and City staff to consider the possibility of combining the planning efforts for the MidBayfront Properties with the CVBMP Study Area in order to create a master plan for both areas. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to amend the Joint Planning Agreement by adding the following provisions: 1. Work Program. An overall work program will be prepared by City stafffor the planning of the MidBayfront Properties, to be reviewed and approved by the Executive Staff Committee. This overall work program, when approved by the Executive Staff Committee, will be incorporated into the CVBMP work program, and will ensure that the steps in the planning process are agreed to early, the scope of the effort is clearly defined, and the process will integrate into the planning process for the CVBMP Study Area, including when the team will communicate with the public and the policy makers. 2. Process. The procedures followed in the day to day course of the CVBMP Study Area will remain the same as set forth in the paragraph entitled "Work Program and Communications" of the Joint Planning Agreement. 3. Resources. The Port and City agree to support the planning process for MidBayfront Properties by committing the necessary staff resources. The parties agree to employ the same type of consultants used for the planning of the CVBMP Study Area. The Port and City further agree to proactively engage all staffing and consultant services needed to complete the master planning for the Mid Bayfront Properties concurrent with the CVBMP Study Area, including but not limited to Coastal Commission consideration of said properties in the master plan and environmental documentation. 4. Funding. The Port and the City agree to bear the costs of the stafftime of the respective organizations..The parties agree to mutually employ consultants necessary to complete the planning and environmental review for the combined CVBMP Study Area and MidBayfront Properties, and processing Coastal permitting for the combined plans. Funding for all work provided by consultants on and after January 30, 2004 shall be shared by the Port, City and Waterfront L.P. as follows: City Share: 37.5% (for all work provided by consultants on and after January 30, 2004.) 37.5% (for all work provided by consultants on and after January 30,2004.) Port Share: 2 No. CV Waterfront L.P. Share 25% (for all work provided by consultants on and after January 30, 2004.) These percentage share funding responsibilities as described herein will replace the funding sharing formula described in the Section entitled "Cost Sharing" of the Joint Planning Agreement, for any and all consultant services provided after January 30, 2004. For all consultant work, before January 30,2004, the Joint Planning Agreement funding formula shall still apply. The Port will administer the payments for the consultants services necessary to complete the master planning of the combined CVBMP Study Area and Mid Bayfront Properties. The Port shall provide the City with documentation regarding said payments to enable the City to collect Waterfront L.P.'s share of the costs. Nothwithstanding the foregoing the City is not responsible for WaterFront L.P.'s payments. The City's share will be paid through the use of Port/City Capital Development Program funds. 5. Master Plan Collaboration. The Port and City staff agree to work in a collaborative manner with the consultant to achieve an integrated Master Plan that incorporates the MidBayfront Properties into the CVBMP Study Area while respecting the unique qualities of the MidBayfront Properties. 6. Resolution of Issues. The Port and City staff agree they will attempt to resolve any disagreements expeditiously as provided in the Joint Planning Agreement, to achieve the goals set forth herein and in the Joint Planning Agreement and to work towards a joint recommendation to the Port Board and City Council. 7. Citv Discretion. Notwithstanding anything herein, the City shall be the final decision maker as it relates to land uses and the planning of the MidBayfront Properties. Port understands and agrees that the City reserves the right to exercise its discretion as to all matters, which the City is by law entitled or required to exercise its discretion with respect to the MidBayfront Properties. In addition, the planning documents required to implement the Master Plan for the MidBayfront Properties shall be subject to and brought to City Council for consideration in accordance with applicable legal requirements, including laws related to notice, public hearing and due process. The Parties understand that portions ofthe Master Plan, which include the MidBayfront Properties shall be required to be approved or denied by the City Council in its sole and absolute discretion as part of and incorporated into the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program. 8. Staff Recommendations. The Port and City staffreserve the right to make their own recommendations to their respective legislative bodies. 9. Land Exchange. City understands that Waterfront L.P. is considering the feasibility of a land exchange with the Port pursuant to state law. This land exchange may result in the property owner granting all or a portion of property within the MidBayfront 3 Propertiek to the Port in exchange for all or a portion of Port property ("Trust Property") being granted to the appropriate property owner. City and Port retain sole and absolute discretion to decide whether to discuss or pursue a land exchange and that-nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as compelling City or Port to accept a land exchange of any nature. Port and City acknowledge that both entities have a substantial public interest in the land use designation of the Trust Property that would be the subject of the exchange. Port understands that the City will take whatever steps City deems appropriate if City does not approve of the land use designation of the Trust Property that is the subject of the exchange or for such other reasons as determined by the City. Port and City agree to work cooperatively in discussions concerning any such land exchange and the land use designation of Trust Property subject to said exchanges. It is further recognized that the burden to substantiate that such land trade will provide to the Port land of equal or greater value is the sole responsibility of Waterfront L.P. The Port retains discretion to determine that any land exchange is in the public interest and promotes the purposes of the tidelands trust doctrine. The parties acknowledge that any land exchange will be conditioned on the approval of the State Land Commission and any conditions that they would impose. 10. Citv Land. City retains sole and absolute discretion to decide whether to enter into a land exchange with Port concerning any property owned by the City or the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. Nothing herein shall be construed as compelling City to accept any particular land exchange proposed by the Port or any other party. 11. Termination. The City may withdraw the MidBayfront Properties from the Master Plan planning process by providing the Port with thirty (30) days notice. The City shall be responsible for its share, as set forth in paragraph 4 herein, of the costs incurred by the consultant up to the effective date of the withdrawal. 12. Remaining Terms. All provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement remain in full force and effect. Any inconsistencies between this First Amendment and the Joint Planning Agreement with respect to the MidBayfront Properties will be resolved by using the provisions of this First Amendment. J :Attorney! Agree/ JP A 3 2 23 04 4 San Diego Unified Port District Peter Q. Davis Chairman San Diego Unified Port District Bruce B. Hollingsworth President/CEO City of Chula/Redevelopment Agency Stephen C. Padilla Mayor/Chair City of Chula Vista/Redevelopment Agency David D. Rowlands, Jr. City Manager/Executive Director Environmental Health Coalition COALICION de SALUD AMBIENTAL 1717 Kettner Blvd., Suite 100 . San Oie90, CA 92101. (619) 235.0281 . FAX: (619) 232-3670 ehc@environmentalhealth.org . www.environmentalhealth.ory "~J"~wo March 1, 2004 Mayor Padilla and City Council members Chula Vista City Council 476 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Environmental Health Coalition Support for Joint Planning Agreements and First Amendment to Joint Planning Agreement between the City and the Port District. Dear Mayor and Council members: Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) would like to express our strongest support for the Joint Planning Agreement between the City and North CV Waterfront LP and for the Port/City First Amendment to the Joint Plauning Agreement. EHC has long been a strong advocate for comprehensive planning of the Chula Vista Bayfront and we support these agreements as the next important step toward achieving this goal. We would request only a single addition. While there are many elements that will be required for a plan to be adopted, probably none is as important as community acceptance. This will come from an active and engaged public. There has been significant and productive public involvement to date and the Council, the Port, and Pacifica are to be credited with their role in facilitating that input. The role of the community and the CAC is implied in the agreements but we recommend that it be expressly noted so that the public knows that the intent of all parties is to continue to do the planning with public input. We recommend that the following language be added to the agreements "All parties recognize that a variety of planning issues need to be addressed in development of the Master Plan and are committed to a plan that will successfully address the economic, environmental, health issues related to the site including community acceptance. To this end, all parties agree that there is a high value and priority placed on public involvement in planning and the intent will be to maximize public involvement in the joint master planning process. " We believe that these agreements are the right direction to move and will result in the best plan for the Bayfront. We wish to offer our special thanks to Mr. Israni, Mayor Padilla, and Vice-Mayor Salas for their support and flexibility that brought these agreements to reality. We are confident that this path will lead us to a truly visionary plan for the Chula Vista Bayfront. ~inc~\Y'J) ) - .. /...u'-"'.... ,/)-y ~ , u;;: ~unter, Director ----0 /Ci~an Bay Campaign @printedonreCYdedPaperwithSOYbaSedinkS, ~