Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1998/05/19 Tuesday, May 19, 1998 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Regular Meeting of the Redeve10oment Agencv of the CitY of Chu1a Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Agency Members Moot -' Padilla -' Rindone -, Salas -, and Chair Horton - CONSENT CALENDAR (Item 2) (Will be voted on immediately following the Council Consent Calendar during the City Council meeting) The staff recommendations regarding the following item listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Agency by one motion without discussion unless an Agency member, a member of the public or City staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 2. RESOLUTION 1582: ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-91-O4 AND ADDENDUM IS-98-19 AND APPROVING OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR. RAUL FONTES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 3855 MAIN STREET LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA--The proposed 3,050 sq. ft. industrial building will be used for the warehousing and wholesaling of electrical equipment and supplies. The project also includes the removal of a house foundation, construction of a small parking lot, a trash enclosure, and landscape areas. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) . . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR' . . ADJOURNMENT TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING --. -- ... ...., Agenda -2- May 19, 1998 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EDUCATIONAL AND COUNSELING SERVICES TO CLIENTS WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS AT 314 PARKWAY--Episcopal Community Services subntitted a Land Use Perntit application to establish the South Bay Recovery Center at 314 Parkway. The Center is planned to provide educational and counseling services to clients who have substance abuse problems. The project is located within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area and has been reviewed by the Town Centre Project Area Comntittee and the Downtown Business Association. The project is exempt from environmental review. Staff recommends the public hearing be continued to June 9, 1998. (Community Development Director) 4. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SOUTH BAY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER AT 675 OXFORD STREET LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA--The property owner plans to construct a 2-story, 74,000 sq. ft. office building. The building will accommodate several County agencies which are currently located at the Jerome's building on Third Avenue between Palomar and Quintard and the Urquhart building on Third Avenue north of Palomar. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) RESOLUTION 1583 APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SOUTH BAY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER AT 675 OXFORD STREET LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ..... Agenda -3- May 19, 1998 ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the Redevelopment Agency will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Agency Members. OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) 6. CHAIR'S REPORT(S) 7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on June 2, 1998 at 4:00p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. --. -- ..- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item ¿). Meeting Date 05-19-98 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION I~-~d ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-91-04 AND ADDENDUM IS-98-19 AND APPROVING OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR. RAUL FONTES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUilDING AT 3855 MAIN STREET lOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA SUBMITTED BY: 'om...,;l, 0".0.""1 O;~I$' REVIEWED BY: Eu,.;.. D;~t"'~ ~ --? \ (415ths Vote: Yes- No..xJ BACKGROUND: Mr. Raúl Fontes is proposing to construct a 3,050 sq. ft. industrial building at 3855 Main Street within the boundaries of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. The building will be used for the warehousing and wholesaling of electrical equipment and supplies. The project also includes the removal of a house foundation, the construction of a small parking lot, a trash enclosure, and landscape areas. The proposed land use is an allowed use under the General Plan, Montgomery Specific Plan, Southwest Redevelopment Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and determined that it would have no significant impacts and recommended that Negative Declaration IS-91-04 and addendum IS-98-19 be adopted by the Redevelopment Agency. Since the proposed project is within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, the environmental document and the Owner Participation Agreement (which includes the design plans and conditions) are being presented to the Redevelopment Agency for consideration and approval. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and Addendum thereto and approving the Owner Participation Agreement for the development of an industrial building at 3855 Main Street. BOARDSICOMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed project plans on April 20, 1998 (see Minutes, Attachment A), and recommended approval of the project as described in Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Owner Participation Agreement. éì.-I -. -r - -I Page 2, Item ..< Meeting Date 05-19-98 DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics The site for the proposed industrial building is located on the south side of Main Street, east of Hilltop Drive. The parcel is 33,360 square feet in area and is divided into two pads by a slope located in the middle of the parcel. The pad on the north side of the parcel of approximately 14,200 square feet will be graded in order to accommodate the proposed building footprint, parking area, trash enclosure, and landscaping. The southern half the parcel will remain vacant and reserved for future development of another building. The site is surrounded by the following uses: to the north across Main Street are industrial buildings; to the east and south is vacant land; and to the west is a parcel of about equal size and condition with an abandoned and dilapidated single family residence. The subject site had a dilapidated single family residence which was removed by the property owner two or three months ago. Project Prooosal The proposal includes the construction of a 3,050-square foot building; a parking lot with 6 parking spaces (3 full size spaces, 2 loading spaces, and 1 handicap space); landscaped areas; and a trash enclosure to be located approximately 46 feet south of the building. The building will be constructed of split. face and precision grid block. The entrance to the building will be on the east side, while the elevation fronting Main Street will have windows. loading docks and roll-up doors will be located on the east and south sides. The west side of the building will be a blank wall due to its location right on the property line. Mr. Fontes currently operates his business, RB&S Electrical Equipment, out of leased warehouse space in the industrial park across the street from the proposed development site. He operates his business on Main street in conjunction with another electrical equipment and supplies he has in the city of Tijuana, Baja California. He had been for some time planning on having his own building in Chula Vista from which to operate his business. When the new building is completed, he will move his business from across the street and, at the same time, will continue to operate the Tijuana business. His Chula Vista operation will continue at the current level. However, he expects his business to expand in the future. Currently, he has four employees. land Use Desianations Existina Uses General Plan Zonina Desianations Subject Site Vacant Research & I-L IL.P North Parcel Ind. Bldg. Research & I.L IL-P d.-~ -. Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 05-19-98 Existina Uses General Plan Zonina Desianations South Parcel Vacant Research & I-L IL-P East Parcel Vacant Research & I.L IL-P West Parcel Abandoned House Research & I-L IL.P Land Use Comoatibilitv As shown in the previous table, the subject property has General Plan and zoning designations for Limited Industrial uses, which allow the construction of industrial buildings such as the one being proposed. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Montgomery Specific Plan, the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. Parkina The proposed project will provide a total of 6 parking spaces which is above the required ratio of 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet of building area. Three parking spaces will be located on the east side of the building and will be for automobiles; two spaces will be located in front of the loading docks on the east and south sides of the building; the handicapped space will be on the south side of the building. Landscaoina The landscape plan shows a significant amount of well-balanced landscape material. The plan provides for the planting of a variety of trees, shrubs and ground covers throughout the periphery of the graded pad and on the east side of the building. The southern half of the property will be covered with a hydro seed mix that includes "African Daisy," "California Poppy," "Gazania," "Sea Lavender," etc. Based on the assessment of the City's Landscape Architect, the proposed landscape plan is in compliance with the requirements of the City's Landscape Manual. Deferred Improvements As part of the future widening and improvement of Main Street, the property owner is required to dedicate approximately 30 feet of frontage. The construction of the ultimate street improvements in front of the property will be deferred until the time of the actual improvement of the street or until the majority of property owners in that segment of Main Street improve their properties. The applicant has processed a deferral agreement with the Engineering Department. As part of the construction of the proposed building, the applicant will construct a temporary Asphalt Concrete berm along the driveway and the edge of the street pavement. The dirt areas within the A/C Berm will also be hydro seeded in order to provide temporary landscaping and avoid the creation of mud and dust. 0(-3 -.. -- - - --.. Page 4. Item .QL Meeting Date 05-19-98 Conclusion It is staff's opinion that the construction of the proposed building will be a positive improvement to this segment of Main Street which includes a number of dilapidated and non.conforming buildings. The development of the project will contribute to the elimination of blighting influences by providing a new building and putting the vacant parcel to a higher and better use, which furthers the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed building has an estimated valuation of $100,000. This will generate an annual tax-increment revenue of approximately $1,000, of which $600 will be allocated to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area fund. Attachment A - Negative Declaration and Addendum Attachment B - DRC Minutes of April 20, 1998 Attachment C . Owner Participation Agreement with the following: Locator Map Exhibit A . Design Plans Exhibit B - Design Review and Agency Conditions of Approval (MZT) H,\HOME'COMMOEV'STAFF.RE~O5.19.98'3855MAIN.RPT (Mav 13. 1998 !11,ZOam)! ó<-c/ -." .- .... RESOLUTION IS?? d.. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-91-04 AND ADDENDUM IS-98- 19 AND APPROVING OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR. RAUL FONTES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 3855 MAIN STREET LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, Mr. Raúl Fontes owns the property at 3855 Main Street and which is diagrammatically shown in the Locator Map attached to the Owner Participation Agreement and incorporated herein by reference; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Fontes has presented development plans for the construction of a 3,050-square foot building and associated lot improvements ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the site for the proposed Project is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area under the jurisdiction and control of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed Project and issued Negative Declaration IS-91-04 and Addendum IS-98-19 for the project in accordance with CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee reviewed and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed Project subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Owner Participation Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has been presented an Owner Participation Agreement, said agreement being on file in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and known as document RACO 98-04, approving the construction of a 3,050-square foot industrial building located at 3855 Main Street, depicted in Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibits B of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: 1. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; accordingly Negative Declaration IS-91-04 and Addendum IS-98-19 was prepared and is hereby adopted in accordance with CEQA. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and shall implement the purpose thereof. 3. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the Owner Participation Agreement with Mr. Raúl Fontes for the construction of a 3,050-square foot industrial building at 3855 Main Street, in the form presented in accordance with plans attached thereto as Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibits B of said agreement. 4. The Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized to execute the subject Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Mr. Raúl Fontes. 5. The Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency is authorized and directed to record said Owner Participation Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, California. Presented by: Approved as to form by: ~~ Chris Salomone Community Development Director O{-S" -." -- - - ATTACHMENT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM -- - --- . A.DDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 15-91-4 R&R INDUSTRIAL BUILDING PROJECT NAME: RB & S Industria] Building PROJECT LOCATION: 3855 main Street, Chula Vista, CA PROJECT APPLICA...'NT: Raul Fontes PROJECT AGENT Alfredo Araiza, Architect CASE NO.: IS-98-19 DATE: January 16, 1998 1. ThTRODUCTION The enviroumental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista allow the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) to prepare an addendum to a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if one of the following conditions is present: 1. Tne minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion of the Final Ern. or Negative Declaration have not created any new significant enviroumental impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration. 2. Additional or refined info=ation available since completion of the Final EIR or Negative Declaration regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or regarding the measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects of the project, does not show that the project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final Ern. or Negative Declaration. This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional info=ation and updated analysis concerning potential project impacts as a result of the proposed downscaling of the land use. IS-91-4 reviewed the project as a 12,040 square foot officellight industrial building. The property is now proposed to be developed with a 3,730 sq. ft. industrial building for a wholesale electrical supply business. A£ a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the Initial Study have not changed. Traffic and public service impacts are found to be less than significant for the proposed project, and these were previously addressed in IS-91-04. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to IS-91-04. ll. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to demolish an existing dilapidated structure and construct a 3,730 square foot light industrial building. The building materials will consist of masonry/concrete block e),:terior walls with a wood-frame roof structure. The building would have a maximum height of 20 feet and ~ -Co -'.. ì .' - --I the ground floor would be slightly below the street grade of Main Street. The applicant proposes eight parking spaces with an estimated 7,500 square feet of landscaping and enhanced paving (textured paving). The parking lot would include lighting and a trash enclosure. ill. PROJECT SETTING The project site is an 0.83 acre (32,760 sq.ft.) parcel located on the south side of Main Street, in the midst of a largely urbanized area in the southermost portion of Chula Vista. The property to the immediate north, north of Main Street, is developed with office and light industrial uses. The property to the east is presently vacant, to the south is an existing storage facility, and to the west is an vacant and dilapidated residential structure. The project site contains a vacant and dilapidated fonner residential structure. The site is currently fenced and partially screened from properties to the west by a chain link fence and full grown vegetation. A large California pepper tree (estimated diameter 0~24 inches) is folnld on-site. There are no sensitive plant or animal species on-site and no cultUral resources would be impacted by the proposed project. A Soils Investigation Report prepared by Buchanan-Rahilly, Inc. for the site indicates that the subsoils consist offill and stream deposits, which are underlain by fonnational soils. The fill soils are considered to have "low" expansion potential. The stream deposits consist ofloose, damp to moist silty sand with numerous gravels and cobbles. A thin layer of clay (about 6-12 inches thick) was found at the base of the stream deposits. The report reco=ends r=edial grading of these two materials. Formational soils consist of dense to very dense, damp, silty to clayey sand with gravels and cobbles deeply c=ented into the subsoils. These soils are considered suitable in their present condition for the direct support of structures and additional fill loads. For purposes of CEQA, the discretionary action associated with this it= is the approval of this project by the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, since this project is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area. IV. COMPATIBILITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS The present zoning designation is ILP (Limited Industrial zone with Precise Plan submittal required) and the General Plan designates the site for Research and Limited Manufacturing. No conflicts with the existing zoning and General Plan designations are noted. V- IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. Public Services Impacts Fire The nearest Fire Station is located about 1 1/2 miles from the project site. This estimated response time to the project site is 5 minutes. h, lhome'P lannmg~mdab"',,83 02.adm Page 2 c:J-7 -.. - The Fire Department can adequateJy deliver service to the site without an increase in equipment or personneL The Fire Deparnnent states that a public commercial hydrant will be required within the street right-of-way. The Fire Department states that additional comments will be provided when detailed development plans become available. Police Department The estimated response time of 4 minutes and 28 seconds for Priority 1 calls is within the recommended threshold. The estimated response time of 7 minutes and 25 seconds for Priority 2 calls is slightly above the recommended threshold. Staff at the Police Department indicate that adequate police service will be provided to the area and no mitigation is required. Upon the availability of specific site plan development, the Police Department recommends a security evaluation by crime prevention p¡:rsonnel. 2. UtilitY and Service Svstems Noise No significant noise impacts are expected to result from the proposed wholesale use of the project site. The nearest occupied residence is located about 200 feet east of the site. Schools This project is located within the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District. State law cmrently provÏdes for a developer fee of $.30 for non- residential area to be charged. The split is $.14/square foot for Chula Vista Elementary School District and $. 1 6/square foot for Sweetwater Union High School District to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. Traffic/Street Dedication & Improvements The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day a1 signalized intersections. No intersection may reach an LOS "P" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Policy. The City Engineering Division has revÏewed the proposed proj ect and has det=ined that it would not adversely affect the existing level of service on roads or intersections in the area. The project would be associated with a Level of Service "C" for Main Street and Hilltop Drive both before and after project completion. Direct access to the project site is via Main Street. h, \home\pianning~ indab \ej,S302.adrn <:>2 -p Page 3 -., T ,. - --I Th~ Engineering Division indicates that additional street dedication and improvement along the Main Street right-of-way will be required from this project. The project applicant will also be required to install curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements and possibJy a 250 HPSV SITe::! light and conduits subject to review and approval by the Engineering Division. Drainage Surface drainage flows to a natural channel south of the property. The applicant proposes to cons1ruct a concrete swale and catch basin to adequately convey the sheet flow. The Engineering Department has dete=ined that the proposed project will have no significant impacts to site drainage. A Sto=water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) will not be required for the project. However, the proposed project shall comply with Chapter 14.20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Soils The applicant shall comply with the reco=endations found in the Soils Investigation report dated June, 1990 and prepared by Buchanan-Rahilly, Inc. 3. Open Space No impacts to open space would result ITom impJementation of the project. VI. CONCLUSION Public service and traffic impacts are found to be less than significant for the proposed project with confo=anc~ to all City requirements regarding fire, police and school facilities. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental Impact Report adequate under CEQA. ()~ Ø2/ Douglas Reid Environmental Review Coordinator h, \home Iplannmg~indab ",IT8302_adm <:d-9 Page 4 -." ì -. - --I REFERENCES Chula Visza General Plan (1989) Title J 9, Chula Vista Municipal Code City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures Negative Declaration for IS-91-04 Soils Inveszigation, Buchanan-Rahilly, Inc., (June, 1990) h, \home 'P i:mn mg ~in da b\mU 02 .adm ~-(O Page 5 -." .. .. - -.. Case No.IS-98-19 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM L Name of Proponent: Raul Fontes 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 385 Wagonwheel Way (619) 47°-3836 4. Name of Proposal: RB & S Industrial Building 5. Date of Checklist: January 12, 1998 Potentially Potmtially Signifi""'t Les.than Signifi""'t Unless Signlfi""'t No Impa<t Mitigated Imp",,' Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 ~ zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental 0 0 0 ~ plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Mect a"o;ricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 ~ (e.g., impacts to. soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement 0 0 0 ~ of an established co=unity (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed construction of the industrial building will be in conformity with the Limited Industrial General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designations for this site. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Pag,No.! .;) -( ( -". -- -.- l'o"ot;.II). Po"otiaJly Slgom'ant L", than Slgnm""'t Uol", S¡gom,ant "0 Impact M;'¡g..'" 1mp"t Imp." a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or 0 0 0 ~ local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 181 directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially 0 0 0 ~ affordable housing? Comments: The proposed project will not induce population growth. There is an existing dilapidated housing structure on-site that had previously been used as a storage facility for a trucking operation. The project proposes to develop the site for limited industrial use as p=ritted by the existing zoning and general plan designations. ID. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 ~ 0 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 ~ 0 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface 0 0 ~ 181 relieffeatures? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 ~ any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of 0 0 0 181 soils, either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181 sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modifY the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 ~ 0 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Pag' No. 2 e:J -(';;'" Pot,nti.",. Po"nti2lly Signifi""t Ln, tb'n Signifi""t Unl", Signl"",,' ". Imp2Ct Min...", Imp..t Imp." Comments: The site has been fully graded. A soils investigation performed by Buchanan- Rahilly, Inc. on June, 1990 determined that the upper zone of the existing soils are somewhat variable in density and contain several loose zones. The surface soils consisting of stream deposits and clayey sands, appear to be unsuitable for the proposed structural loads. The Soils Investigation Report reco=ends the removal of soil depths in the order of two to three below the planned bottom of footing elevations, within the proposed building area. Specific site preparation standards shall be required to comply with the soils investigation findings and reco=endarions in the report. Compliance with these typical standard measures will be sufficient and no further need for mitigation will be required. There are no known or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site. The closest known fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located about 1.5 mile west of the project site. The site is not currently within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on the anticipated earthquake effect that could occur and the composition of the upper surface soils, a relatively minor seismically- induced settlement is likely to occur. Potential geology/soils impacts are deemed to be less than significant. Compliance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Codes will be sufficient. No mitigation will be required. IV. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 181 0 patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) E1.-posure of people or property to water 0 0 0 181 related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 181 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in 0 0 0 181 any water body? e) Changes in cUITents, or the course of 0 0 0 181 direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, 0 0 0 181 either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Pago No.3 ~-13 -" - ..- Polentially Po"ntiany S;gnm<ant I.e.'than S;gnmcant Un;... S;gnm<ant ~o Impact Mit;g.,e' Impa" Impa" g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 rg¡ groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 ¡¡¡;¡ i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 ¡¡¡;¡ waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 rg¡ oth::rwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The engineering department indicates that isolated areas within the site are subject to ponding during sto= events but that the existing off-site drainage facilities are adequate to serve the site. Concrete swales may be used to convey water flows directly to an existing off-site channel to divert storm wat=. The project site is not within a flood plain. The project will not be required to develop and implement a sto= water pollution plan (SWPP), but will be required to comply with Chapter 14.20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, relating to management practices associated with construction activity. No significant impacts to water or drainage are noted. No further mitigation will be required. v. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 ¡¡¡;¡ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) E1.-pose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 ¡¡¡;¡ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 D D ¡¡¡;¡ temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? D D D ¡¡¡;¡ e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 D ¡¡¡;¡ D noIl-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Page No- 4 .,:J - I </- --.. - ..- Pol'nliaJ~' PotmliaJly S;gnmant r.."tban S;gn¡r.~t Unl... S¡,nlr.~1 No 1m.." MI"""" 1m.." Impo" Comments: Grading and construction of the proposed industrial buildings would temporarily create dust and emissions associated with activity from earth moving equipment and construction vehicles. These short-term emissions are not considered significant impacts, however, standard dust control measures would be implemented, including watering exposed soils and street sweeping. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) calculated to be generated by the proposed project is estimated to be 154. Due to the low number of trips no significant air quality impacts are cited. VI. TRA..1I¡'SPORTA TION/CIRCULA TION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 181 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e_g., 0 0 0 181 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- 0 0 0 181 site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181 bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181 alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 ¡j 0 181 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: Based on the proposed use the total ADT for the project is calculated to be 154. The ttaffic generated would not adversely impact the sUITounding primary access roads including Main Street which would remain with an LO.S. of 'C'. The Engineering Division is requiring as standard conditions, right-of-way dédication along Main Street and the installation curb, gutter & sidewalk and the constructio~,pfò!f'-cqncrete driveway. The Engineering Division may also require the installation of one (1) ~'~"high pressure sodium vapor street light and conduits along the property frontage. No other impacts to traffic or circulation are noted for this proposed project. Nofurther mitigation will be required. Pog,No. S c::::J - (.s- -.- Polentially Potentially Significant Leu than Signifi=t Unl",. Sigolficant No Impart Miti...ed Impact Impact Vll. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heriæge 0 0 0 181 trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities 0 0 0 181 (e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 181 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 ~ f) Affect regional habitat preservation 0 0 0 ~ planning efforts? Comments: The project site and surrounding industrially developed area are located in a fully urbanized community and contain no native habitat. The site has been fully graded and only a few patches of non-native grasses and one 24-inch California pepper tree remains on-site. No animal or plant species listed as rare, threatened or endangered by local, Sæte or Federal resource conservation and regulatory agencies are known to be present in this highly disturbed area. No adverse impacts to biological resources are noted. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 0 0 ~ and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181 protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: No impacts to non-renewable resources are noted. Page No.6 ~-(b Potentially PotentiaJ'y Significant Le" than Significant Unl", Significant ,",0 Imp." Millg.to. Impact Imp." IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 !81 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an =ergency 0 0 0 !81 response plan or =ergency evacuation plan? c) Tne creation of any health hazard or 0 0 0 !81 potential health hazard? d) E),:posure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 !81 potôJltial health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with 0 0 0 !81 flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: Project impl=entation would not pose a health hazard to humans. No hazardous materials or substances will be stored on site. Therefore, there cannot be a risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset condition. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 !81 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 !81 0 Comments: T =porary construction noise would occur at the site, however, the short term nature of the noise, results in less than significant impacts to the SUITOunding area. The project operations are proposed to be carried out indoors and it is not anticipated that significant noise impacts will be generated from project approval. The proposed operations will be required to meet the City's Noise Ordinance Standards for Industrial land uses. The Ordinance requires that no noise generated from operations or activities conducted in a Lim~ted Industrial (IL) zone not exceed 70 dBA for any hour of the day or night. Compliance with 'these standards will render any potential noise impacts to be less than significant. No further mitigation will be necessary. Page Nn. 7 ~-/7 --. -- h- Po"ntially POI,otially Signi""n! Uss than so.om"O! U",'" Sigo,""o! No Imp." Miti.a,,' Impa" Impact XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 ~ b) Police protection? 0 0 0 ~ c) Schools? 0 0 0 ~ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 ~ roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: The project would not have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. 0 0 0 ~ XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) FirelEMS 0 0 0 ~ The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista Fire Department indicates that this threshold standard will be met The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire Department reco=ends that a public co=ercial hydrant be installed within the stræt right-of-way. This and other requirements will be made when actual construction plans are received for review and approval. b) Police 0 0 0 ~ Pa., No.8 ,;J-/l? -". - ".- Polentia", Potentially Slgn!"'an! Le" tban Slgnlfieant Un!e" Slgnlfieant "0 Impact Millgated Impact Impact The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 caIls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 caIls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 caIls of 7 minutes or less. The Police Department response time for both Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls within the vicinity of the proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The police Department indicates that adequate service can be provided to the project site. Any additional construction plans should be forwarded to the crime prevention unit for evaluation. c) Traffic 0 0 0 r8I The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "e" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west ofI-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "P" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The project wiIl comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: No adverse impacts to traffic/circulation are noted from project approval. d) ParkslRecreation 0 0 0 r8I The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1 ,000 population. This Threshold Standard does not apply to the proposed project. Comments: No adverse impacts to parks orrecreational opportunities are noted. e) Drainage 0 0 0 r8I The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects wiIl provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master PlanCs) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project does comply with this Threshold Standard. Page Nn. 9 r:;;J -I 9 -. -- Polonti"",. Po"otiaJl,. Significant L." than Si:nifioant Unl." Signifi'ant "0 Impact Miti:at'" Impact Impact Comments: The Engineering Department indicates that existing off-site drainage facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project subject to review and approval of all grading and construction plans. f) Sewer 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Tne proposed project is not expected to create a need for any new utilities or service systems. The Engineering Department indicates that existing sewer facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. No impacts to sewers are noted. g) Waler 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water qu.a1ity standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project does comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: No adverse impacts to water qu.a1ity are noted from project approval. XIll. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181 b) Co=unications systems? 0 0 0 181 c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 181 distribution facilities? Pago No. 10 07-<9--0 -.. '[ .. - .'-1 Po..n"aUy P...ntiaJly Signmcant Los'than so..m""t UnitS, Significant ". 1m¡=! MIU..", Imp.". Imp." d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 I8J e) Sto= water drainage? 0 0 0 181 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 I8J Comments: This project will not result in a need for new systems, nor result in alterations in any utilities. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to 0 0 0 I8J the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 I8J scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 I8J 0 effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 0 I8J could increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 I8J Comments: The project will be subject to the requirements of the Design Review Committee process and site plan review and will require landscaping and related improvements. It is anticipated that the proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the existing site. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of 0 0 0 I8J or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? rag' No. 11 cJ-.;¿( Po',ntiall, Po"n"aJ/, S',n/O,"" L", than Sign,""",! Un/", Sign,"..n! ". Imp'" Mili,..", Imp." Imp." b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical 0 0 0 ~ or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Do::s the proposal have the potential to 0 0 0 ~ cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? . d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious 0 0 0 ~ or sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General 0 0 0 ~ Plan EIR. as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The project site has been fully graded and ilisturbed by human activity. The adjacent uses are all industrial in nature with the exception of properties to the west. No adverse impacts to culrural resources are noted. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will 0 0 0 ~ the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: No paleontological resources have been identified on or near the project, which is located in a fully developed urban setting. XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 ~ regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 ~ c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 ~ plan.s or programs? Comments: No impacts to Parks or Recreational Plan.s are noted. P'g' No. 12 cJ - ,;¿ r:2. -... - ..- PoI'nliall)" Po"nliall)" Signifi,ant Leo, than Signlfi""" Unl", Signlfi=n, No Imp~' Mlti..". Imp." Imp." XVIll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIF1CANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 181 degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainIDg levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: The project site is in a fully developed urban setting. The project site has been completely disturbed by human activity. Small patches of non-native grass are found on-site along with a few small palm trees. No impacts to wildlife population, habitat or culturallhistorical resources are noted. b) Does the proj ect have the potential to 0 0 0 181 achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The project does not have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage oflong-term goals. The project is consistent with both the Zoning and General Plan designation for the site. c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 181 inàividually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Pa",No. t3 c?-.L3 -.,. -- ..- Po"nHally PO"o!;,,!1y Signifi<ao! Less than Significant Unl~s Signifi<ant "0 Imp." MII'g.". Impact Imp." Comments: The project does not have any impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Project implementation will result in an improvement to an existing vacant industrial lot. d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 181 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or inãirectly? Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the project will canse substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: Mitigation measures were not reqillred for this project, however, the standard conditions of approval will include compliance with the reco=endations of the previously submitted soils report and with the necessary street dedications and improvements per the City's standard reqillrements. Project Proponent Date rag< No. 14 c7 -;;2 t/ -. 'r " - --I xx. ENVIRO.NMENT AL FACTORS POTEl\ì'IALL Y AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services 0 Population and 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Housing Systems 0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral 0 Aesthetics Resources 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance XXI. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the 0 environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0 environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed proj ect MAY have a significant effect on the environment, 0 and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required. Page No. 15 r;:;) -.;¿ S- -". .- ..- 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by 0 mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL Th1PACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that r=ainto be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this detenninati on. flJL/ 1 /12-/1ð Environm Review Coordinator Date . , City ofChula Vista Fag, No. 16 e:2 - c2 {¿, --- - negative declaration - ' "- PROJECT NAME: R & R Industrial Building PROJECT LOCATION: 3855 Main Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Raul Fontes CASE NO: IS-91-4 DATE: August 18, 1990 A. proiect Settinq The project site is a 0.83-acre) parcel located on the south side of Main Street, in the midst of a largely urbanized area in the southernmost portion of Chula Vista. The property to the immedi- ate north, north of Main Street, is .òeveloped with office and light inòustrial uses. The property to the immediate east is vacant, and is partially disturbed and partially natural. It contains a large (approximate 36-inch diameter) eucalyptus tree and a minor unnamed drainage that flows along the southern project boundary and beyond, eventually to the Otay River Valley. To the south/southeast of the project site is Sentry Self and RV Storage. The site is bounded on the west by a single-family detached residence. The project site contains a vacant single-family residence and is currently being used for the storage of trucks and assorted equipment. It is accessed via a break in the curb and an unpaved driveway that slopes to the south, The site is currently fenced. It is partially screened from the residence to the west by a fence and some vegetation, and there is a large (estimated diame- ter of 24 inches) pepper tree on-site, B. Proiect Description The project proposes to demolish the existing building, remove the other on-site equipment, and construct a l2,040-square foot office/light industrial building. The building would be a tilt- up concrete structure with a wood-frame roof. It would have a maximum height of 16 to 20 feet, and the ground floor would be slightly below the street level on Main Street. The proposed parking incluòes 23 full-size spaces, 1 handicapped space, and 10 compact spaces covering an estimated 17,560 square feet along the eastern side of the site. An estimated 3,676 square feet of landscaping and enhanced paving (textured concrete) wou 1 d be incl uded on the east side of the building between the building and the parking area, and the parking lot would include lighting. ~ ! fc.. --.- ~-.J 7 '~:::.:::-:# city of chula vista planning department CIlY OF environmental review section (HULA VIST; _.. - 2. Police The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to Priority 2 call s within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of service based on the threshold standard. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have any impacts, and the project is considered to be in conformance with "this policy. 3- Traffic The Thresholds/Standards Policy.requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No in"tersection should reach LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour. The City Engineering Department indicated that the current LOS on Main Street in the project vicinity is "A," with an average daily traffic of 18,170. It is estimated that the project may generate an additional 16 trips per 1,000 square feet, or about 193 trips. Even with these trips added, Main Street will continue to function at LOS A. Therefore, the project is compatible with this policy. 4. Park/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy requires 3 acres of park and recreation land for every 1,000 people. However, the Policy applies only to residential projects. 5. Drainaqe The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineer Standards. .,;) -.;¿ ~ -. - --- The site drains generally toward the south- The project will direct drainage toward an on-site concrete swale, where it will flow southerly to a catch basin. From that point, it will flow off-site to the southwest, where it will enter the 24-inch storm drain at Mace Street. The City Engineering Department has indicated that this facility is adequate to handle the projected flows. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with this policy. 6. Sewer The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that sewage fl ows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. The City Engineering Department indicated that the 10-inch sewer main in Main Street that flows westerly will be adeq"Ua te to handle the proposed project. Therefore, this project. is considered to be in conformance with this policy. 7. Water The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Most of the state of California is currently experiencing water shortages as a result of a continued drought. However, the water purveyor for the project site, has indicated that it has adequate water available to serve the proposed project. If the drought continues, it is possible that district-wide water monitoring and conservation will be required. 8. Schools The Thresholds/Standards Policy states that the City will annually provide the local school districts with a 12 to 15 month development forecast and that the dis- tricts should address their abilities to absorb the forecast growth in the affected facilities. The project site is within the Chula Vista City School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District. The Chula Vista City School District, which currently charges a development fee of $0.12 per square foot of assessable area for commercial and industrial projects, serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. The Sweetwater Union High School District, which serves junior and senior high school students, charges devel- opment fees but has not yet indicated the exact fee to be charged for the proposed project. With the payment by the developer of the fees, it is anticipated that potential impacts will be reduced to a level of insig- nificance. cJ-c2 9 -. - -- E. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Fire Protection The Chula Vista Fire Department indicated that the required water fire flow of 3,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch may not be available at the project site. However, this potential impact can be mitigated. If the building is provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout, then the fire flow requirement is reduced to 1,500 gallons per minute, which would be available. 2. Geoloqy/Soils A soils report was submitted with the application. It indicated that some of the on-site soils consisted of expansive soils that are not suitable for the support of structures and made recommendations for mitigating potential impacts. However, the soils study did not address the underlying geology of the site or potential geologic hazards, such as suspected faults or landslides. These will be required in the geologic report that must be prepared as a condition of approval. F. Mitiqation Necessary to Avoid Siqnificant Effects The building will have to have automatic sprinklers throughout for adequate fire protection. Some remedial grading will be required to mitigate potential impacts from expansive soils, and a geologic report will have to be submitted for review prior to project approval. If the geologic report identifies any potential hazards on-site, additional environmental documentation may be required. G. Findinqs of Insiqnificant ~ 1. The project does not have the potential to (a) substantially degrade the quality of the environment; (b) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (c) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; (d) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; (e) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; (f) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. c:2 - 3-0 --, 2. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 4. The environmental effects of the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. E. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orqanizations City of Chula Vista: Doug Reid, Planning Dept. E. Haisfall., Fire Dept. Roger Daoust, Engineering Dept. R. Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney Bal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Department Lee McEachern, Planning Dept. Robin Keightley, Planning Dept. Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Thomas Silva Applicant's representative: Alfredo Ariza 2. Documents Title 19 (Zoning), Chula Vista Municipal Code. General Plan, City of Chula Vista City of Chula Vista, Policy: Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Committee, as amended November 30, 1989 This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Ini tial Study, any comments on the Initial Study, and any comments on this Negative Declaration. - Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR <:>2-..3/ - FOR OFF1CE USE Case No. IS-CjI-4 ~ 40000 -DP /73 lN1T1AL STUDY Receipt No. S,úc,,3 Date Rec'd ,-10-90 City of Chul a Vi sta Accepted by N H Appl ication Form Project No. FA 490 A. BACKGROUND l. PRGJECT TITLE R & R INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 2. PRGJECT LOCAT10N (Street address or description) 3855 Main Street Chula Vista, CA 92011 Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 629-130-21 3. BR1EF PRGJECT DESCRIPTION Connnercial or Liqht Industrial Space for Lease- 4. Name of Applicant Raul Fontes Address 385 Waqonwheel Way Phone 470-3836 City Bonita State CA Zip 97007 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Araiza/Herschman, Architects Address 3838 Camino Del Rio N- B52 Phone 563-1884 City San Dieao State CA Zip 92108 Rel ati on to Appl i cant Architect 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvßls required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project ---- Rezoning/Prezoning ---- Tentative Subd. Map ---- Annexation - Precise Plan - Grading Permit X Design Review Board ---- Specific Plan ---- Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency ---- Condo Use Permit ---- Site Plan & Arch. Review ---- , ---- Variance Other - - b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). -1L Location Map ~ Arch. Elevations ----' Eng. Geo~ogy Report X Gradi ng Pl an X Landscape Pi ans Hydrol Ogl cal Study --;z Site Plan -X- Photos of Site & ---- Biological Study ---- Parcel Map ---- Setting ---- Archaeological Survey ---- Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map ---- Noise Assessment ---- Specific Plan ---- lmprovement Plans ---- Traffic Impact Report ---- Other Agency Permit or -X- Soils Report ---- Other - Approvals Required - ---- c>2 -.3~ - 2 - B. PROPOS::O PRQJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage 32.760 s.f. or acreage If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Mul ti family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units d. Gross density (OU/total acres) e. Net density (OU/total acres minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square footage of floor area(s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type( s) of 1 and use M-52 per County (Future I-L per City) b. Floor area 12.040 s-f. Height of structure(s) 16' to 20' c. Type of constructi on used in the structure Tilt-up concrete with wood frame roof structure- d. Describe major access points to the structures and the ori entati on to adjoi ni ng properti es and streets Main vehicle access to site is off Main Street. e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 34 spaces f. Estimated number of employees per shift 12 , Number of shifts 1 Total 12 employees g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate - 50 customers 10 trips per 1,000 s_f. c;;2 - 33 -.. ." - --"[ -r " - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate 5 to 7 mile radius per WAO Survev- i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings None j. Hours of operation 8 am to 5 pm k. Type of exteri or 1 i ghti ng Parkinq lot liqhtinq and buildinq si 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. None 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated Yes (If yes, complete the following:) - a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? 2425 cu- vds. h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 5460 cu- vds- c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 32,760 sq- it. d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 5' Average depth of cut 2' to 3' Maximum depth of fill 9' Average depth of fill 4' to 5' 02-3t.f -." 1 - - -UBI - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Tv~ical liqhting and power devjces and water heatinq and HVAC equipment. 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) None 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. Tvpical office and support service emploYment. 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosi.ve materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? No 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 120 trips per day - 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: ne\'1 streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and Sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Street wideninq with new curb and qutter and sidewalk. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the prOject site been made? Yes (If yes, pl ease attach) 2. Hydro logy Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? No (If yes, ~ease explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water tab 1 e? No b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? No ~ -..3 ~ - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? No d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? No e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. Concrete swale and catch basin per Site Plan- 3. Noi se a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may imp~ct the surrounding or adjacent land uses? No 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? No b. Indi cate type, si ze and quantity of trees on the site and ~Ihi ch (if any) will be removed by the project. One existinq 24ft tree to be removed - type unknown- 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? No b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? No 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. Existino vacant 30' x 35' residential structure and truck storaqe area to be removed- c2 - 3--<0 - 6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North Existinq liqht industrial I commercial buildinq South Vacant- lot and mini storaqe warehouse bui Jdin'] East Vacant lot West Existinq residential structure 7. Soci a 1 a. Are there any residents on site? (If s~, how many?) No b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? II f so, how many and what type?) No Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of tne proposed proJect. -- ó2-37 ___0 ATTACHMENTB MINUTES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE D~~f1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Mondav. Avril 20. 1998 Conference Rooms 2 and 3 4:30 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rodriguez, Members, Spethman, Aguilar, Araiza, Morlon STAFF PRESENT: Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director Martin Miller, Acting Senior Planner Jeff Steichen, Acting Associate Planner B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Rodriguez made an opening statement explaining the Design Review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for the tape. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Rodrguez/Aguilar) (4-0) to approve minutes for the meeting of 9/15/97. Peter Morlon abstained, he was not a member at the time. MSC (Rodriguez/Araiza) (3-0) to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 19, 1998. Members Spethman and Aguilar abstained, they were not present at the meeting. MSUC (Rodriguez/ Aguilar) (5-0) to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 2, 1998. MSC (Aguilar/Spethman) (4-0) to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 23, 1998. Chair Rodriguez abstained, he was not present at the meeting. c2 - 3g -.. .- - - DRAFT Design Review Committee 2 April 20, 1998 D. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS 1. DRC-98-28 Henry's Marketplace 690 Third Avenue Relocation of Henry's Marketplace into the old Lucky Store Building. This will involve replacing existing entry canopy and enhancing the exterior building elevations. Staff Presentation Acting Associate Planner Jeff Steichen reviewed the proposal which includes replacing the existing entry canopy on the north elevation, adding an A TM kiosk building in the parking lot facing Third Avenue, enhanced landscaping, and building elevations being enhanced to modernize the structure. Mr. Steichen stated that one of staff's main concerns is the lack of screening of the existing loading dock area. He also indicated that the west wall was in need of repairs, and that the applicant has agreed to repair it. Applicant's Presentation Mr. John Ziebarth, project Architect, briefly went over the improvements proposed for the site which include enhancing the existing features. He pointed out that the large pylon sign will be removed, and additional landscaping will be added to the parking lot area. Mr. Ziebarth confinned that they will replace caps, fix any holes, and put wheel stops in front of the west wall. He also stated that they had no concerns with adding a trellis element along the south elevation. Committee Discussion/Concerns During discussions the following were noted as comments and/or concerns: the south elevation is too plain, needs to be enhanced by an architectural solution and could also include landscaping with a lighting solution; the entry lacked an inviting atmosphere, the Committee felt the entry should be more customer friendly with benches added; roof top equipment needs to be adequately screened by integrating architectural elements; increased lighting, and enhanced landscaping should be provided. Member Araiza stated that he did not think that the trellis element suggested for the south side of the building was an adequate solution to break up that elevation. c::2-.39 -. - . - ...... Design Review Committee QRJ\f1 3 April 20, 1998 Public Input Comrie Clark, Secretary of the Treehaven Condo Association; expressed concern with the west wall. She indicated that a letter was given to staff stating her complaint. Mrs. Clark insisted that some areas of the wall were unstable, and would like to see it replaced or repaired. MSUC (Rodriguez/Araiza) (5-0) to approve DRC-98-28 subject to conditions listed in the staff report with the following changes and/or additions: Condo A under Environmental, as is; B - Recommendations a-d as is; condo e to include that all roof top equipment shall be architecturally screened; conds. f-h as is; condo i with changes to include .. a architectural solution to break up the south elevation shall be considered and brought back to the Committee for review and approval; added condo j - building entrance shall present an inviting atmosphere, more customer friendly with benches added; added condo k - applicant shall repair/retrofit the west wall; added condo I - to include enhanced landscaping to the overall project and the final plan to be resubmitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee. 2. DRC-98-l8 Centre Medical Plaza II 865 Third Avenue Addition of a 48.000 s.f. medical office building and multi level 45 ft. high parking structure on a partiallv developed 3.7 acre site Staff Presentation Acting Associate Planner Jeff Steichen reviewed the proposed project. He went over the surrounding site characteristics, staff recommendations, and the Engineering Depts. traffic analysis listed under the conditions within the staff report. Jeff noted to the Committee that the applicant has applied for a Variance to accommodate the height of the building. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Jim Pieri, the applicant, introduced the project architect Mr. Jerry Stephens. He continued the presentation reviewing the history of the project, and touched on the traffic issues. Mr. Pieri reviewed the building materials/colors, aesthetics, and the landscaping. He mentioned that he would like to replace some of the existing trees with palms. c:2-4Q -. -- - - ...... Design Review Committee DRAFT 4 April 20, 1998 Committee Discussion/Concerns It was asked by member Peter Morlon if there were future plans to change the existing building. The applicant indicated that if anything was to change, it would only be the roofing materials to match the new building. During discussions the following were reviewed: 8 the entrances coming into the proposed building from the parking garage - it was noted that they are too plain and un-inviting; 8 the proposed promenade between the new building and the existing - members felt this area needed to be enhanced; 8 the south elevation of the proposed parking structure - the wall is massive and lacks articulation; 8 signage - members would like signs to come back for review and approval; 8 building colors and materials were clarified. Public Input Diane Nasdeo, of 272 Sierra Way, expressed her concerns with the south elevation of the proposed parking garage. Her home faces the wall. She would like to see some break-up of the mass, even if it's additional landscaping. James Clayton, of 840 Third Avenue, expressed his concerns which focused on traffic and pedestrian issues. MSUC (Rodriguez/Araiza) (5-0) to approve DRC-98-18 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the following additions and/or changes: A - Environmental as is; B. under Recommendations Condo a with changes to add - a lighting plan shall be included, and all shall be brought to the Committee for infonnational purposes only; conds. b-h as is; added condo i-to address any proposed signage, which shall be submitted to DRC for approval; added condo j to address - the pedestrian area between each level of the parking garage shall be enhanced, and brought back to the Committee for infonnational purposes only; added condo k to address - south elevation of the proposed parking garage shall be enhanced with additional landscaping, and shall be brought back to the Committee for infonnational purposes only after review and approval by the city Landscape Architect. 3. DRC-98-23 Coors Amphitheater Otav Vallev Road Proposed si!m packa!!e Staff Presentation Acting Senior Planner MartiÎl Miller reviewed the proposed sign package for the Amphitheater which includes three monument signs. The primary monument sign is being proposed to be located near the top of the 60' high benn facing north, and is a ..::J-4( --" -- ..- Design Review Committee DRAFT 5 April 20, 1998 total of 460 sq.ft. with 30" letters spelling the Coors Amphitheater. The other two monuments signs are to be located at the northerly or main entrance and at the secondary entrance. The two monument signs at the entrances will be ground lit and will have the same font lettering, coloring and logo as the primary monument sign. Mr. Miller continued reviewing the sign package explaining the proposal includes two options for the remaining signs. He indicated that the applicant is requesting that both sign types/styles be approved by the Committee. This will allow flexibility when the signs are considered by the amphitheater owners. Applicant Presentation Krysen Hernandez, of MSI, gave a detailed presentation of all signs being proposed for the Amphitheater, and pointed out the differences between the two options. Committee Discussion/Concerns During discussions concern was expressed regarding the primary monument sign. Committee members felt that the sign would be obstructing the view of the sky plaza wall, and questioned how the sign would be integrated into the slope and it's landscaping. All members agreed that Option A was preferred for all remaining signs. One other concern noted was the entrance signs at both the east and west plazas. MSUC (Rodriguez/Spethmen) (5-0) to approve in part as follows: Design of the three monument signs and the location of the two street -oriented monument signs. Approval of option A of the sign package. If Option A does not work for the owners, a new design option shall be created and brought back for review by the DRC, as Option is not acceptable to the Committee as is. Condition 3 of the staff report, as is. The applicant is to return with a more comprehensive overview of the location of the primary monument sign, and how it integrates into the slope without interference of the sky plaza. The entrance signs at both the east and west plazas shall be reconsidered as not to detract from the architectural features, and be brought back for DRC approval. The locations of the parking lot and ticket office signs are approved. 4. The Richard Welsh Memorial Award Nomination Staff Presentation Assistant Planning Director Mr. Ken Lee addressed the issue. He indicated that the St. John Episcopal Church has been nominated. He reviewed the history of this award, and passed out photos of the nommated church. Rodriguez motioned in favor, (5-0) to approve the nomination. r:::; - <I ~ Design Review Committee DRAfT 6 April 20, 1998 5. DRC-98-25 Alfredo Araiza 3855 Main Street Construct a 3.050 Sq. ft. industrial building with Darking and associated site improvements Member Araiza removed himself from the dias as he is the Project Architect and has a conflict of interest. Staff Presentation Acting Senior Planner Martin Miller reviewed the project and indicated that it is a contemporary industrial building. He referred to the report for staff recommendations and highlighted condition 7 referring to the shifting of the driveway two feet to the east to provide a sidewalk from the property line along the southern side of the driveway to the south-facing entrance, and a planter strip parallel to this sidewalk. Mr. Miller also mentioned that staff recommends replacing the freestanding sign with a monument sign. ADDlicant's Presentation Alfredo Araiza, project Architect, stated that he did not have any concerns with the listed staff conditions with the exception of Condition #7 as previously reviewed by Mr. Miller. He would prefer not to shift the driveway. He indicated that he would be willing to provide the sidewalk if staff would waive the condition of having to provide a planter strip. Committee Discussion/Concerns After a brief discussion, Committee members concurred that condition 7 of the staff report can be deleted. MSC (Rodriguez/Morlon) (4-0) to approve DRC-98-25 subject to conditions listed in the staff report as is with the exception of condition 7 which will be deleted. E. STAFF COMMENTS None c2-43 Design Review Committee DRAFT 7 April 20, 1998 L MEMBERS COMMENTS None G. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Maureen Casper, Recorder H: \home \planning\mo \4-20-98. mill c;;J-1cf ATTACHMENT C OWNER P ARTICIP A TION AGREEMENT Recording Requested By: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue ChulaVista,CA 91910 When Recorded Mail To: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue ChulaVista,CA 91910 Attn: Yolanda Garcia rs, ace Above This line For Recorder) APN: 629.130.21 OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT [3B55 Main Street] Mr. Raúl Fontes THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a public body corporate and politic (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY"), and Mr. Raúl Fontes, Subject Property Owner hereinafter referred to as "DEVELDPER" effective as of May 19, 1998. WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desires to develop real property within the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA which is subject to the jurisdiction and control of the AGENCY; and, WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has presented plans for development to the Design Review Committee for the construction of a 3,050 square foot industrial building (the "Project" ; and, WHEREAS, said plans for development have been recommended for approval by said committee; and, WHEREAS, the AGENCY has considered the Design Review Committee's recommendation and has approved the Project and design plans subject to certain terms and conditions; and, WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires that said Project be implemented and completed as soon as it is practicable in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER agree as follows: The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Agreement. 1. The property to be developed is described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 629.130.21 located at 3855 Main Street, Chula Vista, CA., shown on locator map attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein ("Property" . 2. The DEVELOPER covenants and agrees by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns and all persons claiming under or through them the following: A. DEVELOPER shall develop property in accordance with the AGENCY approved development proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "An, which is on file with the AGENCY Secretary, as Document No. RACO. 98.04. B. DEVELOPER shall obtain all necessary federal/state and local governmental permits and approvals and abide by all applicable federal. state and local laws, regulations, policies and approvals. DEVELOPER 1 02-4s- further agrees that this Agreement is contingent upon DEVELOPER securing said permits and approvals. DEVELOPER shall pay all applicable development impact and processing fees. C. DEVELOPER shall obtain building permits within one year from the date of this Agreement and to actually develop the Property within one year from the date of issuance of the building permits. In the event DEVELOPER fails to meet these deadlines, approval of DEVELOPER's development proposals shall be void and this Agreement shall have no further force or effect. D. In all deeds granting or conveying an interest in the Property, the following language shall appear: "The grantee herein covenants by and for himselt his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation at any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself or any persons claiming under or through him establish or permit any such practice of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenant lessees, or vendees in the premises herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land." E. In all leases demising an interest in all or any part of the Property, the following language shall appear: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himselt his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation at any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, national origin, or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein leased, nor shall the lessee himself or any persons claiming under or through him, establish or permit any such practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number or use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the premises herein leased." 3. The Property shall be developed subject to the conditions imposed by (a) the Design Review Committee and the AGENCY as described in Exhibit "8" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. DEVELOPER acknowledges the validity of and agrees to accept such conditions. 4. DEVELOPER shall maintain the premises in FIRST CLASS CONDITION. A. DUTY TO MAINTAIN FIRST CLASS CONDITION. Throughout the term of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall, at DEVELOPER's sole cost and expense, maintain the Property which includes all improvements thereon in first class condition and repair, and in accordance with all applicable laws, permits, licenses and other governmental authorizations, rules, ordinances, orders, decrees and regulations now or hereafter enacted, issued or promulgated by federal, state, county, municipal, and other governmental agencies, bodies and courts having or claiming jurisdiction and all their respective departments, bureaus, and officials. If the DEVELOPER fails to maintain the Property in a "first class condition", the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista or its agents shall have the right to go on the Property and perform the necessary maintenance and the cost of said maintenance shall become a lien against the Property. The 2 c:2 - c./- ~ ...-. Agency shall have the right to enforce this lien either by foreclosing on the Property or by forwarding the amount to be collected tD the Tax AssessDr who shall make it part Df the tax bill. B. DEVELOPER shall promptly and diligently repair, restore, alter, add to, remove, and replace, as required, the Property and all improvements tD maintain Dr comply as above, or tD remedy all damage to or destruction Df all Dr any part Df the improvements. Any repair, restoration, alteration, addition, removal, maintenance, replacement and other act Df compliance under this Paragraph (hereafter collectively referred to as "Restoration") shall be completed by DEVELOPER whether or not funds are available from insurance proceeds Dr subtenant contributions. The RestoratiDn shall satisfy the requirements of any sublease then in effect for the Property Dr improvements with respect thereto Dr, if nD sublease is then in effect, shall be repaired Dr restored in the building standard shell condition existing immediately prior tD the date of such damage or destruction. C. In Drder to enforce all above maintenance proYisiDns, the parties agree that the Community DevelDpment Director is empowered tD make reasonable determinations as tD whether the Property is in a first class condition. If he determines it is not, he (1) will notify the DEVELOPER in writing and (2) extend a reasonable time tD cure. If a cure or substantial progress tD cure has not been made within that time, the DirectDr is authorized tD effectuate the cure by City forces or otherwise, the cost of which will be promptly reimbursed by the DEVELOPER. In the event that there is a dispute Dver whether the Property is in a first class condition or Dver the amount Df work and expense authorized by the DirectDr tD cure, the parties agree that the City Manager Dr his designee, shall resolve that dispute; provided however, DEVELOPER shall have the right to appeal this decision to the AGENCY BOARD by making a written request therefor within ten (IO) days of being informed Df such decision. All City action tD cure shall be suspended pending the DutcDme of the appeal. In the event that the Director decides without dispute, Dr the City Manager decides in dispute, that the City has to cure and the amount of cure, then DEVELOPER has tD reimburse the City within thirty 130) days of demand. If not reimbursed, it constitutes a lien and City is authorized to record said lien with the County Recorder, upon the Property. O. FIRST CLASS CONDITION DEFINED. First class condition and repair, means RestDratiDn which is necessary tD keep the Property an efficient and attractive condition, at least substantially equal in quality to the condition which exists when the Project has been completed in accordance with all applicable laws and conditions. 5. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants Df the DEVELOPER expressed herein shall run with the land. DEVELOPER shall have the right, without prior approval Df AGENCY, tD assign its rights and delegate its duties under this Agreement. 6. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants Df the DEVELOPER expressed herein are for the express benefit Df the AGENCY and for all Dwners Df real property within the boundaries Df the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA as the same now exists or may be hereafter amended. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the provisions Df this Agreement may be specifically enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction by the AGENCY Dn its own behalf or on behalf Df any Dwner Df real property within the boundaries Df the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. 1. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that this Agreement may be recorded by the AGENCY in the Office Df the County RecDrder Df San DiegD County, California. 9. DEVELOPER shall and does hereby agree tD indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless AGENCY and the City Df Chula Vista, and their respective Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees (cDllectively, "liabilities"! incurred by the AGENCY arising, directly Dr indirectly, from (al AGENCY's approval Df this Agreement, (b) AGENCY's Dr City's approval Dr issuance Df any Dther permit or action, whether 3 D2. -11 -." -- ..- discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the Project contemplated herein, and DEVELOPER's construction and operation of the Project permitted hereby. 10. In the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to the obligations under this AGREEMENT that results in litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs from the non.prevailing party. 11. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 12. To the extent DEVELOPER is comprised of more than one person or entity, each such person or entity shall be jointly and generally liable hereunder. 13. Time is of the essence for each and every obligation hereunder. signature page follows 4 ,;) - <-I- g -.. - -. - IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE AS OF THE OATE FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA "AGENCY" DATED: By: Shirley Horton, Chairman "DEVELOPER" DATED: By: Raúl Fontes, Property Owner NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card. APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: John M. Kaheny, Agency Attorney 5 02-<-19 -. I bJJIt-j ::I: r= !:< a -0 a ;D <: m MAIN STREET C PROJECT LOCATION I h CHUlA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR Ä~~~I~;~T: RaGI Fontes PROJECTDESCRI~TlON: Œ) Constructlon of a 3,050-square foot . PROJECT 3855 Main Street industrial building, a 6-space parking ADDRESS: lot, landscaped areas, and a trash SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: enclosure. NORTH No Scale DRC-98-25 h:lhomelplanninglcarIDs\locatorsldrc9825.cdr 212/98 c::.J ~~() --" 'r. . ."1 EXHIBIT A ...-_._...~. . ¡m¡ 'f 22! JIm!! mm r ; 1-- jt ~ - . "'. ; eIj mIl f It rl(l ! mlilll I .."".."..... "..'... .,., ¡ Ii r, 'I "jl¡1. ~~ '. ,..., .*. - / ~~~:::: II' ¡ í 1M r J" ; II tc::,~-^, . . }¡ I ¡ f .'ljY--'1; <.': 11-- ~~ . I t I..: I i ~L... . ... .'. 1 I " . " 'I ,. ' .:" 1,- .. . <::j:; }'f " I n'¡; .-. .j;.}:' .. . . '. (_. :-: !.!.:, :¡. '.";:, '. ,> .... c' \,.~.-. -. .- c.,,- , ".. n..! .-'l II!! ' n. I 11m I nUl J It, (I 1 n,f . L_____--_..J 11 Ii I I~ ' = I ,¡ i Ii ¡II I I, iii II ¡P . I~ il I I ~ I ! P I" ., " ~ i~~ .! ¡ " Ii r ~ ¡ l,nL i I'll . -.--- -- ALfIEDO AIAIZA & _188 ---...-......- Z9 39\;1d OS\;! '8 \;I2I~\;I OG3èI.., l\:f 9961-E99--619 EÞ :91 8661/101199 _.-. . .-.'. -....'.'- -- 'ON '--:-::,'-;!:;:;i::"::;;;:'~,~;:: '-@ / -~ @ ~ § 1 , q . . ~ ~ ,-, ,", I I I I I I I I . L..Jy-~ j , ,-1J J I I I I I I I I L...J L.J , . IIIII~ ñl mmfl~ t u~~rth t !t:tl'f~ '$ !1 l ; ~ ~ ~~ ~.~-- ~ I~ 'I~!~IIIIII~ ~Bl~NDUS~~A~~IN~ =-=:== £Q 3Ð\;Id 05'<1 '8 \lZI\IèI\;I 003è1£l\;l 9Q61-£96--619 £Þ :61 866t1Þtl6Q -- - -- - - EXHIBIT A ...'..' -"-."'" .. , ¡,'¡-7;,~T:'.r,E-~,1:::;, It ~ t r !: I ' , It I ¡ I Ii .' '---<'To' r '., .,........' I ' f. / : ,. ~ ~ I , i ': ' r r~ ' I; ,I I I I ; I I ~ I. '. , . I I I . I (' , " ¡ , I I I I f I ' " I :: . I' , , , :: ;,: . : \ ! I! =.1 I Ii ! I (k r r~1 I! 'E' I, 'I i I i ~ : :: :: , i ~: : I : I I : ,. I I ,~ ~ I. I I " , . ~. " @ i.1 , ~j -J~ .f I , -@ , l ~ I ' I : , I I E '. ~ ,; t:'," I 1 ',,' J I I 'J' t I I 1 fl ,J ~ "1ft ,). , ',~, i I ¡ , I ~I, I a' :, ' . '~'f ~ I ' , '-@!il .. if ' I : . I ~~ ),' '. L ---8 : ,~-'I ~b! .--@ Ii "': I' ! 1, I I I ' "f ,I " I I " :" 1 r I ...' I I , I ' ': 1 n" \ I .. -, ,.-el, @ ""'. .11;.-@ I ! ¡lttl! I ! .:11 1,! I ~ : It ~ ~ i\ n II i ~ 1\ '. ~'~I. ',~ ¡r I ~ it il I, ._J.,.. a 13 I'" - -" i~ ì~ ~ '--- .. r2.§3 -~_.- -- ~ ~ D ~~ll ill! [;~ ~ '~LAL ~~~ --~.:== ] "iii :3Ð\1d 05\1 '8 \1ZI\1èI\1 OO:3~\1 91i161-E99--619 E" :91 8661/"1/91i1 . I I --~"!___E!,!.!T, --,. I I ~~~~. ') i~ i .' . ~~~Ø0«.Ø$()fi)O I . - Jlfi "'UI f II .: I- 11'(1' ,- II,n' II I . I ill. l' I I I t .",..... .. ~ . II in ~ ii ~ J i ~ "" l'ld; I -¡'Iili! ,. ! ~I ",", liJ1! )!! I .,ill I III I! if n II p! il i R ¡ 11'1 .. ,..... i ! ! Ii I .. ...... I III¡ I . ., .",.. ! liB it I' LANDSCAPI! PLAN Faa, It,ø.. 8 'NPU8TR"'LBUILU'NÇ --- -- .--.. ge 39l1d OS\I '8 IIZIlIèllI OŒ3è/.., l\I ge61-E99--619 EÞ:91 86611Þ1Ige --- -- -. - _.- EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval Owner Participation Agreement Mr. Ram Fontes 3855 Main Street Chula Vista, CA DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Construct the Project as submitted to the City and as shown on the plans received March 25, 1998 by the Planning Deparlment, unless modified herein, 2. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located behind parapet structures. 3. At time of submittal of building permit application, submit a detailed landscaped plan and water management plan for review and approval by the Landscape Planner. 4. Dedicate right.of.way for the widening of Main Street to depth and a width satisfactory to the City Engineer, 5. Remove the proposed freestanding pylon sign from the Main Street frontage and replace it with a monument sign. Prior to submittal for sign and building permits for any signs, submit plans of same to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. Thereafter, obtain all required sign and building permits prior to occupancy of the building, 6, Enter into an Owner Parlicipation Agreemenl wilh the Redevelopment Agency of Chula Vista, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 7. Comply with and implement the comments on the attached memo dated March 17, 1998 related to landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 8. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Building Department for review and approval. Such plans shall comply with requirements of Title 24 regarding handicapped accessibility. 9. Pay the following fees, as applicable: A. Sewer Connection Fees, B. Development Impact Fees. C. Trallic Signal Fee. 10, Obtain a conslruction permit for all work to be performed in the City's right.of.way, 10 the salisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. Prior to obtaining a building permit, submit a letter to the Sweetwater Authority from the Chula Vista Fire Department stating fire flow requirements, Based on this requirement, subject Project may result in the need for new water systems or substantial alteration to the existing water system. 12. Construct the building in compliance with the applicable version of the Uniform Building Code and to Title 24, to the satisfaction of the Director of Building & Housing, The property Owner/Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided, said execution indicating that the property Dwners/Tenants/Applicants have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded, as part of the Owner Participation Agreement to which it is attached and a part thereof, with the Clerk of the County of San Diego, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency with a copy to the Community eJ- ~~- -. - ..- .... EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval Owner Participation Agreement Mr. Raûl Fontes 3855 Main Street Chula Vista, CA Development Department. Failure to sign this document shall indicate lhe property owners'fTenants'/Applicants' desire that the project and the corresponding application for any and all City permits be held in abeyance without approval. Owner/Applicant Mr. Raúl Fontes Date IflLE,",IHOMEICOMMOEVITAPIAIOPASIJ855MAIN.OPAJ ól-~'"t. -.. - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item 3 Meeting Date 05-19-98 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT TO AllOW EOUCATIONAl AND COUNSELING SERVICES TO CLIENTS WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS AT 314 PARKWAY SUBMITTED BY: '.m...,;.. '..".pm'"' ';~'"~. REVIEWED BY: Executive Director YR ~ -? (415ths Vote: Yes- Noll BACKGROUND: Episcopal Community Services has submitted a land Use Permit application to establish the South Bay Recovery Center at 314 Parkway. The Center is planned to provide educational and counseling services to clients who have substance abuse problems. The project is located within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area and has been reviewed by the Town Centre Project Area Committee and the Downtown Business Association. The project is exempt from environmental review. Staff is evaluating several issues regarding the proposed land use and will submit a report and recommendation to the Agency for consideration at the June 9 Special Redevelopment Agency meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency continue the public hearing to a Special Meeting of the Agency scheduled for June 9, 199B. IpbJ H:\HOM~COMMOEV\STAFF.RE~O5.19.98\314prkway.lup IMa, 13, 1998 12:58pmll 314 Parkwa, land Use Perm" ...3-1 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item 4 Meeting Date 05119198 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SOUTH BAY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER AT 675 OXFORD STREET LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVElOPMENT PROJECT AREA RESOLUTION 1~1l3 APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SOUTH BAY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER AT 675 OXFORD STREET LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA SUBMITTED BY: C.~..", ,..d."",. o;,oc'"'~ REVIEWED BY: Executive Director~ ~ --:7 (415ths Vote: Yes- NoLI BACKGROUND: The Applicant, Palomar Station, LLC, is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit to allow the establishment of the San Diego County South Bay Health & Human Services Agency Family Resources Center (Resource Center) at 675 Oxford Street located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project area. The project will be presented to the Design Review Committee and the Redevelopment Agency in June-July 1998. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that consideration and approval of the subject Special Use Permit is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act. On April 7, 1998, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the subject property. The General Plan Amendment changed the site's designation from Open Space/Research & Limited Manufacturing to Professional & Administrative Commercial, while the Rezone involved changing the property's zoning from R.1 (Res. Single Family) and IL.P (Industrial Limited. Precise Plan) to CO.p (Office Commercial - Precise Plan). As part of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, the City Council adopted Negative Declaration IS.97.24 of no significant environmental impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Resolution granting the Special Use Permit subject to the conditions listed in the Resolution. 4-( Page 2. Item ..!L Meeting Date 05119/98 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 13, 199B, reviewed and recommended approval of the Special Use Permit subject to the conditions listed in the resolution; and they also voted to add the condition that the applicant obtain adequate access to the trolley and bus lines subject to approval of the City Engineer. Due to the close time proximity of the Commission's and Agency's meetings no minutes are available yet. A verbal report on the Commission's action will be given by staff. DISCUSSION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS The seven acre project site is located on the north side of the westerly terminus of Oxford Street (see attached Locator Map). The site is surrounded by the following uses: to the north of the Project site is Harborside Elementary School; to the east is Costco and Home Base; to the south are industrial and commercial land uses; and to the west is the San Diego Trolley and Industrial Boulevard with residential uses and a mobile home park further west. There is no direct access to either the trolley tracks or to Industrial Boulevard from the subject site. GENERAL PLAN ANO ZONING DESIGNATIONS GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT lAND USE Site: Prof. & Admin. Office COop Vacant North: ReslM/P-QP R-3P9/RI Residential/School South: OS/R&lM CC.P/ll.P Commercial & Industrial East: Retail Commercial CC Commercial West: ResM R.3/MHP Multi.family/Mobile Home Park OS: Open Space ResLM: Residential Low Medium (J.G dulac) ResMF: Residential Medium {G.lt du/acJ P-IlP: Public/Iluasi-Public CC: Central Commercial PROPOSAL The property owner/applicant, Palomar Station, llC is currently processing plans for the construction of the two-story, 74,OOO.square foot office building. This building is allowed under current zoning on the subject site, which was designated as Commercial Office by the re.zoning approved by the City Council in April. The intention is to co.locate several of the County agencies in the new building which are currently located at the Jerome's Building on Third Avenue between Palomar and Quintard and the Urquhart Building on Third Avenue north of Palomar. The location of the County Agencies at the new building classifies the use as 4-:J- -.,. -r Page 3. Item A.. Meeting Date 05/19/98 "Public/Quasi-Public." This use may a allowed in any zone through the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, or in Redevelopment Areas, a "Special Use Permit." This permit must be reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the Redevelopment Agency. Prior to approval of the permit, the Redevelopment Agency must make the following four findings which are listed in the Agency Resolution: A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. D. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. It should be noted that in this case the Special Use Permit is being considered solely on the basis of the County's use of the building and does not include approval of design plans. The design plans for the construction of the building will be presented to the Design Review Committee and Redevelopment Agency under separate application in a few weeks. Among the County Agencies to be located at this building will be Social Services, Health Center, GAIN (Greater Avenues for Independence), IHSS (In-House Supportive Services), etc. Typical daily activity will involve members of the public visiting the premises and meeting with County employees to receive a variety of services. It is estimated that approximately 1,500 service recipients will visit the site on a daily basis. However this number is expect to diminish over time due to changes in welfare laws. The approximate number of employees at the site is 400. PARKING The proposed plan calls for the provision of approximately 536 parking spaces on the site. The Zoning Ordinance requires one space per 300 square feet of gross building area for office uses. The proposed 74,000 square foot building would normally need a minimum of about 250 spaces. The Developer is providing twice as much parking as is required in order to accommodate the needs of the County offices. County staff expect that a significant number of visitors will be using public transportation to arrive at the offices. In fact, the Oxford Street location was favored due to its proximity to the Palomar Trolley Station. Currently, the developer and city staff are in discussions with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board staff to make use of the MTDB property located between the project site and Palomar Street to be 4-3 -... Page 4, Item ..!L Meeting Date 05/19198 developed as a landscaped pedestrian walkway connecting the Palomar Trolley Station with the County offices. This plan will be presented to the Agency in the near future. VEHICULAR ACCESS All vehicular access to the subject site will be from two points on Oxford Street at two points: one at the easterly property line and the second near the cul.de-sac bulb. No access will be permitted from Naples Street next to Harborside Elementary School. PUBLIC FORUM City and County staff and the Developer held a public forum on April 16, 199B at Harborside Elementary School. The purpose of the forum was to present to the community the proposed development of the building and the proposal to locate the County offices at the site. Notices of the forum were mailed out to all property owners and residents located within 1.000 feet from the site. Five people from the community attended the forum. They were very supportive of the of new the building. Two of the attendees had questions on how the County will prevent visitors from staying around the premises and create loitering. County staff indicated that with the changes in welfare reform, the delivery of services will be in such a way that visitors will only need to come into conduct their business and immediately leave. There will not be a reason for them to wait around. In addition, County staff indicated that there will be a security guard in and around the building all the time during office hours. The developer indicated the building will be equipped with electronic surveillance devices on a 24-hour basis. CONCLUSION: It is staff's opinion that the proposed location of the Family Resource Center at the Oxford site is an appropriate location for that PublicJQuasi.Public land use. The proposal provides for the consolidation of presently scattered County agencies under one roof which will provide greater accessibility and convenience for users. Its proximity to the Trolley Station will make it easier for users to reach the facility via public transportation, thus reducing personal automobile trips. The proposed public/quasi-public use is consistent with current zoning and will contribute to advance the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the Special Use Permit, which is the subject of this report, will not cause a Fiscal Impact. Construction of the building at this site will generate tax-increment revenues for the Redevelopment Agency budget and will create other benefits for the area. These benefits will be fully described when the project is presented to the Redevelopment Agency for consideration and approval in a few weeks. ATTACHMENTS 1. locator Map 2. Design Plans IMZTI H,\HOME\COMMOEV\STAFF.REP\O5.19.98\9804REAG.RPT IMay 14.1998 111o06amll 4-1 -.. RESOLUTION NO. /5ð'3 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SOUTH BAY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY F AMIL Y RESOURCE CENTER AT 675 OXFORD STREET LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RECITALS WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as 675 Oxford Street; and WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Special Use Permit SUPS-98-04 ("Permit") was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April 13, 1998 by Palomar Station, LLC (Applicant); and WHEREAS, said application requests approval of subject Special Use Permit to establish, operate and maintain the San Diego County South Bay Health & Human Services Agency Family Resource Center at 675 Oxford Street located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the request for the subject Special Use Permit and determined that said Permit is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on May 13, 1998 and voted to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. - recommending to the Redevelopment Agency approval of the Permit; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on said Permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely May 19, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Redevelopment Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Permit held on May 13, 1998 and the minutes (H,\homekomrndev\re,o,\9804ra.re,) ,,4 -s- -.. -- .. - -..... Resolution No. - Page #2 and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY hereby approves the special use permit based on the following findings and all other reports, evidence and testimony presented with respect to the proposed use, and subject to the following terms and conditions. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The following findings are required by the Southwest Redevelopment Plan which governs the issuance of special use permits. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby sets forth the following evidentiary basis for approval of the proposed Project: A, That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed San Diego County South Bay Health & Human Services Agency Family Resource Center is desirable in that it will provide needed County services to residents of Chula Vista at a One-Stop Center by consolidating several agencies currently located throughout the City. B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The operation of the San Diego County South Bay Health & Human Services Agency Family Resources Center will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity in that it will be conducted in a manner as to minimize any potential adverse impacts to the vicinity and appropriate conditions to assure such conduct have been imposed on the project. C, That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Special Use Permit SUPS-98-04 is conditioned to require the Applicants owner to fulfill conditions and to comply with all the applicable regulations and standards specified in the Municipal Code for such use. D. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. (H,\home"ommd~\"'o,\9804m."') 4-~ Resolution No. - Page #3 v The granting of SUPS-98-04 will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General Plan in that the County facility and programs will be located in new building customized to meet the requirements of the operation of County programs and built pursuant to the General Plan, the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. GRANT OF PERMIT The Redevelopment Agency hereby conditionally grants the Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions, whereby the Applicant shall: 1. Operate the Project as submitted to and approved by the Agency, except as modified herein and/or as required by the Municipal Code, and as detailed in the project description. 2. Comply with and implement all provisions and conditions of DRC-98-36, as approved by the Chula Vista Design Review Committee. 3, Pay any and all applicable fees based on the [mal building plans submitted including, without limitation, the following: a. Sewer Connection Fees b. Development Impact Fees c. Traffic Signal Fee 4. Construct the following improvements in accordance with City standards: a. Curb gutter and sidewalk along the Oxford Street frontage and along the Naples Street frontage b. Two 250w street light standards along the Oxford Street frontage c. One 250w street light standard along the Naples Street frontage d. Undergrounding of utilities along Oxford Street 5. Comply with any and all Engineering Department requirements and conditions for grading and building permits. 6. Comply with all City ordinances, standards, and policies except as otherwise provided in this Resolution, Any violation of City ordinances, standards, and policies, or of any condition of approval of this Special Use Permit, or of any provision of the Municipal Code, as determined by the Director of Planning, shall be grounds for revocation or modification of this Special Use Permit by the City of Chula Vista. 7. Execute the attached Agreement indicating that you have read, understood and agreed to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will implement same. (H,\home\oommdev\re,o,\9804m,re,) 4-7 -". 1 .' - --I Resolution No. - Page #4 8. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 9. This Special Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. 10. Pay all costs associated with implementing any of the above conditions of approval. 11. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, the Redevelopment Agency members, the City Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Special Use Permit, (b) Agency's or City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and @ Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. (H,\homokommdev\",os\9804ra.res) 4-f? _.. -- ..- Resolution No. - Page #5 INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY 1998, Presented by Approved as to form by ~c ~ ~ ~ Chris Salomone Community Development Director Cl Attorn (H,\hom,\oomrndev\,,"0,\9804m.,,"> 4~c¡ _.. -- AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND PALOMAR STATION, LLC PROPERTY OWNER OF 675 OXFORD STREET RELATED TO CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPS-98-04 The property owner/Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and Applicants have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained in Resolution No. -' and will implement same to the satisfaction of the City. Upon execution, this document and a copy of Resolution No. - shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirty days of recordation to the Planning Department shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the co"esponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owner/Applicant Date 675 Oxford Street Resolution No. - Lf-/D -., èT;' ~ :- ATTACHMENT 1 HOME BASE .."",...- PRO J E C T LOCATION CDSTCD PRICE CLUB ) ,~[J CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Lë) ~~ Palomar Station LLC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SPECIAL USE PERMIT I DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT 675 Oxford Street Request: Publio-Ouasi-?PubDc proposal for a 74,000 sq. II. office bùldIng. ADORESS: SCALE: I ALE NUMBER: 4- II NORTH No Scale SUPS-98-041 DRG-98-37 h: \home Iplannin 9 \carlos ~ocators \sups9804. cdr 4/23/9 8 -« .. ..- "'-';"-"""'" """lAM "HUM",1 ULMAN/WYMAN 61955 21563 P.2 ATIACHMENT 2 - -. ~ ~i _'0 .. . - - ~-~/-I~~ö ö'~öAM ~RUM SILLÞ~N/WYMAN 5195521553 P.3 , TITrn ! ~ = ¡ ! ¡ ¡! -----¡I! ~ 1 0 -+--+ ---.+-.+ ---+--- I " m ' , " :'1 q ~ I I I I r ." .--+---..i..,,--...L---+ '~on ~ ' ~ :, .. I: --I I I!!! ." , 5 -----+-- :' , ~ I i! ! 1 --'-"-------.. I ~._+--~-- -- -- -t----- -- - " : ¡ Lt1l 4-13 F-., --- - b' SILLMAN I WYMAN. INC. - - -- FLOOII PLAN ~.""'Te"TU.1! .. "..'."""'5" ',-"'1-"""" """"AM rHUM ~lLLMAN/WYMAN 51~~~2i563 p_4. ! ~ ~ -: (') "m Ii ~ m rrt 0 C 0 :z . 0 " .- f 0 0 :II "0 > ---w-- T z , , 8 ~ " , [ ---+- L ' , I I , I I. ' I ---+.--+-- .----- ---_J ! ' 1 - - .~ - - 4-/Ý F-." - CE1I'I19I SILLMAN I WYMAN, INC. -lAY FLOOR PLA. ...CHITECTU.E . ...I.EE.... -'- -- , - 5-07-19988,09AM f-RUM "'- ",1,,'=>'=>-"1'=>0.:5 /"'.:0 . ----- ft ~ ~ ~ (II :D -. . ~ .... m ~ ~ ~ ~ ð ~ õ :z Õ :z z Ì 3 ~ i t . 4-/:;- -~ " -.,. -- ŒIITEII SILLMAN I WYMAN. INC. - - _BAY ...> I II ELEYATJDIIIS "'..~!,'TEO'l ln' ... E..'.ln8'.. ..