Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1998/06/16 Tuesday, June 16, 1998 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Joint Meetin2 of the Redevelopment A2encv/Citv Council of the Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Agency/Council Members Moot -' Padilla -' Rindone -' Salas -, and Chair/Mayor Horton - ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Agency and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 2. a) COUNCIL ADOJYfING WRITTEN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTION RESOLUTION 19048 TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE BAYFRONT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN--On 6/9/98, the Council/Agency approved RESOLUTION 1589: the Environmental Impact Report for the Town Centre IIBayfront Redevelopment Plan Amendments; and Council approved amending the General Plan Land Use Designation for the Tidelands Property. The first reading to adopt ordinances approving the redevelopment plan amendments was postponed in order to respond to written comments protesting the determination of blight in the Bayfront project area. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Community Development) b) COUNCIL ADOJYflNG WRITTEN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTION RESOLUTION 19049 TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE TOWN CENTRE AGENCY I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION 1590: 3. a) ORDINANCE 2734: APPROVING AND ADOJYflNG THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5 FOR THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS--Staff recommends the ordinance be placed on first reading. (Community Development Director) b) ORDINANCE 2735: APPROVING AND ADOJYflNG THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5 FOR THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS--Staff recommends the ordinance be placed on first reading. (Community Development Director) Agenda -2- June 16, 1998 4. AGENCY APPROVING A SEMI-EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT RESOLUTION 1591: WITH CHRISMATT CORPORATION DBA THE PIERI COMPANY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE AND "H" STREET- -Chrismatt has requested a Semi-Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for 6 months in order to negotiate the purchase of Agency-owned properties, develop plans and secure financing. The area under consideration consists of 16 separate parcels including 4 properties owned by the Agency. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and to direct staff to extend Owner Participation Rights within 30 days of the effective date of the agreement. (Community Development Director) 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 "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. OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) 6. CHAIRIMAYOR'S REPORT(S) 7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to a closed session and thence to a Special Joint Redevelopment Agency/City Council Meeting on June 23, 1998 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. ********** Agenda -3- June 16, 1998 CLOSED SESSION Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency states otherwise at this time, the Agency will discuss and deliberate on the following item(s) of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of.fi!H!1 action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Agency's return from closed session, reports of.fi!H!1 action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Clerk's Office. 8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Existine LitieationPursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 . Travis A. Reneau, et al. v. the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, et al. -... 11 JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCVICOUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ol. Meeting Date 06/16/98 ITEM TITLE: a) COUNCil /q() c/f AGENCY RESOLUTION Isg'l AOOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSEO AMENOMENT OF THE BAYFRONT REOEVElOPMENT PLAN b) COUNCil /flo c/ 9 AGENCY RESOLUTION /~O AOOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSEO AMENOMENT OF THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTED BY: (/, C-¡ , Community Development Director ~ REVIEWED BY: Executive Directorw ~ -? (4/5ths Vote: Yes- NoX) BACKGROUND: At the meeting of June 9, 1998, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency held a Joint Public Hearing on the proposed amendments to the Bayfront and Town Centre I Redevelopment Plans and passed resolutions certifying the Environmental Impact Report and amending the City's General Plan land Use Designations in support of the plan amendments. At the hearing, a letter from the County of San Diego was presented which raised objections to the proposed plan amendments. A response to the County has been prepared and is attached to this agenda report. The Council and Agency are requested to adopt the written response and authorize submission to the County. RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the Agency/Council approve the resolutions adopting the written response to the County's letter; a) Regarding the proposed amendment of the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, and authorizing staff to submit the response to the County. b) Regarding the proposed amendment of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan, and authorizing staff to submit the response to the County. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: ~-I Page 2, Item ..DL Meeting Date 06116/98 Redevelopment law requires that the Agency respond to all written responses and override any objections to the formation or amendment of redevelopment plans before adopting ordinances finalizing such Redevelopment Plan formations or amendments. The Agency must wait at least seven days before acting on the plan adoption or amendment proposed. Staff received written comments from the County of San Diego (Attachment A) protesting the amendment of the Bayfront/T own Centre I Redevelopment Plans on June 9, 1998, just several hours in advance of the joint Agency/Council meeting to adopt the amendments. The primary focus of the letter is County staff's objection to the determination of blight for the tidelands territory which is proposed to be added to the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. It should be noted that there are no specific objections to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan Amendment; however, since the two plans are linked, the Agency/Council is requested pass a resolution adopting written response for that Project Area as well. Staff has prepared a response to the County's letter (Attachment B) which responds to all issues raised by County staff. The Agency/Council are requested to adopt the written response by joint action and authorize submittal to the County. The Agency/Council are further requested to override objections raised by the County as set forth in the resolutions. fA copy of staff's recommended written response to the County's June 9, 1990 letter of objection will be delivered to Agency/Council members on or before Monday, June 1!i 1990./ Under separate and subsequent action this evening, the Agency/Council will be requested to place on first reading the adoption of ordinances approving the Bayfront and Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan Amendments. FISCAL IMPACT: None for this action. IFK) H,IHOMEICOMMOEVISTAFF.REP\O6.16.98\bf"",odIJ"" 11. 199812,37,mll e:J-~ AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. / ,s-gq and COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ~4 ~ JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, on June 9, 1998, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency held a joint public hearing (the "Joint Public Hearing") on proposed amendments to the Bayfront and Town Centre I Redevelopment Plans; and WHEREAS, at the Joint Public Hearing, the Mayor, as presiding officer, called for public testimony, and all persons present were afforded an opportunity to testify and submit materials; and WHEREAS, no testimony was offered on behalf of the County of San Diego ("County"); and WHEREAS, a letter which had been hand delivered to the Office of the City Clerk between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 1998 (the "June 9 Letter") was distributed to the City Council, and was received into the record as part of the Joint Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code provides that, where written objections are received at or prior to the hearing concerning the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan, the legislative body: "...shall...respond in writing to the written objections...The written responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised. The legislative body shall address the written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned analysis in its response and, for this purpose, conclusionary statements unsupported by factual information shall not suffice"; and WHEREAS, the Agency staff has reviewed the June 9 Letter, and has participated in the preparation of a response thereto in the form submitted herewith, marked as Exhibit "A" (the "Response"); and WHEREAS, the City Council and the governing board of the Redevelopment Agency have reviewed in detail the June 9 Letter, together with all testimony and reports presented at the Joint Public Hearing and the Response prepared by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula Vista as follows: 1. Each of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency hereby approve and adopt the Response, in the form submitted herewith, as their findings and response to the June 9 Letter. 2. The June 9 Letter, insofar as it constitutes an objection to the adoption of the proposed Amendment to the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, is hereby overruled. per )~ Approved as to form by Chris Salomone Director of Community Development (FK) H,IHOMEICOMMDEVIRESOSIBFAMEND (J,,", 11. 1998 (2A1pmll c2-3 ..... .. - - AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. ~O and L/. COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ~ q JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, on June 9, 1998, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency held a joint public hearing (the "Joint Public Hearing") on proposed amendments to the Bayfront and Town Centre I Redevelopment Plans; and WHEREAS, at the Joint Public Hearing, the Mayor, as presiding officer, called for public testimony, and all persons present were afforded an opportunity to testify and submit materials; and WHEREAS, no testimony was offered on behalf of the County of San Diego ("County"); and WHEREAS, a letter which had been hand delivered to the Office of the City Clerk between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 1998 (the "June 9 Letter") was distributed to the City Council, and was received into the record as part of the Joint Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code provides that, where written objections are received at or prior to the hearing concerning the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan, the legislative body: "...shall...respond in writing to the written objections...The written responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised. The legislative body shall address the written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned analysis in its response and, for this purpose, conclusionary statements unsupported by factual information shall not suffice"; and WHEREAS, the Agency staff has reviewed the June 9 Letter, and has participated in the preparation of a response thereto in the form submitted herewith, marked as Exhibit "A" (the "Response"); and' WHEREAS, the City Council and the governing board of the Redevelopment Agency have reviewed in detail the June 9 Letter, together with all testimony and reports presented at the Joint Public Hearing and the Response prepared by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula Vista as follows: 1. Each of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency hereby approve and adopt the Response, in the form submitted herewith, as their findings and response to the June 9 Letter. 2. The June 9 Letter, insofar as it constitutes an objection to the adoption of the proposed Amendment to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan, is hereby overruled. Presented by Approved as to form by ~, ~~~- Chris Salomone Director of Community Development [(FK) H,'HOME'COMMDEVIRESOS'TCIAMEND (J""e 11, 1998 ('A'pm)! .,.. .. -. QI~ n£ ~èt1t ¿Ðicgn EDWARD A. BAKER, JR. TEL, 1619) 694-4801 DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX, 16191 694-4871 TDD, 1619) 6- June 9, 1998 3989 RUFFIN ROAD, SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123.1890 Hand Delivered to City Clerk June 9.1998 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Chula Vista Attention: City Clerk 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Proposed Amendment to the City of Chula Vista Amendment No.5 to the Bayfront Redevelopment Project and the Town Center I Redevelopmeqt Project (City Council Agenda of June 9, 1998) Dear Mayor Horton and City Councilmembers: The County of San Diego has reviewed the documentation provided by the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency for the Proposed Amendment Number Five for both the Bayfront and Town Center Redevelopment Project Areas. Based on this review and field evaluation of the area, we respectfully request that you not adopt the proposed Added Area of the Bayfront Redevelopment Project. This request is based on the fact that the proposed Added Area lacks the requisite conditions of blight which are necessary under California Redevelopment Law. The County recognizes that the intent and the goals of the existing redevelopment project area are worthwhile and that the existing area may be in need of the type of assistance which can be provided by redevelopment. In general, however, the Added Area cannot be called blighted for a number of reasons: . According to the Preliminary Report (page B-IO), the B.F. Goodrich Site, located east of Marina Parkway, is described as having an "...older design and lack of visual buffers, [and] the property is unsightly and presents incompatibilities with prospective development in the Added Area." The report also describes the facility as physically unattractive. This description does not make the B.F. Goodrich facility "incompatibfe" as thát tenn is used in redevelopment law to describe physical blight. The report does not explain how the B.F. Goodrich facility is incompatible with adjacent or nearby uses. Also, the fact that the facility is unsightly does not, by itself, mean it is blighted. Lastly, the Report states that the facility is an economic benefit to the City of Chula Vista. As such, the facility is not blighted because it is not an "economic burden" on Chula Vista. . The B.F. Goodrich Site is not economically blighted due to the possible presence of hazardous substances. There is no evidence that the Redevelopment Agency is required to use its ~-S- ..-. - -- County of San Diego Department of Housing and Community Development June 9, 1998 authority to remedy or remove the hazardous waste. The Report merely states that the Agency and Port District "may assist prospective developers with their efforts to rernediate any hazardous contamination." Also, on March 28, 1998, the State Water Resources Control Board issued B.F. Goodrich a cleanup and abatement order that contains a comprehensive directive to B.F. Goodrich to clean up the waste and the effects of the discharges. Given the fact that this oWer was ißsued less than three months ago, it is far too soon to conclude that Redevelopmqnt Agency authority ~s required to clean up the waste. Furthennore, a redevelopment agency can take action to clean up hazardous waste only if: no responsible party for the release is identified by the agency; the responsible party fails to agree to a remedial action plan; or the responsible party agrees to a remedial action plan, but fails to implement it in a timely manner. The report contains no evidence of anyone of these factors. In light of the recent cleanup and abatement order issued to B.F. Goodrich, and the fact that the responsibly party is known (Rohr Industries/B.F. Goodrich), it is doubtful that there is any such evidence. Lastly, the Report contains no evidence that any potential hazardous waste affects any parcels adjacent to the B.F. Goodrich site. . The Marina, Yacht Club, Jake's Restaurant, Chula Vista Recreational Vehicle Park and the Bayfront Parks do not meet the definition of both physical and economic blight as required by State Redevelopment Law. The Report also fails to explain why inclusion of these non-blighted sites is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Added Area. The Report must explain a specific connection between the inclusion of these non-blighted sites and the effective redevelopment of the Added Area. . The South Bay Boat Yard on the northwest boundary of the Added Area appears to exhibit deferred maintenance requiring cosmetic improvements and clean-up. This condition, however, does not meet the definition of physical and economic blight, nor is there any explanation for why this site is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Added Area. . The Report cites low lease rates as a condition of economic blight, but fails to explain why these lease rates are "abnonnally low." The Report relies solely on brokers' opinions of the potential Added Area lease rates and fails to compare actual lease rates of developed sites near the Added Area to lease rates in the Added Area. . Therefore, the conclusion that the lease rates are low lacks adequate analysis, and there is no analysis to support ¡¡-detenniñation that the lease rates are abnonnally low. . The Report compares the Added Area to other Port District tidelands and concludes that the Added Area vacancy rates are excessive. The Report fails to state whether the vacancy rate in the Added Area is excessive compared to the vacan.:y rate for similar land in this area. The fact that Port District tidelands miles away in another city may have a lower vacancy rate does not support a conclusion that the vacancy rate in the Added Area is excessive. 2 cJ-~ --. - -- County of San Diego Department of Housing and Community Development June 9, 1998 . The Preliminary Report cites the blighting factors it previously discussed and concludes that these factors hinder economically viable use of the Added Area. This conclusion is not supported by the analysis in the Report because the analysis of the various blighting factors is inadequate as explained above. . Section E of the Preliminary Report lacks specificity in describing the proposed projects to be undertaken by the agency. It currently includes a list of some projects that may be undertaken by the Agency. State Redevelopment Law, Section 33344.5(d), states that a description of specific projects or projects then proposed by the agency must be included in the Preliminary Report. . The Report fails to explain how the blighting conditions that allegedly exist are so prevalent and so substantial that they cause a reduction of, or lack of, proper use of the Added Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden to Chula Vista that cannot reasonably be expected to be remedied by private enterprise, governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. We, therefore, respectfully object to the proposed addition of the Added Area to the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. As shown above, it is clear that the proposed Added Area does not meet the required redevelopment definition of physical and economic blight. We also suggest that alternative means to address the stated problems in the proposed Added Area be explored. We appreciate your consideration of these items and ask that you have your staff contact Frank Landerville in the Department of Housing and Community Development at 694-4818 for additional infonnation on this subject. ALFRED YB~~~ Director (Acting) cc: Helen Robbins-Meyer, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Mark Mead, Deputy County Counsel Chris Salomone, Secretary, Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency 3 c2-7 ATTACHMENT TO ITEM #2 - JUNE 16,1998 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA--Staff's recommended written response to the County's June 9, 1998 Letter of Objection regarding the proposed Bayfront Redevelopment Plan Amendment EXffiBIT "A" RESPONSE TO JUNE 9, 1998 CORRESPONDENCE Shortly before the June 9, 1998 public hearing conducted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency (the "Joint Public Hearing"), the City Clerk had delivered to her office a letter dated June 9, 1998 from Mr. Alfredo Ybarra, Director (Acting), Department of Housing and Community Development, County of San Diego, 3989 Ruffin Road, San Diego, California 92123-1980 (the "June 9 Letter"), a copy of which is attached. Pursuant to its caption, the June 9 Letter purported to address Proposed Amendment No.5 to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project and Proposed Amendment No.5 to the Bayfront Redevelopment Project. No other writings objecting to the Redevelopment Plan for the Towne Center I Redevelopment Project or the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bayfront Redevelopment Project were received. Each of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency have received and reviewed the June 9 Letter. Generally, notwithstanding its caption, the June 9 Letter does not appear to include any material pertinent to the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project. The June 9 Letter also appears to contain no material objections to the extension of various limits to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bayfront Redevelopment Project. In substance, the only material contained in the June 9 Letter that may constitute a written objection concerns the inclusion of 398 acres of San Diego Unified Port District tidelands (the "Added Area") to the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. This draft response (the "Response"), upon approval by the City Council, will constitute the City's response to the written objection contained in the June 9 Letter. Based upon the factual evidence contained in the Report to the City Council on the Amendment No.5 to the Bayfront Redevelopment Project ("Report") as well as testimony submitted at the joint public hearing, and the nexus between such evidence and the definitions of physical and economic blight delineated in Sections 33030 through 33031 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, it is the Agency's belief that the Added Area is characterized with many blighting conditions, both physical and economic, that can only be alleviated through redevelopment. We have outlined the specific points below that respond to each objection identified in the June 9 Letter. The italicized language reflects the language used in the June 9 Letter. Comment #1: According to the Preliminary Report (page B-JO), the B.F. Goodrich Site, located east of Marina Parkway, is described as having an "...older design and lack of visual buffers, [and] the property is unsightly and presents incompatibilities with prospective development in the Added Area." The report also describes the facility as physically unattractive. This description does not make the B.F. Goodrich facility "incompatible" as that term is used in redevelopment law to describe physical blight. The report does not explain how the B.P. Goodrich facility is incompatible with adjacent or nearby uses. Also, the fact that the facility is unsightly does not, by itself, mean it is blighted. Lastly, the Report states that the facility is an economic benefit to the City of Chula Vista. As such, the facility is not blighted because it is not an "economic burden" on Chula Vista. Agencv ResDonse: This comment misstates the facts presented in the Report and the California Community Redevelopment Law's definition of incompatible use as a blighting condition. According to Section 33031 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, physical conditions that cause blight include "adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the Project Area." The evidence contained in the Report encapsulates discussions with the City Community Development Department staff, Port District Asset Managers, and local real estate brokers, all of noted the presence of the older industrial portions of the B.F. Goodrich facility (the "B.F. Goodrich facility") as incompatible uses, which discourage the development of new retail and industrial uses in the area. Report, p. B-9, B-12. The Report describes (and depicts in photographs) the physical condition of the B. F. Goodrich facility (constructed over 45 years ago), a defense research and development facility which features older deteriorating buildings and open storage of heavy industrial equipment. Report, pp. B-12 to B-14. Both the physical condition of this facility and its massive size have discouraged development of adjoining vacant properties in the added area. Report, p. B-25. This factor, coupled with other blighting conditions identified in the report, depreciates the economic value of Added Area properties because Added Area properties cannot command rent levels commensurate with other South Bay commercial and industrial areas not impacted by these conditions. (A specific site-by-site development analysis of these impacts is included on Tables B-4(a) through B-4(g) of the Report at pp. B-18 to B-24. See also Report, pp. B-16, B-25). Oral testimony received at the Joint Public Hearing on June 9, 1998 also included a statement by a local citizen that the entrance to the B. F. Goodrich facility was obviously detracting and a blighting factor. Further testimony included discussion to the effect that the ongoing presence of the B. F. Goodrich facility over several decades has discouraged private investment in the Added Area. The B.F. Goodrich facility is incompatible with adjacent uses and future economic development of the area on the basis of the facility's interrelationship with the existing facilities, including the marina, rnarina-oriented facilities, and the existing recreational vehicle park, as well as existing land use designations. Report, Blight Map, p. B-6; see also Report p. B-12. This conclusion is further bolstered by the likelihood (expressed by City and Port District staff, as well as local real estate brokers) that the existence of the B.F. Goodrich facility would discourage future marine-oriented commercial and industrial uses from locating in the area. Report, p. B-9, B-12. Incompatibility of uses can only be determined by examining the area as a whole, not simply examining a single facility and then declaring it to be blighted. The assertion made in the June 9 Letter that the B. F. Goodrich facility is not blighted (and therefore that the Added Area is not blighted) because it provides economic benefits to the City oversimplifies the issue. While it is true that one of the conditions for finding an area blighted is determining that conditions therein constitute a "serious physical and economic burden on the community," it is not true that the jobs provided by a single entity or facility necessarily render the area a benefit rather than a burden on the community. Again, the determination that an area constitutes a physical and economic burden on the community can only be determined by looking at the area as a whole. In the present case, although the B. F. Goodrich facility provides jobs to some individuals in the community, it also adds a number of serious burdens to the community. As an aging industrial facility, the B. F. Goodrich site is likely to need an increasing amount of maintenance, repairs, and upgrades to ensure code compliance; photographs of the B. F. Goodrich facility depict corroded metal structures and rusting equipment on the site. Report, pp. B-B through B-14. The overall deterioration of the facility is both a physical and economic burden on the community, and particularly on other Added Area properties. As section 33036 of the CRL notes, conditions of blight "tend to further obsolescence, deterioration, and disuse because of the lack of incentive to the individual landowner and his inability to improve, modernize, or rehabilitate his property while the condition of the neighboring properties remain unchanged." Health & Safety Code § 33036. It should be further noted that several governmental agencies have found it necessary to conduct a formal investigative and enforcement process at the B. F. Goodrich facility, as indicated in part by the issuance of Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 98-08 (the "Order") by the State Water Resources Control Board. The Agency will be required to be continuously involved in the activities mandated by the Order, particularly in evaluating the results of that process, including the steps needed to adequately address the public health and safety risks associated with conditions likely to be identified as part of that process. These actions are further evidence of the physical burden imposed on the community, and the economic and social burden imposed upon local government as a result of conditions within the Added Area. Further, in addition to the Order, the Report notes that underground storage tanks at the site have been reported as leaking. Report, pp. B- 7 to B-8. The former owner of the site has also reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Report, p. B- 7. Furthermore, based on known contamination resulting from similar types of operations, the City's redevelopment consultant has predicted a "high likelihood" of soil and/or groundwater contamination "in and around the B.F. Goodrich facility." Report, p. B-7 (emphasis added). The potential hazardous contamination carries with it many adverse physical impacts, which are specified in the Report. See, e.g. Report, p. B-15. Additionally, circulation around the B. F. Goodrich facility is problematic, creating physical constraints to the Added Area. Report, p. B-15. One of the area's major thoroughfares, "H" Street, terminates at the B. F. Goodrich facility, thus constraining convenient access to other retail and recreational uses in the area. Report, p. B-15. These factors clearly indicate that the area, including the 8. F. Goodrich site, is a physical burden to the community, characterized by serious environmental health risks, a poor circulation system, and deteriorated, aging structures. Similarly, regardless of certain economic benefits provided to the community by the B. F. Goodrich facility, the facility and the Added Area are also characterized by serious economic burdens, many of which are actually created or contributed to by the presence of the B. F. Goodrich site. For example, the Report notes, in discussing the potential contamination of soils and groundwater under and around the B. F. Goodrich site that both City Community Development and San Diego Unified Port District real estate staffs agree that "suspected hazardous contamination impairs investments and is among the reasons why developers have avoided pursuing projects in the Added Area. . .." Report, p. B-9. It is a well known fact that cleanup of hazardous materials can be quite costly, and can make property development financially infeasible. Even in areas where hazardous materials contamination is only suspected, the "stigma" related to the possible presence of such materials has been known to keep property vacant for years. This is evidenced in the Added Area by the fact that even though the Added Area is a bayfront location, there has been very limited private development in the area for nearly four decades. Report, p. B-12. Indeed, the only development in the Added Area since the early 1980's has been three Port District projects (the Marina, Bayside Park, and Chula Vista Bayfront Park). Report, p. B-12. In addition, the Added Area is in need of extensive circulation improvements, which also create an economic burden on the community. The Report estimates that needed improvements could cost as much as $7.8 million (including relocation costs), not including hazardous waste mitigation which may be required. Report, p. B-15. In conclusion, when viewed in the context of its impact on the physical and economic conditions in the Added Area, the B. F. Goodrich facility is a core component of the overall conditions of blight therein. Comment #2: The B.F. Goodrich Site is not economically blighted due to the possible presence of hazardous substances. There is no evidence that the Redevelopment Agency is required to use its authority to remedy or remove the hazardous waste. The Report merely states that the Agency and Port District "may assist prospective developers with their efforts to remediate any hazardous contamination." -- - - ..., Also, on March 28, 1998, the State Water Resources Control Board issued B.F. Goodrich a cleanup and abatement order that contains a comprehensive directive to B.F. Goodrich to clean up the waste and the effects of the discharges. Given the fact that this order was issued less than three months ago, it is far too soon to conclude that Redevelopment Agency authority is required to clean up the waste. Furthermore, a redevelopment agency can take action to clean up hazardous waste only if: no responsible party for the release is identified by the agency; the responsible party fails to agree to a remedial action plan; or the responsible party agrees to a remedial action plan, but fails to implement it in a timely manner. The report contains no evidence of any one of these factors. 1n light of the recent cleanup and abatement order issued by B.F. Goodrich, and the fact that the responsibly party is known (Rohr 1ndustries/B.F. Goodrich), it is doubtjUl that there is any such evidence. Lastly, the Report contains no evidence that any potential hazardous waste affects any parcels adjacent to the B.F. Goodrich site. Agency Response: The June 9 Letter has misconstrued the intent of the California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code section 33000 et seq.) with regard to the presence of hazardous waste and the relationship between such waste and a finding of blight. Section 33031(b)(1) of the Health and Safety Code describes an economic condition of blight as "depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including, but not necessarily limited to, those properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority as specified in Article 12.5 (commencing with Section 33459)." In addition to a literal reading of the language of section 33031 (b)(1), a review of the legislative history of the section suggests that the presence of hazardous waste is a blighting condition without regard to whether the Agency is required to use its authority as specified in Article 12.5. Section 33031(b)(1) was amended in 1993 by A.B. 1290 (Statutes of 1993, chapter 942) to its present form. In addressing section 33031 (b)(1), the Bill Analysis by the staff of the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee (prior to Assembly Third Reading, July 1, 1993) identified in part, that; "c) The blight categories are as follows: i) Physical conditions which cause blight, including the factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economic viability of buildings, buildings which are unsafe or unhealthy adjacent to the existence of hazardous wastes, or near which are incompatible with each other. ii) Economic conditions which cause blight: a. Depreciated or stagnant property values, including properties containing hazardous waste. b. Abnormally high business vacancies. c. The lack of commercial facilities which are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, stores, and banks and other lending institutions. d. Residential overcrowding which has led to problems of public safety and welfare. e. A high crime rate which constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare." (Emphasis added.) Note that the Committee treated the inclusion of projects containing hazardous waste as a blighting condition, and did not engraft on the concept asserted by the June 9 Letter - namely, that blight isn't blight unless the host redevelopment agency assumes liability for its cleanup. That concept is unprecedented, and is not now nor has it ever been a required element of blight. The June 9 Letter jumps to erroneous conclusions based upon the circumstance that Section 33031(b)(1) contains a reference to Article 12.5. Article 12.5 was enacted ". . . to provide. . . for local agency oversight of redevelopment hazardous waste clean sites." (See Staff Report to Assembly Committee on Appropriations for August 7, 1996 hearing on S.B. 1425). The same staff report states: "Redevelopment agencies are often faced with land, located within the project area, that has been contaminated by some form of waste. The agencies and the developers and the financial institutions they work with are reluctant to acquire cleanup and redevelop these contaminated properties because of the costs, potential liabilities, and uncertain reimbursement sources involved." Article 12.5 and section 33031(b)(I) were fashioned to provide immunity to redevelopment agencies and to encourage their becoming involved on cleaning up hazardous contamination, not to diminish the ability or discourage redevelopment agencies from addressing hazardous contamination. In this regard see Bill Analysis by the staff to the Senate Committee on Judiciary prepared for the June 22, 1993 hearing on A.B. 175 (Polanco), which provided in part as follows; "Existing law, enacted by A.B. 3193 (Polanco) of 1990, authorizes a redevelopment agency to take any action which the agency determines is necessary to clean up a release of hazardous substances within a project area, subject to guidelines provided by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. . ." "The purpose of this bill is to extend a law that provides an immunity from future cleanup liability to redevelopment agencies, and successor owners of the restored property, when remedial action work on property contaminated with hazardous substances is completed pursuant to specified parameters. . ." "The purpose of AB 3193 was to encourage and enable redevelopment agencies to undertake cleanup efforts of contaminated property in order to make the property usable and salable. Without the qualified immunity, redevelopment agencies would not want to undertake a cleanup action and become a 'responsible party' and potential deep-pocket for the entire waste or spill site." Note that contrary to the suggestion by the June 9 Letter that the issuance of an Abaternent Order is tantamount to an ipso facto, immediate cure for any hazardous contamination, the staff report to the Senate Committee on Judiciary further noted; "The author's office also asserts that cleanup of contaminated sites is an extraordinarily complex and expensive process. Accordingly, many redevelopment agencies have not yet had the opportunity to fully utilize the provisions of AB 3193. Five redevelopment agencies are reportedly in the process of completing plans to undertake an AB 3193 cleanup, depending on completing plans to undertake an AB 3193 cleanup, depending on passage on this measure. Other agencies, which have implemented it, have not yet completed their remedial action, or anticipate that current remedial action plans may have to be expanded to include previously undetected contamination. In either case, the immunity contained in Health and Safety Code Section 33459.3 is criticaL" The Agency would submit that concerns over hazardous contamination are particular appropriate as to coastal areas, particularly California's tidelands. In addition to taking issue with the County's interpretation of the statutory scheme as it relates to a finding of blight for contaminated property, we also note that the Report describes the fact that the high probability of hazardous contamination has stigmatized Added Area properties, primarily resulting from the use, transport, and generation of toxic substances for nearly five decades at the B. F. Goodrich facility in the Project Area. Report, pp. B-9 and B-IO. As the Report notes, "the combination of factors; a World War II era aerospace manufacturer, and environmental laws that assign liability without consideration of actual responsibility, have resulted in a negative stigma being assigned to properties within the Added Area, regardless of their actual level of contamination." Report, p. B-IO. This circumstance has caused the real estate market to devalue Added Area properties, impairing investment opportunities. Report, p. B-16. As stated in the Report, more properties in the Added Area are vacant as compared to all other Port District tidelands, and commercial lease rates are well below market averages. Report, p. B-16. The June 9 Letter suggests that Agency assistance to remediate hazardous contamination is unlikely because there is a responsible party (B.F. Goodrich) and because the State Water Resources Control Board's Cleanup and Abatement Order (the "Order")) referenced in the Report was issued less than three months ago. This statement seems to imply that the issuance of the Order will most likely result in a thorough, proactive site remediation by B.F. Goodrich. However, there is no assurance that B.F. Goodrich will act on a timely basis to establish and/or implement a remedial action plan. In either of these instances, Agency assistance could be necessary to cleanup any contamination. At the same time, it is --. 11 -. -- hardly necessary or appropriate that the Agency assume responsibility to remediate a situation in order for that very situation to be recognized as a problem. Finally, the Report states that while no studies have been conducted (or at least made public) to measure the extent of hazardous contamination in the Added Area, given the long-term industrial operations at the site, and the use of fill, it is a widely held belief that there is a high likelihood of toxic contamination in the Added Area. In discussions with brokers familiar with the Added Area and staff of the Port District who are responsible for the marketing and leasing of projects within the Added Area, these persons have indicated that there is a perception among potential tenants/users that there are problems associated with the projects in the Added Area related to hazardous contamination. Given the decades of heavy industrial use of the B.F. Goodrich facility, the intervention of the State Water Resources Control Board, the fact that substantial Added Area properties remain vacant despite lease rates materially lower than other properties near waterfront in San Diego County and the statements by professionals who make their livelihood marketing and leasing Added Area properties, the inference that the factors described herein are a strong blighting influence that impairs development to a substantial extent is a compelling one. Report, p. B-1. This likelihood has translated into a depreciated market perception of the Added Area that has clearly impaired development feasibility. Report, p. B-9. Comment #3: The Marina, Yacht Club, Jake's Restaurant, Chula Vista Recreational Vehicle Park and the Bayfront Parks do not meet the definition of both physical and economic blight as required by State Redevelopment Law. The Report also fails to explain why inclusion of these non-blighted sites is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Added Area. The Report must explain a specific connection between the inclusion of these non-blighted sites and the effective redevelopment of the Added Area. Agency Response: Comment #3 ignores the established concept that blight is an area-wide condition. For example, Health and Safety Code Section 33321 notes that "A redevelopment area need not be restricted to buildings, improvements, or lands which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety, or welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire area." II should also be noted that the impact of blighting conditions within the project area (for example, lack of private investment resulting from the perception among potential tenants/users - and apparently, the State Water Resources Control Board - that hazardous contamination is present to an extent that disco!lrages investment) has resulted in one of the existing tenants informing Agency staff that they are contemplating leaving the Added Area due to the lack of new investment in the vicinity. ... Additionally, as noted in the legislative history for A.B. 1290, n[n]on-blighted areas may be included [in a redevelopment project area] if those areas are necessary for effective redevelopment; however, these areas may not be included for the sole purpose of obtaining tax increment moneys. n Bill Analysis prepared for May 26, 1993 hearing by Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development. In examining the properties with which the County takes issue, it is clear that (I) the rnajority of these properties are owned by the City or another public agency, and thus, no tax increment is generated by them; (2) as to Jake's restaurant, it is unlikely that the value of this property, a fairly small, single user property will increase enough to produce any meaningful tax increment. Thus, the City clearly has not included these properties for the sole purpose of obtaining tax increment, and therefore has complied with the CRL with regard to including non-blighted areas. The Agency believes the Jake's and Marina properties are integral to overall redevelopment of the Added Territory because of the certain interrelationship of land uses and infrastructure between these existing uses and expected future land uses. Comment #4: The South Bay Boat Yard on the northwest boundary of the Added Area appears to exhibit deferred maintenance requiring cosmetic improvements and clean-up. This condition, however, does not meet the definition of physical and economic blight, nor is there any explanation for why this site is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Added Area. Agency Response: The reference to the South Bay Boat Yard in the Report to the City Council is in context of examples of older industrial buildings in the Added Area that are incompatible with surrounding commercial recreational uses. Report, p. B-12. Like the B.F. Goodrich property along the Marine Parkway, the South Bay Boat Yard exhibits physical deterioration and unscreened storage, which is clearly visible from adjoining vacant commercial parcels. Report, pp. B-12, B-14. The physical condition of this property discourages the development of newer industrial and commercial uses on the adjacent properties because developers have a higher likelihood to attract tenants at locations where buildings appear to be better maintained. Report, pp. B-12, B-25. It should also be noted that the operators of the South Bay Boat Yard have approached City Community Development staff indicating their intention to relocate from this area due to the lack of complementary commercial uses for the employees and patrons of the Boat Yard. This concern only underscores how the absence of development interest in the Added Area threatens the viability of the existing industrial and commercial uses in the Bayfront. Comment #5: The Report cites low lease rates as a condition of economic blight, but fails to explain why these lease rates are "abnormally low." The Report relies solely on brokers' opinions of the potential Added Area lease rates and fails to compare actual lease rates of developed sites near the Added Area to lease rates in the Added Area. Therefore, the conclusion that the lease rates are low lacks adequate analysis, and there is no analysis to support a determination that the lease rates are abnormally low. Agency Response; Comment #5 erroneously represents the evidence contained in the Report. First, the allegation made by the June 9 Letter that the Report solely relies on the broker's opinion of potential lease rates implies that a broker active in the area is not a reasonable source of information regarding lease rates or that there is some better source of real estate lease rates for the Added Area. Yet, the County does not suggest a more appropriate source. The Agency submits that a local broker who actively works the Added Area, and has an interest in the active marketing of the Area (and consummation of transactions) for his/her livelihood, is an entirely appropriate source of information, and may be the best source. In fact, the Agency's redeveloprnent consultant interviewed many local Chula Vista and South Bay real estate brokers "within or in the general vicinity of the Added Area" (Report, p. B-16), including the Qilly commercial real estate broker (Jay Arnett of John Burnham and Company) active in the Added Area. Mr. Arnett was involved in negotiations of two industrial leases at an industrial building on Sandpiper Way in the Added Area. Also, the County comment overlooks Table B-3 in the Report that compares Added Area lease rates with other South Bay rents. Report, p. B-16. This data indicates that Added Area rents are as much as 34% below rents in other areas, clearly supporting the Report's finding that Added Area lease rates are abnormally low. Report, p. B-16. In addition, contrary to the assertion contained in the June 9 Letter, the Agency's consultant also interviewed Port District staff. Port District staff provided information consistent with that provided by Mr. Arnett concerning the weakness of lease rates within the Added Area, the market perception concerning hazardous contamination, and further indicated that the Port District had commissioned and obtained independent appraisals which indicated that the phenomenon of low lease rates within the Added Area, nevertheless, did not result in consummation of new leases. The survey of local area brokers, who are professionals working day-to-day with lease rates in the area, would seem to be a highly reliable method for determining whether lease rates in the Added Area are depressed or stagnant. In addition, the redevelopment consultant also assembled several residual land value analyses for the vacant parcels in the Added Area, which demonstrated that development costs for projects in the Added Area would in many cases exceed the value of the completed project, and in all cases, were excessive compared to the rate of return generally accepted by private industry developers. Report, p. B-18 and B-24. This lends support to the finding that abnormally low lease rates have rendered the area infeasible for development without agency assistance. .... -- -- In summary, the methodology used to survey lease rates and determine whether property values were depressed or stagnant was valid evidence of blighting factors. Countv Comment #6: The Report compares the Added Area to other Port District tidelands and concludes that the Added Area vacancy rates are excessive. The Report fails to state whether the vacancy rate in the Added Area is excessive compared to the vacancy rate for similar land in this area. The fact that Port District tidelands miles away in another city may have a lower vacancy rate does not support a conclusion that the vacancy rate in the Added Area is excessive. Agency Response; Again, the June 9 Letter misstates the facts contained in the Report. The June 9 Letter claims that "the report fails to state whether the vacancy rate in the added area is excessive compared to the vacancy rate for similar land in this area." However, on Page B-lO of the Report, the Agency identifies that "the proportion of vacant properties in the added area is excessive (emphasis added) relative to other Port District tidelands, including the most proximate tidelands, in National City and Imperial Beach." Report, p. B-IO. Indeed, the Report notes that, with a forty percent (40%) vacancy rate, the Chula Vista tidelands are "the most underutilized territory of the Port District." Report, p. B-3. Further, the June 9 Letter seems to suggest that comparing the added area to other Port District tidelands is inappropriate, implying that there are other tidelands in closer proximity to the Added Area that should have been used for comparative analysis. This is simply not the case. All San Diego Port District properties were identified in the comparison indicated in Section B of the Report to the City Council. Report, p. B-3. There is no other tidelands area closer to the added area than these Port District tidelands. While the Agency could have elected to use non-tidelands in this comparison, this approach would be faulty because it would not contrast comparable properties. Ironically, since the closest, non-tideland industrial and commercial properties (along Main Street in Chula Vista) are built out, if the Agency were to have directly compared such properties, this approach would yield an even more dramatic evidence of a disproportionate amount of vacant lots within the Added Area. Moreover, while the June 9 Letter may take issue with the finding of the consultant that the vacancy was excessive, and was caused by "a combination of market, physical and economic factors," (Report, p. B-4 (emphasis added)), County staff were part of the survey group who helped develop that finding. Report, p. B-4. As also mentioned in the Report, the potential contamination of property within the Added Area may have added an additional "stigma" to the already impaired perception of property within the Area, which has kept much of the commercial and industrial zone property vacant. Report, p. B-9 to B-IO. --- -- -- Comment #7: The Preliminary Report cites the blighting factors it previously discussed and concludes that these factors hinder economically viable use of the Added Area. This conclusion is not supported by the analysis in the Report because the analysis of the various blighting factors is inadequate as explained above. Agencv Response; For the reasons outlined in the Agency's response herein and detailed in the Report, Comment #7 is not supported. In fact, the blighting conditions described in the documentation indeed have a profound effect on the economically viable use of the added area. The somewhat circuitous dissatisfaction with the finding of blight as contained in the June 9 Letter seems to have little to do with any flaw in the analysis, which utilizes widely accepted survey and research methodologies and clearly documented results, including evidence that economically viable use is hindered by development infeasibility. Report, Tables B-4(a) through B-4(g); see also Report, p. B-25. Thus, although the author of the June 9 Letter may not be pleased with the City's decision to include the Added Area in the Amended Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, the decision was based on sound data which clearly justifies the inclusion of the Added Area therein. Comment #8: Section E of the Preliminary Report lacks specificity in describing the proposed projects to be undertaken by the agency. It currently includes a list of some projects that may be undertaken by the Agency. State Redevelopment Law, Section 33344.5(d), states that a description of specific projects or projects then proposed by the agency must be included in the Preliminary Report. Agencv Response: Section E of the Preliminary Report (repeated in Section A of the Report) lists a series of specific projects and programs, supplemented, by specific reference, to other redevelopment activities outlined in the current Implementation Plan (included in Section C of the Report). Report, pp. A-9 and A-lO. Unfortunately, Comment #8 does not suggest how the Agency could be more specific in identifying its projects or program for the Added Area beyond what is described in the existing Implementation Plan and in Section E of the Preliminary Report. It is the Agency's opinion that the list is quite specific given the unknown nature of many of the potential redevelopment activities. For example, since the extent of hazardous contamination is not specifically known at this time, a more detailed description of the Agency's hazardous material remediation activities would be premature and speculative. ..... - -- Comment #9: The Report fails to explain how the blighting condition that allegedly exist are so prevalent and so substantial that they cause a reduction oj, or lack oj, proper use of the Added Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden to Chula Vista that cannot reasonably be expected to be remedied by private enterprise, governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. Agencv Response: Section D of the Report specifically addresses why private enterprise is unable to eliminate the blighting conditions found in the Added Area. For over the past three decades, private enterprise in the added area has stagnated due to the physical and economic blighting conditions including low commercial lease rates and adequate access, incompatible uses, and impaired investments. Report, p. B-12. Indeed, as the report notes, "there has been virtually no development interest in developing these lots for four decades." Report, p. B-12. These conditions, as described in Section B of the Report, cause development in the Added Area, in the absence of redevelopment, to be infeasible. Further, Section D of the Report analyzes the inability of the City and Port District to fund economic development in the Added Area absent redevelopment. This concludes the response to the various objections raised by the County Department of Housing and Community Development on the inclusion of the added area to the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCVICOUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ..3 Meeting Date 06116/98 ITEM TITLE: a) ORDINANCE c? 7~<I APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5 FOR THE BAYFRONT REOEVELOPMENT PROJECT b) ORDINANCE ~7.3~ APPRDVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT ND. 5 FOR THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director ( ~ I REVIEWED BY: Executive DirectoW\Z ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes- NoX) BACKGROUND: On June 9, 1998, the Redevelopment Agency transmitted proposed Amendments No.5 to the Bayfront and Town Centre I Redevelopment plans and associated reports to City Council. Following that action, the Agency and Council in joint session held a joint public hearing to take testimony regarding General Plan Amendment 98.03 and the proposed Bayfront and Town Centre I Redevelopment Amendments. The joint public hearing was opened, testimony was taken, and the hearing was closed. The Agency/Council also approved Agency Resolution 1588 and Council Resolution 19036 certifying the final program Environmental Impact Report for the Town Centre I/Bayfront Redevelopment Plan Amendments (EIR.98.2), adopting the findings of fact relating to the feasibility of mitigation measures identified in EIR.98.2, and adopting a related mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Because a letter of objection was submitted by the County of San Diego regarding the proposed amendments, the ordinances prepared to approve the Redevelopment Plan Amendments were not acted upon. The Agency/Council directed staff to prepare a written response to the County letter for consideration at the June 16 meeting. Action on the Agency/Council responses to the County letter is on tonight's agenda as item nos. 2.a. and 2.b. Ordinances 2734 and 2735 approving Amendments No.5 to the Bayfront and Town Centre I Redevelopment Plans are presented for Agency/Council consideration at this time. RECOMMENDATION: That the Council place on first reading ordinances: 1) Approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan Amendment No.5 for the Bayfront Redevelopment Projects; 2) Approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan Amendment No.5 for the Town Centre I Redevelopment Projects. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. ...:3 - I --. - _.. Page 2, Item :3 Meeting Date 06/16/98 DISCUSSION: On April 21, 1998, the Agency adopted a resolution circulating draft redevelopment plan amendments to the Planning Commission and the Town Centre I Project Area Committee for their report and recommendation. (The Bayfront Project Area does not have a project area committee because committees were not required when the Area was formed. A Project Area Committee is not required for the added area because the Agency will not have eminent domain or land use authority in the added area and therefore there is no potential for dislocation of residents.) On April 27, 1998, the Town Centre I Project Area Committee approved their report recommending that the City Council adopt the Town Centre I Amendment. The report and recommendation of the Project Area Committee is contained in the Report to the City Council for the Town Centre I Amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed both the Bayfront and Town Centre I Amendments at their meeting on May 27, 1998. Included in the Reports to the City Council are the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission recommending that the City Council adopt both Redevelopment Plan Amendments, and finding that the Amendments conform to the City's General Plan. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's action, the Agency received comments on the draft Amended Bayfront Redevelopment Plan from the Port District recommending clarification of some of the terminology in the Plan. In response to this request, staff incorporated appropriate language in the enclosed Proposed Amended Plan. The Bayfront Amendment will result in an amended and restated Redevelopment Plan, while the more.limited Town Centre I Amendment consists only of specific text amendments with regard to four time limitations in the existing Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan. As detailed in the respective Reports to the City Council, these amendments would accomplish the following: Bayfront Redevelopment Project Amendment No.5 (see Attachment 3) 1. Enlarqe the Bavfront Redevelooment Project Area: Permit the Agency to undertake necessary redevelopment activities in the Marina vicinity by adding approximately 398 acres of tidelands property (145 acres of land area) within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Unified Port District to existing Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area ("Existing Area"), establishing a 1,035.acre Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. 2. Extend Eminent Domain Time Frame within Existinq Area: Allow the Agency to continue to utilize eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire property in the Existing Area by extending the time limit to commence eminent domain from May 1998 to July 2010. 3. Extend Time Frame to Incur Debt: Enable the Agency to incur new debt to initiate projects in the Existing Area by extending the time frame within which the Agency may incur indebtedness from July 1999 to January 2004. 4. Extend Effectiveness of Redevelooment Plan: The Amendment would extend the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan in the Existing Area to July 16, 2014 to allow the Agency to continue redevelopment activities for an additional 15 years beyond its current limitation. ~~¿) -.. Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 06/16/98 5. Extend Time Frame to Collect Tax Increment Revenue: In conjunction with the above extension, the Amendment would also permit the Agency to collect tax increment in the Existing Area for an additional 15 years beyond the current limit, or until July 16, 2024. 6. Update land Use Provisions: Replace the Existing Redevelopment Plan's Statement of Basic Objectives, General land Use Plan, and Controls to more comprehensively correlate to the Agency's current goals, and to provide that land uses in the Project Area are consistent with the City's General Plan and Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the local Coastal Program, the Port District's Master Plan, and all other state and local building codes, guidelines, or specific plans, as they now exist or are hereafter amended. 7. Restate Other Plan Provisions: Restate the remaining provisions of the Existing Redevelopment Plan. Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Amendment No.5 (see Attachment 4) 1. Extend Eminent Domain Time Frame: As of May 22, 1998, the Agency does not have the authority to commence eminent domain to acquire property within the Town Centre I Project Area. The Amendment would extend the Existing Plan's eminent domain limitation to July 2010, or 12 years following adoption of the Amendment. 2. Extend Time Frame to Incur Debt: Enable the Agency to incur new debt to initiate projects in the Existing Area by extending the time frame within which the Agency may incur indebtedness from July 2001 to January 2004. 3. Extend Effectiveness of Redevelopment Plan: The Amendment would extend the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan to July 6, 2016 to allow the Agency to continue redevelopment activities for an additional 15 years beyond its current limitation. 4. Extend Time Frame to Collect Tax Increment Revenue: In conjunction with the above extension, the Amendment would also permit the Agency to collect tax increment for an additional 15 years beyond its existing limit, or until July 6, 2026. Agency approval of the Amendments is required by Section 33351 of the law in conjunction with submitting the Amendments to the City Council for consideration at the joint public hearing. The City Council has the final authority to adopt the Amendments by ordinance following the joint public hearing, and approval of written responses to any written objections to the Amendments. The action taken tonight is based upon the public hearing, and materials and staff reports received as item nos. 3a., 3b., 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d in the June 9 Agency/Council packet. As more particularly described in the June 9 materials, the purpose of the amendments are to assist with elimination of blight by extending the life of the Redevelopment Project Areas within the limits allowed by State law and add territory to the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. ..3-3 -... -- Page 4, Item ~ Meeting Date 06116/98 FISCAL IMPACT: Extension of the time frames for both the Bayfront and Town Centre I Projects will provide the Agency 15 more years to receive revenue, while also collecting tax increment from the proposed added Tidelands properties. If the amendments are adopted by the City Council approximately $142.4 million increase in projected tax increment revenue from the Bayfront and Town Centre I Project Areas combined could be realized based on a 5% annual rate of increase on secured assessed values. The existing Bayfront and Town Centre I Project Areas will continue to accrue 100% of the tax increments to the Agency until the original project expiration dates (1999 and 2001, respectively). After those dates, the tax sharing formula mandated by AB 1290 takes effect. However, the added Tidelands area will immediately be subject to the new tax increment sharing formula. The total tax revenues expected to be generated from the Bayfront and Town Centre, including the Tidelands over the extended 15 year period is $142.4 million. Of this amount, approximately $26.9 million will be paid to the affected taxing agencies including the School districts and County. In addition, 20% of the total tax increment, or $28.48 million, will accrue to the Agency's low/Mod Income Housing Fund. The remaining $87.0 million will be available to the Agency for redevelopment projects. Of the $115.5 million that will be retained by the Agency, $28.5 million will be set aside in the housing fund and $87.0 million will be available for projects and repayment of debt incurred to finance projects in the Project Areas. The following tables summarize the effects of the amendments on the Agency's projected tax increment revenues. ..3 - c./ ..-. H .' Page 5, Item ~ Meeting Date 06116/98 TOTAL PROJECTED TAX INCREMENT BEGINNING JULY 1. 1999 TO END OF PROJECT LIFE WITHOUT WITH AMENDMENT AMENDMENT DIFFERENCE TOWN CENTRE I Projected Tax Increment $18,569,486 $50,579,951 $32,010,465 Less Taxing Agencies Portion o (3,712,372) (3,712,372) PROJECTED TAX INCREMENT RETAINED $18,569,486 $46,867,579 $28,298,093 BAYFRONT (EXISTING AREA) Projected Tax Increment $31,050,797 $99,787,870 $68,737,073 Less Taxing Agencies Portion o 19,600,124) (9,600,124) PROJECTED TAX INCREMENT RETAINED $31,050,797 $90,187,746 $59,136.949 BAYFRONT (ADDED) Projected Tax Increment $0 $41,604,101 41,604,101 Less Taxing Agencies Portion o (13,553,746) (13,553,746) PROJECTED TAX INCREMENT RETAINED $0 $28,050,355 $28,050,355 TOTAL PROJECTED TAX INCREMENT RETAINED BY AGENCY $49,620,283 $165,105,680 $115,485,397 Total Projected Tax Increment Retained by Agency $115,485,397 Total Projected Tax Increment to Taxing Agencies 26,866,242 TOTAL PROJECTED TAX INCREMENT REVENUE $142,351,639 IPBI H,\HOMElCOMMOEV\STAFF.REPlO6-09-981AMENOIJ,", 11,19" ",26Omll J-S ORDINANCE NO. d1.3 ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5 FOR THE BA YFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (the "City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 1541 on July 16, 1974, approving and establishing the Redevelopment Plan for the Bayfront Redevelopment Project ("Project"), and the City Council has since amended said Redevelopment Plan on July 17, 1979 by Ordinance No. 1872, on April 22, 1986 by Ordinance No. 2146, on January 4, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2585, and on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2608 (as heretofore amended, the "Existing Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Existing Redevelopment Plan includes provisions pertaining to such items as land use, the potential acquisition of property, and the use of tax increment financing in relation to that certain area designated in the Existing Redevelopment Plan as the "Project Area" (which shall be referred to herein as the "Original Area"); and WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to adopt Amendment Number 5 to the Bayfront Redevelopment Project in the form submitted herewith, which is hereby incorporated by reference. The Plan Amendment applies both to the Original Area and the Added Area (which are collectively referred to below as the "Amended Project Area"). The Existing Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Plan Amendment shall constitute the "Amended Redevelopment Plan"; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is a duly constituted redevelopment agency under the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998 the Redevelopment Agency and City Council, among other things (1) directed staff to transmit the draft Plan Amendment to the Plarnling Commission for its recommendation and report, (2) directed staff to transmit the draft Plan Amendment and Preliminary Report thereon to the affected taxing agencies, and (3) set a June 9, 1998 as the date for a joint public hearing before the Agency and the City Council to consider the proposed plan amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed Plan Amendment from the Agency, together with the Agency's Report to the City Council (the "Report to Council") required pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law, California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq. (the "Community Redevelopment Law"), which includes the reasons for the proposed Plan Amendment and the selection of the territory proposed to be added to the Original Area (which area proposed to be added constitutes the "Added Area"), a description of the physical and economic conditions existing in the Added Area, an explanation of why the elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Added Area cannot reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or by the use of financing 589676.2\24036.0001 06llt/98 1223 -1- ¿-Ce, -... alternatives other than tax increment financing, the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Added Area, the reasons for the amendment of the Existing Redevelopment Plan as applicable to the Original Area, a plan for the relocation of families and persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the Added Area, an analysis of the Preliminary Plan, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista (the "City") as to the conformity of the Amended Redevelopment Plan with the City's General Plan, an environmental impact report on the Amended Redevelopment Plan (the "Pinal ErR"), the report of the county fiscal officer and the Agency's analysis thereof, a Neighborhood Impact Report describing the impact of the Amended Redevelopment Plan upon the residents of the Added Area and the surrounding areas, and a summary of consultations with taxing agencies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista ("Planning Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing held on May 27, 1998, recommended the approval of the Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has submitted to the City Council its report and recommendations concerning the Amended Redevelopment Plan recommending its approval and certifying that the Amended Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on June 9, 1998 on the adoption of the Amended Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and an affidavit of publication are on fIle with the City Clerk and the Agency; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first-class mail to the last known assessee of each parcel of land in the Amended Project Area at his or her last known address as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of San Diego; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of the joint public hearing were mailed by first-class mail to all residents and businesses in the Amended Project Area at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of the joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency which receives taxes from property in the Amended Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City have each independently found and determined that, for certain significant effects identified by the Pinal EIR, mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan therefor have been required in, or incorporated into, the Amended Redevelopment Plan which avoid or substantially lessen such effects to a level of insignificance; and 589676.2\24036.0001 06/11/98 12:23 -2- ..3-7 --. -- -- WHEREAS, the Agency and City have each independently found and determined that potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the Amended Redeveloprnent Plan (including the "No Project" alternative) were rejected as infeasible based upon specific environmental, economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations as set forth in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Agency, as the lead agency, and the City, as a responsible agency, have certified the adequacy of the Final EIR submitted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151 and Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Report to Council, the Amended Redevelopment Plan and its economic feasibility, and the Final EIR, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Amended Redevelopment Plan and has made written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner and taxing entity filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for such joint public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section I. The purposes and objectives of the City Council with the Plan Amendment with respect to the Amended Project Area are to accornplish the following: 1. Encourage the redevelopment of the Amended Project Area subject to and consistent with the City's General Plan and, as applicable, the San Diego Unified Port District's Port Master Plan, as amended, and/or specific development plans as may be adopted from time to time through the cooperation of private enterprise and public agencies. 2. Mitigate and prevent the spread of physical and economic conditions that have contributed to the lack of proper utilization of the Added Area and the Original Area, including Port District tidelands in Chula Vista which are underutilized relative to other tidelands in National City, San Diego, and Coronado, and stimulate investment of the private sector in the full development of the Amended Project Area. 3. Continue a comprehensive redevelopment program to mitigate and prevent the spread of ongoing physical and economic conditions that have contributed to the lack of proper utilization of the Original Area, which conditions were documented in the original Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1974 and which continue to characterize and burden the Existing Project Area, in order to facilitate viable development activities. 4. Provide public infrastructure improvements to address existing circulation, parking, and freeway access deficiencies, including street alignment problems, substandard vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and insufficient 5S9676.2\24036.000l 06/11/98 12:23 -3- -3-lf --. off-street parking within the Amended Project Area, which improvements are sensitive to the unique environmental qualities of the Arnended Project Area. 5. Provide for public facility projects to address the shortage of civic, recreational, cultural and other community facilities serving the Amended Project Area, and to encourage tourism through the development of high quality hotels, motels, restaurants and meeting facilities. 6. Provide funds to assist in land acquisition or construction of on- and off- site infrastructure improvements, and to provide assistance over the life of the Amended Redevelopment Plan to facilitate the rehabilitation of these structures, thus enabling the redevelopment of substandard properties in a manner consistent with the General Plan. 7. Provide for the enhancement and renovation of businesses within the Amended Project Area to promote their economic viability, and encourage the cooperation and participation of property owners, business persons, public agencies and community organizations in the revitalization of the Amended Project Area. 8. Expand the resource of developable land by making underutilized land available for redevelopment, and by renovating and restoring sites characterized by deficiencies including soils conditions and drainage conditions which render private development infeasible or impractical. 9. Increase, improve and preserve the community's supply of affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate income households and satisfy the housing needs and desires of various age and income groups of the community . 10. Create physical buffers to ameliorate the adverse effects of changing land uses, discourage spot zoning and piecemeal planning, and achieve an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscaping, and urban design standards appropriate to the objectives of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. 11. Establish a new 12-year time period to commence eminent domain activities for the Amended Project Area within the Original Area (but not the Added Area), to enable the Agency to continue to effectively implement projects involving land assembly through all means, including eminent domain as a last resort. 12. Extend the time frame to incur debt from July 1999 to January 2004, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, to ensure the Agency's ability to incur debt necessary to initiate new redevelopment projects or programs in the Amended Project Area. 589676.2\24036.0001 06/11/98 12023 -4- ..,3-9 -... -- 13. Extend the effectiveness of the Redeve10prnent Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendment, from July 1999 to July 2014, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, to enable the Agency to continue an active redevelopment program an additional fifteen years. 14. Extend the time period for Agency collection of tax increment revenue from 2011 to July 2024, to continue to allow a means of financing public improvements and redevelopment activities throughout the term of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines, based on the evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the Report to Council and all documents referenced therein, and evidence and testimony received at the joint public hearing on the adoption of the Amended Redevelopment Plan that: A. The Added Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based on the following conditions which characterize the Added Area: 1. The Added Area is predominantly urbanized, as evidenced by the fact that 84.5% of the land area is either currently developed or is an integral part of an urban area in that it is surrounded by developed parcels on three or more sides. 2. The presence or suspected presence of hazardous materials within the soil and groundwater, which have impaired property values and hindered development and utilization of the land within the Added Area, as evidenced by the Final Environmental ImDact ReDort for the Chula Vista Business Park ExDansion and Port Master Plan Amendment (September 1997, KEA Environmental), a "Cleanup and Abatement Order" (CAO98- 08) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board to B.F. Goodrich, and interviews with City of Chula Vista Community Development and San Diego Unified Port District (SDUPD) officials. 3. Excessive vacant lots and underutilization of real property compared with similarly situated tideland property in the area, more specifically a 60% vacancy rate within the Added Area. 4. The existence of incompatible land uses, particularly the presence of older, heavy and light industrial land uses dominating the Added Area, which has led to a lack of interest by the private development community in investing in the Added Area. 5. The lack of adequate circulation, which is constrained by poor east-west vehicular access that prohibits convenient local and regional access to 589676.2\24036.0001 06/11/98 12:23 -5- -3-10 retail, recreational, and industrial uses in the Added Area. 6. Low land values and lease rates cornpared to other properties within the vicinity of the Added Area, specifically an average lease rate as much as 50% below the market rate in comparable locations, due to the physical and economic conditions present in the Added Area, which render the Added Area economically unattractive for private development or rehabilitation. Such conditions are so prevalent and substantial in the Added Area that they are causing and will increasingly cause a reduction and lack of proper utilization of the Added Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment, thus requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City and the State. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that governmental action available to the City without redevelopment would be insufficient to cause any significant correction of the blighting conditions, and that the nature and costs of the public improvements and facilities and other actions required to correct the blighting conditions are beyond the capacity of the City and cannot be undertaken or borne by private enterprise acting alone or in concert with available governmental action. B. Significant blight remains in the Original Area, and this blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt and the utilization of additional tax increment revenues. C. The Amended Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Amended Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be attained through the implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan; by the elimination of the physical and economic blighting conditions which exist in the Added Area and conditions of blight, as earlier identified, which persist in the Original Area; by the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment; by protecting and promoting sound development and redevelopment of the Amended Project Area and the general welfare of the citizens of the City by remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of all appropriate means. D. The adoption and carrying out of the Amended Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that under the Amended Redevelopment Plan the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing 589676.2\24036.0001 06/11/98 12:23 -6- ...3-// resources, including property tax increment, interest income, Agency bonds, loans from private institutions, proceeds frorn the sale or lease of property, financial assistance from the City, County, State of California, Federal Government or any other public agency, or any other legally available source; that the nature and timing of redevelopment assistance will depend on the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increment, generated by new investment in the Amended Project Area; and that the financing plan included within the Report to Council demonstrates that sufficient financial resources will be available to carry out the Amended Redevelopment Plan. E. The Amended Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan of the City, including, but not limited to, the housing element of the General Plan, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division I of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based upon the text of the Amended Redevelopment Plan as well as the report of the Planning Commission that the Amended Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan. F. The carrying out of the Amended Redevelopment Plan will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the community and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that redevelopment will benefit the Amended Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development and improve the economic and physical conditions of the Amended Project Area. G. The condemnation of real property, as provided for in the Amended Redevelopment Plan as to the Original Area (but not for the Added Area), is necessary to the execution of the Amended Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. H. The Agency has adopted a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced temporarily or permanently from housing facilities in the Amended Project Area. The Agency also has a feasible method and plan for its relocation of businesses. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the Agency has adopted a method of relocation for the Amended Project Area which sets forth a plan for relocation of families and persons who may potentially be displaced by Agency projects, and upon the fact that the Amended Redevelopment Plan provides for relocation assistance according to law, and the fact that such assistance, including relocation payments, constitutes a feasible method for relocation. 589676.Z\24036.0001 06/l1/9S 12:23 -7- .....3 - ( .;¿ ..... -- .- I. There are, or shall be provided, within the Amended Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Amended Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employrnent. Evidence supporting this finding includes the information contained in the Report to Council that if families or persons were to be displaced there are sufficient existing dwellings which would be available to persons displaced by the implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. J. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33411 and 33411.1 of the Community Redevelopment Law, and dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the Amended Redevelopment Plan requires the Agency to adopt such a plan prior to any such displacement. K. All noncontiguous areas of the Added Area are either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of taxes from the area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for their inclusion. This finding is based upon the information set forth in the Report to Council and other evidence in the record. L. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire area of which they are a part, and any such area is not included solely for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclusion. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that all properties within the Added Area boundaries were included because they were underutilized because of blighting influences, or were affected by the existence of blighting influences, or were necessary either to accomplish the objectives and benefits of the Amended Redevelopment Plan or because of the need to impose uniform requirements on the Added Area as a whole. Such properties will share in the benefits of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. M. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Amended Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. Evidence supporting this finding includes the existence of blighting influences as set forth in the Report to Council, and the inability and/or 589676.2124036.0001 06/11/9S 12:23 -8- ..3-13 .... - _. unwillingness of individual owners and developers to economically remove these blighting influences without substantial public assistance. N. The Added Area is a predominantly urbanized area. Evidence supporting this finding includes the information set forth in the Report to Council and the Preliminary Report for the Amended Redevelopment Plan, which dernonstrates that not less than eighty percent (80%) of the land in the Added Area: 1. Has been or is developed for urban uses; or 2. Is characterized by the existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership; or 3. Is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses which are surrounded or substantially surrounded by parcels which have been developed for urban uses. O. The time limitation on the allocation of dollars to the Agency as contained in the Amended Redevelopment Plan is reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Amended Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Amended Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the time limitation contained in the Amended Redevelopment Plan is consistent with Section 33333.6 of the Community Redevelopment Law and is further consistent with the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency, the anticipated costs of the public improvement projects proposed to be undertaken by the Agency pursuant to the Amended Redevelopment Plan, and the anticipated time for the Agency to undertake such projects. Section 3. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time residential occupants of the Amended Project Area, if any, are displaced, and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to any such displaced residential occupants temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City at the time of their displacement. Evidence supporting this finding includes the City Council's finding that no persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced from residences unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced persons or families at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be decent, safe, sanitary and otherwise standard dwellings. Section 4. All written objections to the Amended Redevelopment Plan filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for hearing and all written and oral objections presented to the City Council at the hearing have been considered by the City Council. All written objections received from property owners and affected taxing agencies have been considered by 589676.2\24036.0001 06/11198 12:23 -9- ..3 -I <I _.. IT .' the City Council and have been responded to in writing. Any and all such objections are hereby overruled. Section 5. The Final EIR for the Amended Redevelopment Plan, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency and in the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered, is hereby incorporated into this Ordinance by reference and made a part hereof. All activities undertaken by the Agency and/or the City pursuant to or in implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan shall be undertaken in accordance with the rnitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring Plan set forth in the Final EIR, and the Agency shall undertake such additional environmental review or assessment as necessary at the time of the proposed implementation of such activities. Section 6. That certain Plan Amendment for the Bayfront Redevelopment Project, the map contained therein, and such other reports as are incorporated therein by reference, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency and the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered is hereby incorporated into the Existing Redevelopment Plan, and is also incorporated by reference and made a part of this Ordinance. The Amended Redevelopment Plan is approved and adopted as the official redevelopment plan for the Amended Project Area. Section 7. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, this City Council hereby: (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Amended Redeveloprnent Plan, (b) requests the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the City having administrative responsibilities in the Amended Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with redevelopment of the Amended Project Area, (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Amended Redevelopment Plan, and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding, including the expenditure of moneys, necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of San Diego County a description of the land within the Added Area and a statement that proceedings for the redevelopment of the Added Area have been instituted under the Community Redevelopment Law. Section 10. The Building Department of the City is hereby directed for a period of two (2) years after the effective date of this Ordinance to advise all applicants for building permits within the Added Area that the site for which a building permit is sought for the construction of buildings or for other improvements is within a redevelopment project area. Section 11. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the description and statement recorded by the City Clerk pursuant to Section 9 of this Ordinance, a 589676.2\24036.0001 06/11/98 12:23 -10- ...3-IS -... -- -- copy of this Ordinance, and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Added Area, to the Auditor-Controller and Assessor of the County of San Diego, to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which receives taxes from property in the Added Area, and to the State Board of Equalization, within thirty (30) days following the adoption of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Section 12. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same or a summary hereof to be published in a newspaper of general circulation which is published and circulated in the City. Section 13. If any part of this Ordinance or the Amended Redevelopment Plan which it approves is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the Amended Redevelopment Plan, and this City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance or approved the remainder of the Amended Redevelopment Plan if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Section 14. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after passage. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 589676.2\24036.0001 06/11/98 12:23 -11- -3-lb Introduced and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held the - day of , 1998, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held the - day of , 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor ATTEST; City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: %~ 589676.2124036.0001 06/tl/9S 12:23 -12- -=:3 -I 7 _u ORDINANCE NO. ~73~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5 FOR THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (the "City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 1691 on July 6, 1976, approving and establishing the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project (the "Project") and the City Council has since amended said Redevelopment Plan on July 17, 1979 by Ordinance No. 1872, on April 22, 1986 by Ordinance No. 2146, on January 4, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2585, and on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2609 (as heretofore amended, the "Existing Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to adopt Amendment Number 5 to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan Amendment") in the form submitted herewith and hereby incorporated herein by reference. The Existing Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Plan Amendment shall constitute the "Amended Redevelopment Plan". No changes to the territory of the redevelopment project area as heretofore established under the Existing Redevelopment Plan (the "Project Area") are proposed at this time by the Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is a duly constituted redevelopment agency under the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998 the Redevelopment Agency and City Council, among other things (1) directed staff to transmit the draft Plan Amendment to the Project Area Committee and the Planning Commission for their recommendation and report, (2) directed staff to transmit the draft Plan Amendment and Preliminary Report thereon to the affected taxing agencies, and (3) set a June 9, 1998 as the date for a joint public hearing before the Agency and the City Council to consider the proposed plan amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed Plan Amendment from the Agency, together with the Agency's Report to the City Council (the "Report to Council") required pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law, California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq. (the "Community Redevelopment Law"), which includes the reasons for the amendment of the Existing Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Project Area Committee, at a special meeting held on April 27, 1998, and the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista ("Planning Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing held on May 27, 1998, recommended the approval of the Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has submitted to the City Council its report and recommendations concerning the Amended Redevelopment Plan recommending its approval and certifying that the Amended Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City; and i589675:\docslmhouk\cmzvOI !.doc O6/n/98 -1- ~-I? WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on June 9, 1998 on the adoption of the Arnended Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and an affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first-class mail to the last known assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area at his or her last known address as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of San Diego; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of the joint public hearing were mailed by first-class mail to all residents and businesses in the Project Area at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of the joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency which receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City have each independently found and determined that, for certain significant effects identified by the Final EIR, mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan therefor have been required in, or incorporated into, the Amended Redevelopment Plan which avoid or substantially lessen such effects; and WHEREAS, the Agency and City have each independently found and determined that potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the Amended Redevelopment Plan (including the "No Project" alternative) were rejected as infeasible based upon specific envirornnental, economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations as set forth in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Agency, as the lead agency, and the City, as a responsible agency, have certified the adequacy of the Final EIR submitted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151 and Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Report to Council, the Arnended Redevelopment Plan and its economic feasibility, and the Final EIR, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Amended Redevelopment Plan and has made written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner and taxing entity filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for such joint public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 589675i:\docslmhouk\cmzvOI !.doc 06/11/98 -2- <:::3-/9 Section 1. The purposes and objectives of the City Council with the Plan Amendment respect to the Project Area are to accomplish the following: 1. Establish a new 12-year time period to commence eminent domain activities, to enable the Agency to continue to effectively implernent projects involving land assembly through all means, including eminent domain as a last resort. 2. Extend the time frame to incur debt from July 2001 to January 2004, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, to ensure the Agency's ability to incur debt necessary to initiate new redevelopment projects or programs in the Project Area. 3. Extend the effectiveness of the Existing Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendment, from July 2001 to July 2016, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, to enable the Agency to continue an active redevelopment program an additional fifteen years. 4. Extend the time period for Agency collection of tax increment revenue from 2011 to July 2026, to continue to allow a means of financing public improvements and redevelopment activities throughout the term of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines, based on the evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the Report to Council and all documents referenced therein, and evidence and testimony received at the joint public hearing on the adoption of the Amended Redevelopment Plan that: A. Significant blight remains in the Project Area, and this blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt and the utilization of additional tax increment revenues. Conditions of blight which persist within and characterize the Project Area include: 1. The underutilization and mixed character of land uses. 2. The prevalence of small lots that are inadequate for optimal utilization and development, and that restrict the further development and expansion of existing compatible uses. 3. The design limitations in the basic layout and platting, the clutter of utility lines and signs, and an inadequate traffic circulation system. 4. The obsolescence, structural inadequacy, lack of architectural unity, and deterioration of buildings within the area. 589675i:ldocs\mhouklcmzvOl '-doc 06/11/98 -3- ...3 - 02/:) -... -- -- 5. The general decline and shifting nature of commercial activity within the area; and 6. The decreasing revenue generation capability coupled with an increasing demand on public services within the area, resulting in an economic and staffing burden to the community. B. The Amended Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be attained through the implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan; by the elimination of the physical and economic blighting conditions which exist in the Project Area; by the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment; by protecting and promoting sound development and redevelopment of the Project Area and the general welfare of the citizens of the City by remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of all appropriate means. C. The adoption and carrying out of the Amended Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that under the Amended Redevelopment Plan the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including property tax increment, interest income, Agency bonds, loans from private institutions, proceeds from the sale or lease of property, financial assistance from the City, County, State of California, Federal Government or any other public agency, or any other legally available source; that the nature and timing of redevelopment assistance will depend on the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increment, generated by new investment in the Project Area; and that the financing plan included within the Report to Council demonstrates that sufficient financial resources will be available to carry out the Amended Redevelopment Plan. D. The Amended Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan of the City, including, but not limited to, the housing element of the General Plan, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division I of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based on the report of the Planning Commission that the Amended Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan, as well as the text of the Redevelopment Plan. E. The carrying out of the Amended Redevelopment Plan will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the community and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that redevelopment will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private 589675i:\docslmhouk\cmzvO I! .doc 06/ll/9S -4- -3 -c.2 , ..-. -- -- actions to stimulate development and improve the economic and physical conditions of the Project Area, and by increasing employrnent opportunities within the City. F. The condemnation of real property, as provided for in the Amended Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Amended Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. G. The Agency has adopted a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced temporarily or permanently from housing facilities in the Project Area. The Agency also has a feasible method and plan for its relocation of businesses. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the Agency has adopted a method of relocation for the Project Area which sets forth a plan for relocation of families and persons who may potentially be displaced by Agency projects, and upon the fact that the Amended Redevelopment Plan provides for relocation assistance according to law, and the fact that such assistance, including relocation payments, constitutes a feasible method for relocation. H. There are, or shall be provided, within the Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the. financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Evidence supporting this finding includes the information contained in the Report to Council that no persons are expected to be displaced as a result of the implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan, and that even if some persons were to be displaced there are sufficient existing dwellings which would be available to persons displaced by the implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. 1. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33411 and 33411.1 of the Community Redevelopment Law, and Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan. Evidence supporting this finding includes the fact that the Amended Redevelopment Plan requires the Agency to adopt such a plan prior to any such displacement. J. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. Evidence supporting this finding includes the existence of blighting influences as set forth in the Report to Council, and the inability of individual owners and developers to economically remove these blighting influences without substantial public assistance. 589675i:ldocs\mhouklcmzvO t! .doc 06/11/98 -5- J -oÌ~ K. The time limitation on the allocation of dollars to the Agency as contained in the Amended Redeve10prnent Plan is reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the time limitation contained in the Amended Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency, the anticipated costs of the public improvement projects proposed to be undertaken by the Agency pursuant to the Amended Redevelopment Plan, and the anticipated time for the Agency to undertake such projects. Section 3. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time residential occupants of the Project Area, if any, are displaced, and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to any such displaced residential occupants temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City at the time of their displacement. Evidence supporting this finding includes the City Council's finding that no persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced from residences unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced persons or families at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be decent, safe, sanitary and otherwise standard dwellings. Section 4. All written objections to the Amended Redevelopment Plan filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for hearing and all written and oral objections presented to the City Council at the hearing have been considered by the City Council. All written objections received from property owners and affected taxing agencies have been considered by the City Council and have been responded to in writing. Any and all such objections are hereby overruled. Section 5. The Final EIR for the Amended Redevelopment Plan, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency and in the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered, is hereby incorporated into this Ordinance by reference and made a part hereof. All activities undertaken by the Agency and/or the City pursuant to or in implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan shall be undertaken in accordance with the mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring Plan set forth in the Final EIR, and the Agency shall undertake such additional environmental review or assessment as necessary at the time of the proposed implementation of such activities. Section 6. That certain Plan Amendment for the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project, the map contained therein, and such other reports as are incorporated therein by reference, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency and the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered is hereby incorporated into the Existing Redevelopment Plan, and is incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. The Amended Redevelopment Plan is designated, approved, and adopted as the official redevelopment plan for the Project Area. Section 7. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Amended 589675i:ldocslmhouklcmzv01! .doc 06/11/98 -6- ~ -.,.2 3 --- -- Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, this City Council hereby: (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Amended Redevelopment Plan, (b) requests the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the City having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with redevelopment of the Project Area, (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Arnended Redevelopment Plan, and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding, including the expenditure of moneys, necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same or a summary hereof to be published in a newspaper of general circulation which is published and circulated in the City. Section 10. If any part of this Ordinance or the Amended Redevelopment Plan which it approves is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the Amended Redevelopment Plan, and this City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance or approved the remainder of the Amended Redevelopment Plan if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Section 11. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after passage. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 589675i:\docslmhouk\cmzvOl !.doc 06/11/98 -7- ...3 - ~ t./ ..'. 1f ... '- Introduced and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held the - day of , 1998, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held the - day of , 1998, by the following roll call vote; AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT; COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS; Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM; ~~ 589675i:ldocs\mhouklcmzvO I! .doc 06/11/98 -8- J> -c:¿ S- --. _ .. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item 4 Meeting Date 06116/98 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION /.6-q, APPRDVING A SEMI. EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH CHRISMATT CORPORATION DBA THE PIERI COMPANY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL CENTER PROPDSED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE AND "H" STREET SUBMITTED BY: C~m"";~ Dh"OPÆ" "'.,~ "> , REVIEWED BY: Executive Directo~~ ~t A (4/5ths Vote: Yes- No..!..1 BACKGROUND: Representatives of Chrismatt Corporation have proposed to redevelop the northwest corner of Third Avenue and H Street (see Attachment 1) with a major mixed use commercial center. The almost 4112 acre area under consideration consists of sixteen separate parcels including four properties owned by the Redevelopment Agency (see Attachment 2). Chrismatt has requested a Semi-Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (SENA) with the Agency for six months in order to negotiate the purchase of Agency.owned properties, develop plans, and secure financing for the project. A copy of the SENA and project proposal are attached and are outlined in the staff report. RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency adopt the resolution approving the Semi. Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Chrismatt Corporation for a period of six months and direct staff to extend Owner Participation Rights within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the Agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Although the project, as contemplated, is not expected to require discretionary land use approval, the Town Centre Project Area Committee will be advised of developer interest in the site and the project will be brought before them as an information item. DISCUSSION: Chrismatt's proposal is located on the northwest corner of Third Avenue and H Street (see Attachment 1) which is located within Subarea 3 of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area. The project proposal consists of two phases which will accommodate a total of approximately 300,000 sq. ft. of commercial space in two five.story buildings and one 10,000 sq. ft. free.standing restaurant building. Two three.level parking structures are also planned (see Attachments 2 and 3). Phase I is anticipated to be planned and constructed between 1998 and 2000 and Phase II is planned to be completed in 2001. 4-/ _.. - -- Page 2, Item 4 Meeting Date 06116/98 In order to continue negotiations with the Agency and other property owners, develop plans, seek prospective tenants, and secure financing, Chrismatt Corporation has requested a Semi. Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for a period of six months. This is a typical period to work.out details of the plan and negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement for actual site acquisition and development. Staff recommends approval of the attached Agreement which specifies that the project will include professional and administrative offices and suites; retail space; and a full.service, high quality restaurant. Other items addressed include the specific issues to be negotiated as part of a Disposition and Development Agreement such as land costs, plan approval, types of tenants, economic risk and terms and conditions of the negotiations. Please note that this agreement does not commit the City or Agency to approve the project, but, sets forth the terms in which the parties agree to negotiate toward a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). If an agreement can be reached, a formal DDA will be provided for City Council/Agency consideration. In compliance with State law, the agreement clearly states that all appropriate owner participation rights will be afforded to affected property owners and tenants. The resolution directs staff to extend Owner Participation Rights promptly after Agency approval of the Agreement. This will entail formal notification to affected property owners that the Agency has entered into a SENA for the redevelopment of Agency. owned property and extends an invitation to all property owners within the proposed development site to submit alternative redevelopment proposals. The City Attorney's office has been involved in the preparation and has approved the form of the proposed agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: During the six month negotiating period, the fiscal impact of this Agreement involves the commitment of staff resources to extend Owner Participation Rights, negotiate an Owner Participation/Development Agreement, and includes the costs to obtain independent financial analysis services and updated appraisals for Agency.owned parcels. Funds ($3,500) for an independent financial analysis have been encumbered from the FY 97.98 Town Centre I Redevelopment Project budget for this project; and, funding for appraisals (approximately $12,000) also will be encumbered in the current year budget thereby avoiding a fiscal impact on next year's requested budget. Ipbl H:\HOM~COMMOEV\STAFF.REPlO6.09.98\third&h.tc (June 11, 1998 {11:04amil cj-;¿ --. - <. RESOLUTION NO. / -S'9 f RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SEMI-EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH CHRIS MATT CORPORATION DBA THE PIERI COMPANY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL CENTER PROPOSED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE AND H STREET WHEREAS, provisions identifying the parcel (e.g. approximateiy 4-1/2 acres at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and H Street within Town Centre I Project Area) and suggesting conditions of blight on the parcel (e.g. multiple ownerships/irregular/vacant parcels, underutilized, etc.). WHEREAS, the Agency desires to redevelop the site for purposes of eliminating biight in accordance with the Plan; and WHEREAS, Chrismatt Corporation dba Pieri Company ("Develope~'), has submitted a proposal for a mixed use commercial development which would include Agency-owned property; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested an agreement with the Agency for the right to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, Community Redevelopment Law requires the extension of Owner Participating Rights to tenants currently located on the site. NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby approve a Semi-Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Chrismatt Corporation for the development of a mixed use commercial development at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and "H" Street in the form presented. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson of the Redeveiopment Agency is authorized to execute said agreement in a final form approved by the Agency Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Redevelopment Agency staff is hereby directed to promptly extend Owner Participation Rights to aU qualified owners, tenants, and other property interest holders at the project site in accordance with the requirements of state law and the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan. Presented by Approved as to form by (Ok ~- Chris Salomone Community Development Director [[PB) HIHOME\COMMDEVlRESOS\Thi",&H.to (Jooe 10, 199B (',33pm)) 4-3 _.. n . . Semi-Exclusive Negotiating Agreement [Northwest Corner of Third Avenue and MHM Street] This SEMI-EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT [Northwest Corner of Third Avenue and "H" Street] ("Agreement") is entered into effective June 16, 1998 ("Effective Date"), by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political subdivision of the State of California, ("Agency") duly created, established and authorized to transact business and exercise its powers under and pursuant to the Cornmunity Redevelopment Law (Part I of Division 24 of the health and Safety Code of the State of California), and CHRISMATT CORPORATION, a California Corporation ("Developer"), dba PIERI COMPANY, and is made with reference to the following facts: A. Developer is proposing the development of a mixed use office and retail project (more particularly described in Section 1.2, below) on certain property located in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area in the City of Chula Vista (as further described in Section 1.1, below). B. Developer has been negotiating with certain owners of parcels comprising the property for the acquisition and development thereof. C. Agency owns certain parcels comprising the property which are necessary for the project, and, in order to facilitate the developrnent thereof, Developer desires to enter into a Semi- Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the Agency. D. For purposes of eliminating blighting conditions on and around the property, Agency is willing to enter into such an arrangernent on the terrns and conditions set forth in this Agreernent. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby acknowledge as satisfactory, Agency and Developer hereby agree as follows: 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND PROJECT 1.1 ProDertv DescriDtion. The property which is the subject rnatter of this Agreement ("Property") is approxirnately 4.39 acres of land consisting of sixteen (16) separate parcels identified by the following San Diego County Tax Assessor Parcel Nurnbers, owners, and acreage. These properties are grouped into categories of "Agency Owned Parcels" and "non-Agency Owned Parcels" and "non-Agency Owned Parcels Located Outside the Redeveloprnent Boundary" as follows: AQencv Owned Parcels AcreaQe a. 568-450-3900 .17 acres/7A05 sq. ft. 496 Third Avenue b. 568-450-4100 .11 acres/4,833 sq. ft. 321 H Street c. 568-450-4200 .09 acres/3,954 sq.ft. 327 H Street d. 568-450-4500 .08 acres/3,671 sq. ft. 329 H Street e. 568-450-3400 Frank & Suye Fujikawa 6,135 sq. ft. 1992 Farnily Living Trust 478 Third Avenue 3828 Bonita Glen Terrace Bonita 91902 4-4 ..-. .. .. Non-Aaencv Owned Parcels Owner Acreaae f. 568-450-3500 Frank & Suye Fujikawa 7,500 sq. ft. 482 Third Avenue 3828 Bonita Glen Terrace Bonita 91902-2610 g. 568-450-3600 Third Avenue land Co. 7,500 sq. ft. 490 Third Avenue, Lot #5 5827 Leadrope Way Bonita, CA 91902-3035 h. 568-450-3700 Third Avenue land Co. 7,500 sq. ft. 492 Third Avenue, lot #3 5827 Leadrope Way Bonita, CA 91902-3035 i. 568-450-3800 Eugene G. And Amelia B. Roberts 7,500 sq. ft. 494 Third Avenue, Lot #2 Chura Vista, CA 91910-4613 j. 568-450-4000 Burjet, Inc. 27,442 sq. ft. 315 Third Avenue, Lot #7 P.O. Box 19352 San Diego, CA 92159-0352 k. 568-450-4300 San Diego County Credit Union 21.780 sq. ft. 323 H Street, Par/1 9985 Pacific Heights Blvd. San Diego, CA 92121 I. 568-450-4400 Eugene and Wanda Carnpbell TRS 16,544 sq. ft. 335 H Street, Par/2 31 St. Christophers lane Coronado, CA 92118 rn. 568-450-4600 BPG LLC 4027 sq. ft. 331 H Street, Lots 8&9 169 Via D4e Laurencio Chula Vista, CA 91910-5021 Non-Aaencv Owned Parcels Located Outside the RedeveloDment Boundarv n. 568-450-4700 BPG LLC 8,714 sq. ft. 337 H Street 169 Via De Laurencio Chula Vista, CA 91910-5021 o. 568-450-4800 BPG LLC 10,021 sq. ft. 341 H Street 169 Via De Laurencio Chula Vista, CA 91910-5021 p. 568-450-4900 BPG LLC 41,382 sq. ft. 353 H Street 169 Via De Laurencio Chula Vista, CA 91910-5021 The Property is located in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California. The Property is located within or is contiguous with the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area. The Property is generally shown on the Property rnap attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit UAU. 1.2 Project DescrjDtion The Project ("Project") as used herein shall be the development of the Property with a two- phase. mixed use commercial/office center as depicted on a preliminary site plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and including: 2 4-~ _... 11 ' . Phase I Phase II Totai: Land Use Approximate Sq. Ft:. Professional/ Administrative Office 142,000 sq. ft. 102,000 244,0001 Retail Space 30,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. 50,000) Restaurant 10,001D Acreage 2.35 acres 2.04 acres 4.39 acre", Parking structure 401 spaces 367 spaces 768 space'" The Project shall also comply with the terms and conditions set forth in Section 2.1.c, hereof;. below. The Project may be modified in negotiations, but any material modification will be subje~ to mutual approval of the parties. 2. DUTY OR STAFF AND DEVELOPER TO NEGOTIATE DDA AND PRESENT PROJECT TGJ AGENCY BOARD 2.1 In General. During the "Negotiation Period" as herein defined, Staff of the Agency ("Staff") and Develope" shall negotiate diligently and in good faith to prepare an agreement ("Disposition and Developmemt Agreernent", or alternatively "DDA"J to present to the Agency for Agency Board review ancd consideration which DDA shall, among other things, contain and not be inconsistent with, thee terms and conditions set forth hereinbelow. a. Disposition of the AQencv Owned Parcels. The Agency shall convey to Developer that portion of the Property owned or acquired by" the Agency, and the Developer shall acquire such Agency parcels on such terms as may! be agreed upon by the Developer and Agency. The purchase price, rental and/or othe" consideration to be paid by the. Agency and/or Developer, respectively, under aa negotiated DDA will be established by agreement between the Agency and thee Developer. The purchase price, rental and/or other consideration will be based upon sucm factors as market conditions, scope of development, cost of development, risks incurred" estimated or actual profit, estimated or actual rates and charges for the facilities to b99 developed, public purpose, and other matters relevant to establishing the fair markett value for the use permitted to be developed. b. Developer Acquisition of Propertv. The Developer shall own or acquire all parcels cornprising the Property, in such a way! and at such times as to perrnit the Development of the Project. In the event after gooò:J faith best efforts, Developer has been unable to acquire one or more parcels necessary I for the development of the Project, the Agency, after exercising its own best efforts too voluntarily acquire such parcels, may agree to schedule and deliberate upon the. acquisition of all or some of the non-Agency owned parcels in the Property by the, exercise of eminent domain. Nothing herein shall obligate the Agency to exercise. eminent domain except as it deems consistent with the requirements ofthe law. Agency f shall retain full discretion to reject the use of eminent domain for any and all reasons. . c. Development of the Proiect. The Developer shall develop the Property with the Project in a form as approved by the, Agency Board, or a reasonably similar variant of the Project as approved by the Agency! Board in accordance with an agreed upon phasing plan and schedule. The Project shall.', without limitation: (1) Comply with any and all applicable, federal, state and local laws,;, regulations, standards and policies including the standards for commercial:! development in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area. 3 4-'=. -... .. .. (2) Incorporate a design that rninimizes, to the extend possible, the traffic circulation and parking problerns that the Approved Developrnent can be expected to produce. (3) Provide for a total of approxirnately 304,000 sq. ft. of commercial space which will include Class A professional, administrative and executive office space, compatible commercial retail space, an approximately 10,000 sq. ft., high quality, full-service restaurant in a free-standing building, and two- parking structures with additional at-grade parking that meet or exceed the landscaping and parking requirements of the City of Chula Vista and the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan, Design Manual, and associated policies. (4) Comply with the Town Centre I Fine Arts Policy. The Project's schedule shall be prepared jointly with the Agency Staff. It shall include identifiable developrnental milestones, including but not lirnited to a time-table for property acquisition, for the relocation of existing third party owners and tenants on the Agency owned parcels. cornpliance with CEQA requirernents, site and building design. land use issues, permit processing, and construction of Project. d. Securitv for Develooer's Performance. Developer shall provide security for its performance under the DDA. Security rneasures may include one or rnore of the following: (1) a conveyance of a conditionally defeasible fee title with right of reverter, or by a performance trust deed securing the perforrnance of the DDA after extending a right to cure to Developer's lender; (2) a performance trust deed; (3) guarantees, bonds, letters of credit, cash deposits or other similar instruments. Any such measures shall take into consideration any Project lender's need to be secured and, prior to Agency's exercise of its enforcernent rights, shall give such lender adequate notice and an opportunity to cure any Developer defaults. e. Tvoes of Tenants. (1) Agency shall have reasonable approval rights over (i) initial and future operator(s) of the 10,000 sq. ft" freestanding, full-service restaurant (ii) leasing or selling to tenants or purchasers proposing to occupy equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet of retail building area, and (Iii) increasing the total amount of retail building area in excess of the approved 50,000 sq. ft. Specific standards and the process for obtaining Agency approval shall be negotiated by the parties. (2) Developer shall exercise its best efforts to include as tenants of the Project existing cornpatible businesses on the Property. f. Economic Risk. Developer shall absorb all econornic risks associated with the cornpletion of the Project except herein set forth. It is the intention of the Parties that Developer shall pay the full cost of all improvements to be constructed on Property including the cost of all normal City fees and permits applicable to completion of the proposed irnprovements. The parties agree and acknowledge that it is the intent of the parties that all Project costs, including, but not limited to acquisition of the Property, relocation costs, design, 4 ~-7 --. -- . - construction and development of all on-site and off-site public and private improvements, appraisal fees, environmental and other consultant fees, whether incurred by the Developer, the City or the Agency, shall be the responsibility of the Developer with the exception of any cost subsidy negotiated by the parties pursuant to. Section 2.3 hereof, and included as a term of an approved DDA. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties project costs, for the purposes of the DDA shall not include any costs incurred by the City or the Agency prior to the execution of the DDA. Agency agrees to furnish copies of any applicable site studies, reports and documents that Agency and Developer agree will be of benefit to Developer. Except as expressly provided in the DDA, the City and Agency shall not cause to be incurred any costs required to be reimbursed by Developer without Developer's prior written consent. g. Approval of Lender. Agency shall have reasonable approval rights over the construction and permanent lender for the Project. Specific standards and the process for obtaining Agency approval shall be negotiated by the parties. h. Restrictions AQainst Discrimination. The DDA shall contain the constraints against discrimination in the form and manner required by state redevelopment law. i. AssiQnrnent. Developer's rights and obligations under the DDA shall not be assignable without Agency approval. Specific standards and the process for obtaining Agency approval shall be negotiated by the parties. j. Indernnitv. Developer shall indemnify Agency against any and all challengers to the DDA, the Project, the related entitlements, and any other related actions or omissions related to or occurring on the Property and the Project except to the extent caused by Agency's sole negligence or willful misconduct. k. Restrictions on Speculation and Excess Profit TakinQ. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 33437, the DDA shall include appropriate covenants and restrictions that the Agency believes necessary to prevent speculation or excess profit taking. 2.2 No Pre-Commitment. The inclusion of the specific terms set forth above shall not be deerned to be acceptance of such items by either party until such time as the Agency may approve, and the parties execute a Disposition and Development Agreement. 2.3 RiQht to NeQotiate for Cost Subsidv. Upon the terms of this Section, Agency agrees to rneet and confer, and to negotiate in good faith with Developer, the provision, in one forrn or another, to Developer of a subsidy which rnay be necessary or appropriate to the redevelopment of the Property into the Project in order for Developer to achieve a reasonable rate of return on its investrnent from pursuing the Project. The reasonableness of the rate of return shall be deterrnined by giving consideration to industry- expected rates of returns on sirnilarly situated projects. The parties further agree that both parties shall use the Initial Negotiation Period to estimate total project costs in order to determine the economic feasibility of the proposed project. Prior to requesting a cost Subsidy from the Agency, Developer shall demonstrate in a commercially-acceptable standard, the facts and circumstances that justify the duty to rneet and confer for a Cost Subsidy. Specifically, Developer shall deliver 5 ~-? --. .. .. to Agency their "pro-forma" determination of return on investment and any and all other Project information reasonably requested by Agency. 3. RETENTION OF DISCRETION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AND DDA It is anticipated that the Project and the DDA providing for its implementation will be presented to Agency board for consideration. The parties understand that the Agency is reserving the right to exercise its discretion as to all matters which it is, by law, entitled or required to exercise its discretion, including, but not lirnited to the following, which shall occur prior to final DDA approval: a. Approval by the Agency of the final Project as contained in the DDA. The parties understand that the Agency has the complete and unfettered discretion to reject the DDA without explanation or cause. The risk of loss of all processing, design and developrnental costs incurred by the Developer prior to DDA approval shall be absorbed entirely by Developer except unless expressly assumed, by the terms of this agreement, by the Agency. Developer is not required to provide Project construction design and plans prior to final DDA approval. b. Review and approval by the Agency of all discretionary findings and conclusions. The duty of the Agency to dispose of its parcels located within the Project shall be conditioned upon the successful review and approval of all necessary findings and conclusions which the Agency board is required to make, including all environmental findings, plan consistency findings, zoning approvals, variances, conditional use perrnits, street vacations, etc. As to any rnatter which the Agency may be required to exercise its unfettered discretion in advancing the Project to completion, nothing herein, nor to be contained in the DDA shall obligate the Agency to exercise its discretion in any particular rnanner, and upon doing so, it shall not be deerned to constitute a breach of Agency's duties under this Agreement. 4. SEMI-EXCLUSIVE NATURE OF AGREEMENT The Agency agrees, for the duration of this Agreement, not to negotiate with any other person or entity regarding the acquisition and development of the Property except for those owners or tenants of the Property to whom Agency is obligated to extend owner participation rights pursuant to Section 410 of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan, and applicable redevelopment laws. 5. NEGOTIATION PERIOD 5.1 In General. The term of this Agreement shall be 180 calendar days from the Effective Date (the "Initial Negotiation Period"). At the end of the Initial Negotiation Period, the Executive Director, on behalf of the Agency, is authorized to extend the term of this Agreernent for up to an additional 180 days (the "Extended Negotiation Period") if at the end of the initial Negotiation Period the parties have not yet entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement, the Agency has not exercised its right to terminate as herein provided, the Developer concurs with such extension of the negotiation period, and the Executive Director has deterrnined that there is a reasonably likelihood that the Developer will agree to terms which the Agency staff will be able to recommend to the Agency. 5.2 Termination Riahts. Notwithstanding the nominal Initial or Extended Negotiating Periods hereinabove set forth, either Party may terminate this Agreement if the other Party has rnaterially defaulted in its obligations herein set forth, and the terrninating Party has provided defaulting party with written notification of such deterrnination, and the defaulting party has refused to cure same. The written notification shall set forth the nature of the actions required to cure such default if curable. 6 4-9 .--- ., .r Defaulting party shall have 30 days frorn the date of the written notification to cure such default. If such default is not cured within the 30-day, the termination shall be deemed effective. For purposes of this paragraph, the parties hereby acknowledge that time is of the essence. Each party shall also have the right to terrninate this Agreernent in the event. that the Project is determined to be infeasible, or that the parties reach an impasse in their negotiation of the DDA which cannot be resolved after good faith efforts. 6. DUTIES PENDING AGENCY APPROVAL OF DDA As conditions precedent to the presentation of the Project and DDA in a condition that meets with the Staff's approval, the Parties shall accomplish the following: a. Environmental Review. The preparation of any environmental impact analysis that rnay be required by state law as a condition to the Agency Board review and approval of a DDA. b. Determination of Economic Viability of Proiect. Developer shall submit a preliminary financial Project proforma to the Agency for review and evaluation, which shall, to the maxirnum extend permitted by law, remain confidential. Said information shall not be copied, and shall be returned to Developer after Agency has completed its use thereof. c. Voluntary Acauisition of Prooertv. Developer will use good faith and best efforts, at its sole cost and expense, to obtain site control of all parcels of the Property that are not currently owned by the Developer or the Agency, concentrating its initial efforts on those parcels contained with Phase I. d. Owner Particioation Riahts. Agency will, at its sole cost and expense, extend owner participation rights to all persons entitled thereto by law, and in connection therewith, Agency will retain full and unfettered discretion to extend owner participation rights to current property owners in the manner required by law, and to consider and evaluate any owner participation proposals submitted. e. Sections 33431 and 33433 Public Hearinas. Agency and City shall hold and conduct such Health and Safety Code Section 33431 and 33433 public hearings as rnay be required by law to be held and conducted, and to exercise such discretion as they may be required to entitled to exercise by law. 7. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS 7.1 No Comoetina Develooment. Developer shall not commence the developrnent of any parcels within the Property owned or controlled by the Developer for any purposes other than the development of the Project until this Agreernent has been properly terminated either as a result of a substantial breach by the Agency. expiration according to its terrns, or due to impasse despite the exercise of good faith and best efforts to resolve such impasse. 7.2. ConseQuences of Declaration of Irnoasse. If Developer shall have acquired any of the non-Agency Parcels either by voluntary acquisition frorn the property owner, and this agreement is properly terminate without agreement as to a disposition and Development Agreement, the Agency shall have the option, notice of exercise of which is to be given within 120 days after receipt of written notice of termination, to acquire the Non-Agency Owned parcels for the cost incurred by Developer in its acquisition, plus interest at 5% per annurn prorated from the date of Developer's acquisition to date of transfer of fee title to Agency. 7 4-10 --. IT - . 7.3. Develooer's Findinas, Determination, Studies, Reoorts and Financina. As requested by the Agency. frorn time to time, the Developer agrees to make periodic oral progress reports and periodic written reports advising the Agency on all matters and all studies being made to the extend that they do not include confidential matters. All such matters shall be deemed to be the joint property of Agency and Developer. and may be used by either Party without reimbursement to the other. Notwithstandin9 the foregoing, in the event that the Agreement is terrninated for any reason other than Developer's default, Developer shall have the right to retain its work product, or to receive appropriate reimbursement for post-termination use thereof by Agency or any third party developer for the developrnent of the Property. 7.4. Aaencv Public Hearina. If the negotiations culrninate in agreement ("Memorandum of Understanding, or "MOU"¡ between the Staff and Developer as to the terms for a Disposition and Developrnent Agreement, and is signed by Developer, such an agreernent shall be deemed to be an irrevocable offer to the Agency to contract on the terms of the MOU for a period therein provided for, but at least 30 days. but shall not become obligatory upon the Agency or become effective until after the agreement has been considered and approved by the Agency after such public meetings and such procedures as are prescribed by law. 7.5. Real Estate Commissions The Agency shall not be liable for any real estate commission or brokerage fees which may arise herefrom. The Agency represents that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection with this transaction. and the Developer agrees to hold the Agency harrnless from any claim by any broker, agent or finder retained by Developer. 7.6. Each Partv to Bear its Own Costs Each party shall bear its own costs incurred in connection with the negotiation of a DDA, and the implernentation of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly agreed. 8. EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT By its execution of this Agreement, the Agency is not committing itself or agreernent to undertake any activity including but not lirnited to the approval and execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement; the amendment of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan; the proposal, arnendment. or approval of any land use regulation governing the Property; the provision of financial assistance for the development of any public or private improvement pertaining to the Property; the acquisition of any interest in real property; the authorization or obligation to use the Agency's eminent domain authority; or, any other activity requiring the subsequent exercise of discretion by the Agency, the City or any agency or department thereof. This Agreement does not constitute a disposition of property or exercise of control over property by the Agency or city and does not require a public hearing. Agency execution of this Agreement is merely an agreement to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations according to the terms hereof, reserving final discretion and approval by the Agency as to any proposed Disposition and Development Agreement and all proceedings and decisions in connection therewith. 8 ~-I( --. .. .. 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.1 Address for Notice. Developer's Address for Notice: Christopher H. Lewis 765 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Chula Vista CA 91910 Attn: Christopher H. Lewis and Jarnes Pieri Telephone No.: {619 422-1493 FAX No.: {619 422-1798 Agency's Address for Notice: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista Comrnunity Developrnent Departrnent 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 {619 691-5047 Attn: Chris Salomone, Director of Cornmunity Development Parnela Buchan, Principal Cornmunity Development Specialist copy to: Glen R. Googins, Deputy City Attorney II 10. AUTHORITY Each party represents that it has full right, power and authority to execute this Agreernent and to perform its obligations hereunder, without the need for any further action under its governing instruments, and that the parties executing this Agreement on behalf of such party are duly authorized agents with authority to do so. 11. COUNTERPARTS This Agreement rnay be executed in multiple copies, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one Agreernent after each party has signed such a counterpart. 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreernent 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. 13. FURTHER ASSURANCES The parties agree to perform such further acts and to execute and deliver such additional documents and instruments as may be reasonably required in order to carry out the provisions of this Agreement and the intentions of the parties. [Next Page is Signature Page] 9 £/ -12- -"". -- .- Signature Page to Semi-Exclusive Negotiating Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth adjacent thereto, thereby indicating the consent of their principals. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA By: Shirley Horton, Chairperson Redevelopment Agency Approved as to form: By: John Kaheny Agency Attorney Approved as to content: By: &, ~ Chris Salomone Agency Executive Secretary IH,\Hom,ICommD..,Buoh,nI3,d&H'p;,ri.,g, Juos 11. 199B 10,54,m] 10 4-/3 --. ~ - i!~ .... CI = . coco~ -- . E - ao-¡;;:¡ - . .. "'........, - It¡ S! æ !ii = ¡; cD ';¡: -- ~v ¡~~~g~~ ~ =1:.æS"'--= -- ~ ~i~a;¡¡¡,~ -= ~ 5= 0.2 ",:;;I§) ... . ~~\! E ,,~'5"'!¡; Iii ¡¡"'¡§=~ co :1i~ "'co .... U - - ~ = = ~ E E -- = = ~ 0 0 -- ã ã - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ¡; ¡; Z ~ ~ ~ g g IE = = . . E E ~ ~ ~ D .a .a u u ... ... -- 'g- 'g= ~ oU coU =- =: =: E!.= E!.= ...... ...... ~ 1:1 i i IE ~ en !! - :: II: -= 11:1 ¡;E -= =0 .- u- ~ u~ =.. - = iE'i - ::z:: ... II: ~ ... en = ! I Dca ~~ --a ~ .. ~- -= - --ca a:...oIIIIIf¡; ~~ -- ~ ~ ~ z ~= ... ~S g gZ~ - '" ... ..-. _.. 125' -- 1~ ----1 EXHIBIT B eN u !:: ~ [;:. °Il u ~ ~ -; ;.::¡ m ~ u l¡so-a" I -- I ON 10,000 $.F". RESTAURANT I I V1 .... -s <:: n .... <:: -s (D I I THIRD AVE. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT M C M ~ r chi tee t s StflE 1.=50' ( -1 -/:5 ~:lp nR I ~ I; ~: ' 19 ~: I --. ... . City of Chula Vista Town 4-/~ 8m Redevelopment Areas ':! ~ Centre I . z 12118190 --. ~ -. ATTACHMENT 2 ~ - 1ë!:! .... c:c æ = =~~ -- . e -..-..fI - . ~-ลกæ;;::H'¡ = ~~ 5~;!~:~ == ~ ==~Sf!~~ -- ~ ~i::: !õ¡;;ë;;ci ..... '" 5= =~fI~~ ... . ~~'J e :"....=... e =....-=;;... .. e """e .. ~~ Þ- ~ - - ~ æ æ ... e e CD = = = = a: = = "" "" 0> 0> a.. ~ ~ L- ü ü .-- ~ ~ ~ e e -- e e ~ ~ ~ ~ = = -=- - e e - ~ C/O C/O - ~ S S -= 'éP e e ~ ~ ':- ':= ~ g~ g~ =- == == ..~ ..~ ...... ...... ~ 8:1 5 i E ~ en ~ - :: a: -;; = ~e -= == ~ 0>- eO> =&; 8:1 = ¡§': :z: ...= ~ ... en = ; I CD= a..~ CD s "~S -ã.. = = -.. en a: ~ := ,¡¡ ...:,,"" a.. .s g 5'"'5 ~ C/O = .... 11' . v, ..'0" H.uO LU OJ." ,;,),) ,HI 125' 15' ATTACHMENT 3 ----! .... ~ ~ :::, °Il .... ~ ~ -1 ;iIC m ~ u 125'-0" , -- I D~ 10,000 S.F. RESl"AUiW!T I , U> <T -,; <= n <T <= -,; (1) , , THIRD AVE. cOMMEROAL D(~M~ M C M ^ « h I <e " , 5ò¡tE ,'.SO' 4 -/'6 ~'P"RI~'.1r' 19~~ 1