Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1998/02/10 Notice is hereby given that the Chainnan of the Redevelopment Agency has called and will convene a special joint meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/City Council on February 10, 1998, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the regular City Council meeting, in Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California to consider, deliberate and act upon the following: ~an Tuesday, February 10, 1998 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Special Joint Meeting of the Redevelooment Agencv/Citv Council of the Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Agency/Council Members Moot -' Padilla -' Rindone -, Salas -' and Chair/Mayor Horton - CONSENT CALENDAR ( Items 2 through 3 ) (Will be voted on inuuediately rollowing 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 Fonn" 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 4. 1997; November 18, 1997 3. RESOLUTION 1568 ADOPTiNG NEGATiVE DECLARATION IS-97-20 AND APROViNG AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH HEYE TRUST, DONALD R. HEYE, TRUSTEE, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 27,000 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRiAL BUILDiNG AT 1685 BRANDYWINE AVENUE WITHiN THE OTAYV ALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA--In 1992, Hyspan Precision Products relocated from San Diego to a 5-acre site on the NE corner of Brandywine Avenue and Otay Valley Road. At this time, Hyspan is proposing to construct a 27,000 sq. ft. industrial building fronting on Otay Valley Road adjacent to their existing plant to be leased out to an appropriate tenant. The Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan requires the Agency to consider an Owner Participation Agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) . . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR' . . ADJOURNMENT TO CITY COUNCIL MEETiNG Agenda -2- February 10, 1998 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opporlunity 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 Fonn" 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. 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 4. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) 5. CHAIR/MAYOR'S REPORT(S) 6. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to a closed session and thence to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on February 17, 1998 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. ********** CLOSED SESSION Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency states otherwise at this time, the Agency will discuss and deliberate on the following item(s) of business which are pennitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of.filli!1 action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be tenninated at this point in order to save costs so that the Agency's return from closed session, reports of.filli!1 action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Neverlheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Clerk's Office. - . . - T Agenda -3- February 10, 1998 7. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 a.!. Property: Assessor's Parcel Nos. 565-310-09 and 25; and 567-011-04 Negotiating Parties: Redevelopment Agency (Sid Morris/Chris Salomone), and San Diego Padres Under Negotiations: Price and terms for disposition Property: Assessor's Parcel Nos. 565-010-30; and 567-011-05 Negotiating Parties: Redevelopment Agency (Sid Morris/Chris Salomone), Pearl Development (owner), and San Diego Padres Under Negotiations: Price and terms for acquisition/disposition 2. Property: Assessor's Parcel Nos. 760-048-03, 06 through 08, 16, 17, and 50 through 55 Negotiating Parties: City and Redevelopment Agency of Chula Vista (Sid Morris/Chris Salomone), Port District (owners), and San Diego Padres Under Negotiations: Price and terms for acquisition/disposition 3. Property: Assessor's Parcel Nos. 760-048-05 (portion 01), 12, 15, and 59; and 571-330-13, and 17 (portion 01) Negotiating Parties: City and Redevelopment Agency of Chula Vista (Sid Morris/Chris Salomone), Port District and Rohr, Inc. (owners), and San Diego Padres Under Negotiations: Price and terms for acquisition/disposition b.!. Property: Assessor's Parcel Nos. 563-350-13; and 566-131-01 Negotiating Parties: Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone) and Pacifica Companies; and South Bay Pentecostal Church Under Negotiations: Price and terms for disposition MINUTES OF A JOiNT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, November 18, 1997 Council Chambers 7:01 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency /Councilmembers: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Chair/Mayor Horton. ABSENT: Agency/Councilmemhers: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager, J,hn D. Goss; Legal Counsel/City Attorney, John M. Kaheny: and City Clerk, Beverly A. Authder. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: none) CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY CHAIR/IVIA YOR HORTON, headings read, texts waived, pa.<sed and approved 5-0. 2. APPROVAL OF MiN¡rTE~: Octoher 21,1997 (joint meeting); October 28, 1997 (special meeting) 3. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18817 AND AGENCY RESOLUTION 1566 AUTHORIZING SUB MITT AL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE (CDLAC) FOR AN ALLOCATION OF QUALIFIED MORTGAGE BONDS AND ITS ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATIœ. TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; 2) ELEC¡'ING TO EXCHANGE SAID ALLOCATION FOR MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES; 3) CERTIFYING THE A V AU,ABILITY OF FUNDS FOR TIlE REQUIRED PERFORMANCE DEPOSIT OF $25,000; AND 4) APPROPRIATING $2,100 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE IN THE LOW AND MODERATE fNCOI\IE HOUSING FUND The Mortgage Credit Certiticate (MCC) Program was authorized by Congress in the Tax R"r.,fm Act of 1984 as an alt"rnativ" to mortgage revenue bond-bucked tinancing to provid" horn" ownership assistance to lower income households. Applications for authority to issue Mortgage Credit Certificates are made by local agencies to the California Debt Linit Allocation Committee. The City hus partieipa!," in the MCC Program since 1991, and has issued approximatdy 400 certificates to assist tirst time homebuyers, which have generated approximatdy $2 million in real estate activity. R"solutions were approv"d. (Col1U1lunity Devdopment Director) 4/5ths VOTE REQUIRED 4. RESOLUTION 1567 APPROVING THE REV ISED COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CHIP) GUIDELINES - On 2/1/77, Council approved the implemen~rtion of a Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) to provide low interest loans and grants for low income Chula Vista residents to rehabililate their homes. On 6/7/77. Council adopted a CHIP Manual which assists staff in administering program requirements and detailing property rehabilitation standards. Because program de;mnd has continued to increase, staff has updated the program guidelines. Resolution was approved. (Community Development Director) . . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR' .. d.-I - - . - T RDA Minutes November 18, 1997 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bill Ayers, 44 E. Mankato Stred, Chula Vista, 91910, representing the San Diego County Veterans Advisory Council, stated that the vacancy rate in the veterans home in Barstow is still 113 down from a 200 total for the domiciliary care. The Acting Director, Tom Langley, who is also our project director was here last week and infonned him of this. The State has stated that they will not open Chula Vista or Lancaster if we don't have the home full at Barstow. He also brought to Council's attention that the POW/MIA !lag amendment to the Bill hy Congresswoman Harman went into the defense appropriation bill. There was some doubt as to whether the President would sign the defense appropriation bill. Over the weekend, the President did sign the Bill. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (No items were pulled) OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - none 6. CHAIR/MA YOR'S REPORTCS) - none 7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS - none ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Autheld, CMC/AAE City Clerk d-;Z - - Nav 141991 MiNUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, November 4, 1997 Council Chambers 5:31 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency members: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Chair Horlon ABSENT: Agency members: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director, John D. Goss; Legal Counsel, John M. Kaheny; and City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. OTHER BUSINESS 2. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) - none. 3. CHAIR'S REPORT(S) - none. 4. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS - none. ADIOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5;32 p.m. 10 a Closed Session. RespecttÜlly submitted, Beverly A. Authelet, CMCIAAE City Clerk ~-3 - - .. - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item .3 Meeting Date 02-10-98 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION /5 be¿ ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS.97-20 AND APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH HEYE TRUST, DONALD R. HEYE, TRUSTEE, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 27,000 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 1685 BRANDYWINE AVENUE WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director ?:,~' REVIEWED BY: ",,"tiw 0;.,.. J(j, " ~ 14/Sths Vote: Yes- No.xJ BACKGROUND: Hyspan Precision Products relocated from San Diego to a five acre site on the northeast corner of Brandywine Avenue and Otay Valley Road in 1992. The site is large enough to accommodate additional development. At this time, Donald Heye, President of Hyspan, is proposing to construct a 27,000 square foot industrial building fronting on Otay Valley Road adjacent to his existing plant. The new building will be leased out to an appropriate tenant. The Agency is requested to consider an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) for this project as required by the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan. The OPA is attached to the resolution. RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency adopt Negative Declaration issued under IS-97-20 and adopt to attached Owner Participation Agreement with the Heye Trust. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee (ORC) reviewed the plans for the proposed project at their meeting of January 19, 1998 and unanimously (3-0) approved the project with conditions. The minutes of the meeting are attached as Attachment A. The conditions of the DRC are contained in the minutes and attached to the Dwner Participation Agreement. The Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee has been apprised of the Hyspan project through regular status reports and has expressed support for the project. This project does not require a Special Land Use Permit nor other discretionary approvals from the Project Area Committee. DISCUSSION: The project proposed by Hyspan is a new, freestanding 27,000 square foot industrial building on the easterly half of their existing property (see locator map). The project includes parking and landscaping in conformance with the Otay Valley Road Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum. c=3-( Page 2, Item 3 Meeting Date 02-10-98 The site of the project is presently vacant. The existing Hyspan plan, to the west of the project site, fronts on Brandywine Avenue. The new building will front on Otay Valley Road. It is anticipated that the owner will request a parcel split to separate the two projects. The site is zoned I-l (limited Industrial) and the new building will be leased to a suitable user. Although negotiations with several potential tenants are underway, the users have not been determined as yet. Consequently, a sign program has not been included in the DRC package, but will be reviewed by staff when appropriate. The plans for the project, attached to the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA), include 7,000 square feet of office space. The required amount of 55 parking spaces are provided. Setbacks and landscaping are also in compliance with Redevelopment Plan guidelines. The project was recommended for approval by staff and unanimously approved by the ORC with several minor conditions related to future signage, roof mounted equipment. wainscoting and final color selection. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted as Initial Study, IS-97-20, of possible environmental impacts associated with this project. Based on the attached Initial Study (Attachment B), the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and, therefore, recommends that the Negative Declaration issued on IS-97-20 be adopted. Staff recommends approval of the project. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated construction cost of the project is $1 million. Tax increment revenue of approximately $10,000 will accrue to the Agency in the first year following completion of construction. Since the tenant is not known at this time, new employment figures are not available. IFK! H:\HOME\COMMOEV\STAFF.REP\O2.10.98\HEYETRST [Janual'/ 27. 1998 14:01pmll ~-d-. RESOLUTION NO. /56 g RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-97-20 AND APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH HEYE TRUST, DONALD R. HEYE, TRUSTEE, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 1685 BRANDYWINE AVENUE WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the Heye Trust, Donald R. Heye, Trustee (the "Developer") desires to develop real property within the Otay Valley Road 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 27,000 sq. ft. 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 recommendations and has approved the Project 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; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-97-20, of possible environmental impacts associated with this project and has determined, as set forth in the Negative Declaration IS-97-20, that there would be no significant environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve, find and determine as follows: 1. Negative Declaration IS-97-20 is hereby adopted. 2. The Owner Participation Agreement by and between the Agency and Heye Trust, Donald R. Heye, Trustee, for the development of an industrial building located at 1685 Brandywine Avenue, is hereby approved in the form presented. 3. The Chairman is hereby authorized to sign the Owner Participation Agreement on behalf of the Agency. Presented by Approved as to form by ~L ~. Chris Salomone Director of Community Development [(FKI H,\HOMEICOMMDEV\RESOS\HEYETRST 1F"""y 4. 1998 ¡g,54amll .3-3 Recording Requested By: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 When Recorded Mail To: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Alln: Yolanda Garcia (Space Above This Line For Recorder) APN; 644-040-28 OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT [1685 Brandywine Avenue] Heve Trust. November 19. 1987 Donald R. Heve. Trustee 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 Heye Trust, November 19, 1987, Donald R. Heye, Trustee (hereinafter referred to collectively as "DEVELOPER") effective as of February 10, 1998. WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desires to develop real property within the OTAY VALLEY ROAD 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 27,000 sq. ft. 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 recommendations and has approved the Project 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. WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an initial study, 18-97-20, of possible environmental impacts associated with this project and has determined that there would be no significant environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER agree as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Agreement. 2. The property to be developed is described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 644-040- 28 located at 1685 Brandywine Avenue, Chula Vista, CA., shown on locator map attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein ("Property"). 1 ...J - c/ - - 3. 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 "1". B. DEVELOPER shall obtain all necessary federallstate and local governmental permits and approvals and abide by all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, policies and approvals. DEVELOPER further agrees that this Agreement is contingent upon DEVELOPER securing said permits and approvals. DEVELOPER shall pay all applicable development impact and processing fees including, without limitation, City of Chula Vista sewer capacity and traffic signal 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 himse/~ his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under Dr through them, that there shall be nD discrimination against Dr segregation D~ any person Dr group Df persons Dn account Df race, color, creed, national Drigin Dr ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, Dccupancy, tenure, Dr enjoyment Df the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself Dr any persons claiming under Dr through him establish Dr permit any such practice Df discrimination Dr segregation with reference tD the selection, location, number, use Dr Dccupancy Df 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 Dr any part of the Property, the following language shall appear: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himse/~ his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under Dr through him, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject tD the following conditions: That there shall be nD discrimination against Dr segregation D~ any person Dr group Df persons, Dn account Df race, color, creed, national Drigin, Dr ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring use, Dccupancy, tenure, or enjoyment Df the premises herein leased, nor shall the lessee himself or any 2 ~-S - - . - 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." 4. The Property shall be developed subject to the conditions imposed by (a) the Design Review Committee and the AGENCY as described in Exhibit "2" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; DEVELOPER acknowledges the validity of and agrees to accept such conditions. 5. 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 Agency shall have the right to enforce this lien either by foreclosing on the Property or by forwarding the amount to be collected to the Tax Assessor who shall make it part of the tax bill. B. DEVELOPER shall promptly and diligently repair, restore, alter, add to, remove, and replace, as required, the Property and all improvements to maintain or comply as above, or to remedy all damage to or destruction of all or any part of the improvements. Any repair, restoration, alteration, addition, removal, maintenance, replacement and other act of compliance under this Paragraph (hereafter collectively referred to as "Restoration") shall be completed by DEVELOPER whether or not funds are available from insurance proceeds or subtenant contributions. The Restoration shall satisfy the requirements of any sublease then in effect for the Property or improvements with respect thereto or, if no sublease is then in effect, shall be repaired or restored in the building standard shell condition existing immediately prior to the date of such damage or destruction. C. In order to enforce all above maintenance provisions, the parties agree that the Community Development Director is empowered to make reasonable determinations as to whether the Property is in a first class condition. If he determines it is not, he (1) will notify the DEVELOPER in writing and (2) extend a reasonable time to cure. If a cure or substantial progress to cure has not been made within that time, the Director is authorized to effectuate the cure by City forces or otherwise, the cost of which will be promptly reimbursed by the DEVELOPER. 3 ..3-ro In the event that there is a dispute over whether the Property is in a first class condition or over the amount of work and expense authorized by the Director to cure, the parties agree that the City Manager or 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 (10) days of being informed of such decision. All City action to cure shall be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. In the event that the Director decides without dispute, or the City Manager decides in dispute, that the City has to cure and the amount of cure, then DEVELOPER has to reimburse the City within thirty (30) 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. D. FIRST CLASS CONDITION DEFINED. First class condition and repair, means Restoration which is necessary to 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. 6. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein shall run with the land. DEVELOPER shall have the right, without prior approval of AGENCY, to assign its rights and delegate its duties under this Agreement. 7. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein are for the express benefit of the AGENCY and for all owners of real property within the boundaries of the OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA as the same now exists or may be hereafter amended. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the provisions of this Agreement may be specifically enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction by the AGENCY on its own behalf or on behalf of any owner of real property within the boundaries of the OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. 8. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that this Agreement may be recorded by the AGENCY in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California. 9. DEVELOPER shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless AGENCY and the City of Chula Vista, and their respective Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees (collectively, "Iiabilities") incurred by the AGENCY arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) AGENCY's approval of this Agreement, (b) AGENCY's or City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the Project contemplated herein, and (c) DEVELOPER's construction and operation of the Project permitted hereby. 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. 4 ...3-7 .... ---..VVV'V r, ua 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA "AGENCY" DAtED: By: Shirley Horton, Chairman "DEVELOPER" Fe-¿S .z.", /tp, A"'" ~ ~,- DATED: By: , Heve Trust, November 19, 1987 Donald R. Heye. Trustee NOTARY; Please attach acknowledgment card. APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: ç 5 ..3-? - - 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA "AGENCY" DATED: By: Shirley Horton, Chairman "DEVELOPER" DATED: By: Heye Trust, November 19, 1987 Donald R. Heye, Trustee NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card. ¿~~ 5 ..3 -9 . ..._.~-- c,".-.-----.---------.- EXHIBIT 1 -- ",^YVAWY""" ~ '- ,. '---... .--- Be . 00 " II Î .........,.. !O"""I-"I---I'o"'oi"'I'I~9~1:-') ~ IIIIII¡!!H~ Ii ¡' P!Hi!!!!¡~ Ii !!!IIUlin !l1!m ~ III J ! ¡ Ii h P ~ !! II i II !íl';¡;!p~n jlihli 1!§ o;¡I;i¡!.q Z .! I Ii i . ,> i II ! I! ¡¡! ¡ ~ . ¡! '.';-' ¡' i' . Hi I; , . 'I , , ¡ ¡ì ;1!¡¡¡i¡¡¡¡nmmm¡pip¡¡ ~ ¡ II . . P!ll! 1¡¡ î!¡!I!ìl'ii i!il!l ~ ! . Z 0 , " ¡m¡¡ íiimm¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ !'I""""""""""'""""'" I~mm;~~";i,~i"iiiiillil ~ , I I II I ~NDSCAPE CONCE~ P~ 4-(0 (!) I ¡ ; I I ÞÞÞÞÞÞ I I 1 ¡ '. OTAY COMMERCE CENTER > Iii I : ¡ . :: CHU~ V>STA. =UFORN'A ! I Iii 0; ¡i ~ 'I Z II ~ I ~ ! & ¡ Ii I ~ ¡ ~ ~ i ¡ ¡ . ¡ Ii ¡ þ " i ! ~ - i Ii: c. ¡ I ",I ~ . ¡ ,.. , :! ii! ¡ ~ i ! I'! i ! : ¡ i " i "- 0 0 !, i!1 ¡æ"n;REau",; - --- : ~r~~f~~1:J!t!:r~;~~];~~~~ orAY VALLEY ROAD EB "~"""~ij~¡~i.nî.¡¡I"wr~'~II¡'jr~'iiII¡Tij¡i¡fiij~t~r . .' I i., L, Ii, J ttl II i ¡ìi1 § Ii ~ I ¡ .' i: ,I ~ ¡,j I ill ¡! ! i~1 ~ i', Ii I I I" ,'" ; '; ~ ¡IIIII'III" ,'" OTAYVALLEY I. ;:H::>'¡E.:3-¡t ., COMMERCE CENTER :;s::!I~ " ~"'n«:n~¡;¡Li\ß'i!<i).~~~I»@ :~ ::1." :!]¡ ¡:O\J!!~Li\\lfl¡¡'U'Li\,C@!!i!n@~$&\i![Q)o",G«) :~;~,ui ------ ---"-<-~------- ----- . , ..3-/~ I§ FLOOR PLAN '¡rill: I: OTAY VALLEY I éW:~ql .. :. COMMERCE CENTER I "¡!::j!= i~ 0'" ~£¡;¡CIO~~fiIiIl\\~II!@.j~j@~ . -- ' ,;Iu C~IJU\\;~$1rI\\,CmJlI!n(ijf$&i!!iJlIO~@. :i;,~~~i - - -.- II 'j ¡¡ ~ ~--~~-- ." " ~----." --4 ~ "=T+- ~.-,-lll ~ '" '" I , Þ ,I Z leD ~ :¿j -~ ~ 0 ----- ~ - ---'--~. ¡, ,I II ( ¡ ,¡~ ',.I II I; , I ' -I I " , / , ,-- -- -- -------- _.""'"~ ~ ~ , , c,,", I "-".) !;, 'I' M E9 '!I -.3 -(.3 11111,111: Ii OTAY VALLEY .1 ëw:~ql . . COMMERCE CENTER ¡ ~! : : í ¡ : i ¡¡I 1"b\"!:lEl~¡'¡¡\\~¡ \IJ.j~~@~ .11--11 ,:1;1 1!:l!lDl¡\\"'J$'ii'¡\\,Ii:\lJIDi>!n\IJ~$¡\\¡ !J1IIE~\IJ :~",~~i --' -. ..- Z E u> "' ~ ~ g ~ ~ I I", "' "' ::;; p.! ::;; ::;; ¡; ~ ¡; ¡; 6 £; =' =' z <5 2 2 z ! w ! !i¡ : II: \ ".,. II! ,,'.,'. ". 'T"-+ i¡,,~ . ¡ "', .-- II ;11 .. ": . ,. . )111 -1'::[. Ri' '¡,i II . ¡i: i ie' ¡II' .<!, ¡II; : ¡Ii 'Ii' d : ¡h ' "I ;'! ,¡!¡ I" ¡I, .. 'í 'J I¡ ,'¡ ,,¡ I i~ ~ ~ I! I 'I,! i- I . II " ' !i : il ';1 / I" ( ; : JI iF : ¡ ¡I! 1 I i'l II ~ ,/ (WI is: .j..':.:r::::I ( Ii: ".1 .ll.l. !II ¡¡I!. I' .. '" ¡¡Ii. . .. .. 'I ' "1 ", " , , .. , ~. II'!! ,¡ ," I'!, ¡! ,;, ' ,I !'! \ ¡¡ !i¡ ï'l i!~ I!: 'Ii i É É É ! . . , ;; -3-r'-l Il!] I¡IIII-I: I' OTAY VALLEY I ~i~::¡ql ,~ BUILDING ELEVATIONS ,,"". COMM.ERCE CENTER . :'~::'jl~ ¡" ' ""'i'I!:Õ:l20!i""'~@..1~1@œ; o~.-..'t ! I .!¡I !:1I~~"'IJll$'ii""',lG@~OO1r1f(j"~"'OO@OÕ:G@ :!="~h - . ..- :.i ~ ¡¡~ ¡i!!~ U!I!ìI ~ 'loLL ~ ~o I ~ ,I~ ¡.~. ¡'hi!' ~~ ~!~ i!i !!:~ ,:,¡ .. "~".,, .~~ I >!I , w~ I i' , ¡;I: ¡I ~: t I I i¡l( II ~I 1. ' Ii ~ ¡ !I + I '¡I¡J ! lì ' I'~ ¡ I, in ' II .Ilã ! I II " II II II II II II l' !¡ II ! II II II @ I, "" II ~ II "" i' ~ I: ~ I II "" I II '" I Ii ~ II "" I II I, I: I II II Ii II Ii II II II II II I' II II I I) II .....3 - ( s- _. .., EXHIBIT 2 Conditions of Approval Owner Participation Agreement Heye Trust, November 19, 1987, Donald R. Heye, Trustee 1685 Brandywine Avenue Chula Vista, CA DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Signage shall be reviewed by staff and, if there are more than two separate tenants, the signage proposal shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. 2. Any intent to include a free standing sign shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. 3. All roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened by architectural building elements. If necessary, the height of the building walls shall be increased to screen any roof-mounted equipment. 4. A graffiti-resistant or sacrificial coating shall be specified for all wall surfaces. 5. A wainscoating to read as a thicker line at the base of the building shall be examined by the design team. This proposal can be approved at staff level. 6. The approved colors shall be as submitted, with the exception of the white color (Milky Way). 7. Please note that, prior to submitting for building permits, you are responsible for obtaining approval of all changes required by the above conditions of approval. Two sets of revised plans are to be submitted to the Design Review Coordinator, with one set becoming the approved Design Review file copy. H,IHOMEICOMMDEVIKASSMANIHEYE.OPA January 26. 1998 J-lto -. . . . .;... :0' '0"""; .' 0'" '0'" 0 .'..'. 0.. O. 0 ..' 0." .' .' ~ z ~ u.J Z ; PROJECT g¡ LOCATION SHINOHARA LN . I ~ I ~ . ~ a '-' a '" Z -' u.J a OTAY VALLEY ROAD ~ ~r\U O. .. J~.: - //'.:0' -";;<:". :>. '/..:'00 /. ..0 ~ ,/. - . . . ATTACHMENT A ~'\ MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DRA ¡::- \)ÇJ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE . ì Monday. January 19.1998 Conference Rooms 2 and 3 4:30 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rodriguez, Members Araiza, and Morlon MEMBERS ABSENT: Spethman and Aguilar (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Ann Pedder Pease, Design Review Coordinator 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 Minutes for the meetings of August 18, 1997, and September 8, 1997 could not be voted on due to a lack of quorum. Because of a lack of quorum, due to a resigned mernber, the minutes for the meeting of November 3, 1997, were reviewed, and members present agreed that the minutes reflect what was discussed at that meeting. D. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS 1. DRC-98-26 Dtay Valley Commerce Center Dtay Valley Road & Brandywine Avenue 27 ,000 sq. f1. Industrial Building Staff Presentation The Design Review Coordinator Ms. Ann Pedder Pease reviewed the project, which consists of a new 27,000 sq. ft. free-standing building on the eastern half of an existing parcel containing a free-standing building' on the western half, along with associated landscaping, and parking. She stated to the Committee that staff has no objections to the proposed project. Ms. Pease went over the site plan, and Engineering concerns. 3-1f(; - . . - Design Review Committee 2 January 19, 1998 Member Alfredo Araiza asked about the six color variations presented on the materials board. Ms. Pease directed the question to the applicant. Applicant's Presentation Mike Calhoun, with Richard Yen & Associates, addressed the issue regarding the six color variations on the materials board. He indicated that he would rather have the Committee see a broader range of colors, as the specific color has not yet been decided. Mr. Calhoun continued his presentation reviewing building materials, the second floor layout, and addressed the issues brought up by the Engineering Dept. referring to the proposed lot split. He indicated that the wall being proposed was mainly for screening of the adjacent storage yard. Committee Discussion/Concerns During discussion it was stated by the Committee that they were very pleased with the proposed project. The Committee and applicant reviewed the mezzanine layout, building height, roof top equipment, and building materials. It was mentioned by the Committee members that they approve all the colors submitted with the exception of the (milky) white color. The Committee members all agreed that the wainscoat at the base of the building should reflect as a wider band, and should be reviewed by staff. MSC (Rodriguez/Araiza) (3-0) to approve DRC-98-26 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report; conditions a-e, as is; condo f to read - that the wainscoat shall reflect a wider band at the base of building, and that revised plans showing this shall be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to submittal for building permits; condo g to read - the colors submitted are approved, with the exception of the white (milky) color. E. MEMBERS COMMENTS None L STAFF COMMENTS None G. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. ~~J~ee F' é;d/1 Maureen Casper, Recorder 3-/9 A:I-19-98.min - . ..- - - '-0 ATTACHMENT B Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Otay Valley Commerce Center PROJECT LOCATION: Otay Valley Road, adjacent to parcel on the northeast corner of Otay Valley Road and Brandywine Avenue ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 644-040-20, 21 PROJECT APPLICANT: Donald R. Heye, Trustee, Heye Trust CASE NO: 15-97-20 DATE: June 20, 1997 A. Proiect Setting The approximately 2.5 acre project site is located along Otay Valley Road adjacent to the parcel located at the northeast corner of Otay Valley Road and Brandywine Avenue. Access to the site would be frorn Otay Valley Road and from Brandywine Avenue via a connection in the driveway with the adjacent parcel. Existing surrounding uses include industrial- manufacturing to the north and west, the Chula Vista Auto Park to the south across Otay Valley Road and vacant industrial zoned land to the east. Residential uses exist further north and west of the site. The project site is a graded lot with no existing native vegetation and is relatively level and at-grade with Otay Valley Road. B. Proiect Description The proposed project consists of a 25,000 square foot industrial/warehouse building, approximately 25 feet in height. Onsite parking will be provided with 63 new spaces. Truck loading and offloading facilities will be provided on the north end of the structure with truck access provided via Brandywine Avenue and Otay Valley Road. Visitor parking, landscaping and signage are proposed on the south end of the building facing Otay Valley Road. The building is proposed to be constructed as concrete tilt-up or concrete block. Approximately 80 employees would occupy the building in two shifts. Hours of operation are proposed to extend from 6 a.m. to I a.m. The project will generate approximately 250 average vehicle trips per day. Drainage facilities will be constructed to convey site runoff to existing storm drain facilities. All utilities are accessible from Otay Valley Road. C. CompatibilitY with Zoning and Plans The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Research and Limited Manufacturing and with existing zoning of Limited Industrial. 3-~o - . .. - 15-97-20: Otay Valley Commerce Center 2 D. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The attached Initial Study provides explanations for each of the checklist categories and their application to the proposed project, including areas identified as "no impact" and "less than significant impact". E. MitÏl,ation necessarv to avoid significant effects The proposed project will not result in any significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation is required. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Garry Williams, Planning Department Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Doug Perry, Fire Marshal Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Chula Vista City School District: Lowell Billings Sweetwater Union High School District: Andrew B. Campbell Applicant's Agent: Donald Heye, 1685 Brandywine Avenue, Chula Vista 91911 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan 3. Initial Study This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. æ~~OOrdillator - ..3-.L( -. .. - Case No. 18-97-20 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Donald R. Heye, Trustee, Heye Trust 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1685 Brandywine Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 9191 I (619) 421-1355 4. Name of Proposal: atay Valley Commerce Center 5. Date of Checklist: June 20, 1997 J -.;¿;)... H IHO MEleo MMO EV\M 0 NA eo" s- 97 . 20. eKL Page I - . .. - Po""'olly Po,..] ~ly S'"'"u,, Lm <h.. SI"IOu" U"m s",'nuo' No Imp", Mill,..., Imp", tmpo" I. LAND USE AND PLANNiNG. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 181 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181 policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 181 impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 181 an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The project is consistent with existing General Plan designations and zoning. No environmental plans or policies exist in the project area that could be affected by the project. No agricultural activities exist on the project site. The project site is surrounded by similar industrial uses. ß. POPULATION AND HOUSiNG. Would the proposal: e) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 181 population projections? f) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 181 0 directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? g) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 181 housing? Comments: The project consists of urban infill development, and while it may economically facilitate future surrounding industrial development, its impacts are not considered significantly growth-inducing. The project site does not contain any existing housing. ß. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 181 0 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 181 0 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181 features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 181 any unique geologic or physical features? ..3 -02 3 H \H 0 MElCO MMD EVIM ON A COliS- 97.20. CKL Page 2 -. .. - P.,..ti",y P""""'y SI,......, L~. <h.. ~,.;n.... U.I," Sl,.",..., N. Imp." MI,;,..., Imp..' Imp." e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 181 0 either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 181 0 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 0 181 0 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: Grading of the project site will be required to accommodate building pads, outdoor use areas and parking. This will necessarily require some excavation and fill operations. However, since the project site is relatively level, only minor' grading would be required and environmental impacts associated with such grading are considered less than significant. A site specific soils report will be required as a part of grading permit/building permit plan check process. ID. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 181 0 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 181 hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 181 of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181 water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181 of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181 waters? ..3 -.;¿ c.f H. IHO MEICO MMO EV\M aNA CO"S- 9 7.20. CKL Page 3 -. ..- P.",,;.lIy P""Ii.lly S;";fi",, L... <b" S;..;fi,," ""... s;"m"., N. Imp." M;,;",.d Imp..' Imp." j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 f8I otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: Measures to avoid impacts associated with storrnwater runoff will be incorporated into the project as a part of standard grading plan and building plan review. These measures will include site specific drainage facilities to adequately convey anticipated runoff volumes. IV. AIR QUALITY. Wouid the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 181 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 f8I or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 f8I e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 f8I 0 non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The project will increase traffic levels in the project area by approximately 250. Average Daily Trips (ADT). Vehicular emissions resulting from the project are not considered significant, either on an individual or cumulative basis. v. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 f8I 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 f8I nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 f8I f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 f8I alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 f8I h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) J -.,¿ S' H, \H 0 ME\CO M MD EVIM 0 NACO" S.97. 20. CKL Page 4 - - P""""" P""",)" St,.III"., L... Ib,. St..ill,.., U.,... St,,'II,,", N. Imp..' Mill,.." 1m..,' 1m.... Comments: As mentioned above, the project will increase traffic levels in the project area by approximately 250 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The impacts associated with this increase are not considered to be significant. VI. 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., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 181 c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 181 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 181 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181 t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181 efforts? Comments: The project is proposed in an area previously entirely disturbed and graded. No impacts to biological resources would result from project implementation. VII. 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 and 0 0 0 181 inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181 protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The project would not use extraordinary amounts of energy or affect mineral resources. VIII. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 181 0 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 181 health hazard? ..3 -02 6,. H. It! 0 ME\CO MMD EVIM ON A CO"S- 97 - 20. CKL Page 5 - . .. - P....".lIy P...",.lIy Slg,'II~" Lm <boo S;g,'II~o' Uo'", SlgollI~", No Imp." Mltlg".d Imp", Imp." d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 181 0 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181 brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The project proposes activities that would include the use and storage of volatile and/or hazardous materials. Appropriate regulatory restrictions on the storage and use of such materials will be required by the City of Chula Vista Fire Department and the County of San Diego Site Assessment and Mitigation Division. Compliance with existing regulations will avoid any significant impacts related to hazards. IX. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 181 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181 Comments: Increased traffic from the proposed project and activities on the site would increase noise levels in the project vicinity. No significant impacts to any sensitive receptors would result from project implementation, nor would the project violate the City's Noise Ordinance. X. 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 0 181 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181 c) Schools? 0 0 0 181 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181 roads? ..3 -.;2 Î H, \H 0 ME\CO MMD EVIM 0 NACO" S- 97.211 CKL Page 6 - . ..- Po,o"'",, P""""" SI";o..,, L... 'h" ",,;ono, Vol... ""'."01 N, Imp", MI<I,",d Imp", Imp'" e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 Comments: No new governmental services would be required to serve the project. XL Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the 0 0 0 181 City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) FireÆMS The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is three miles away and would be associated with a 6 minute or less response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: An Automatic Aid Agreement with the City of San Diego provides for response from San Diego Fire Station No.6. In addition, Fire Station No.3 in the City of Chula Vista is proposed for relocation to Sunbow, which would significantly reduce response time. b) Police The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62. I 0% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Police Department has indicated that the project will not impact police services. c) Traffic The Threshold Standards require 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 at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The 250 additional trips generated by the project, would not cause Level of Service on local roadways or intersections to fall below LOS "C". d) ParkslRecreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,OOO population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The project will not create any new demand for park or recreation facilities or services. -.3-';;~ H.IH 0 ME\CO MMO EVIM ON A CO"S-97 - 20. CKL Page 7 - . . . P",.';,II, P.".".II, 5;,.m"" Lm <h.. ~,.m"" u.,... 5;,.m"" N. Imp", M;,;,..,d Imp", Imp." e) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The project will be required to install all necessary drainage facilities to adequately convey runoff consistent with City Engineering Standards. f) Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Adequate sewer capacity exists to serve the proposed project. g) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: Application of required water conservation devices or fee offset will reduce the project's impact to a less than significant level. Xli. 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) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 181 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181 Comments: Extension of facilities to serve the project will be required. Existing infrastructure adequate to serve the project's needs exist on adjacent properties. ~ -.;2.. q H \H 0 MElCO MMD EVIM ON A CO"5- 97 - 20. CKL Page 8 - . . - .~ .",",',11, ."..H,II, SI,"m,"", Lm ,"," s..m,"", U"],u sl,"m,,", N" Imp." MIH,.',d Imp'" Imp'" XIII. AESTHETiCS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181 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 0 181 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181 d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 181 0 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) Produce an additional amount of spill light? 0 D 181 0 Comments: The project will result in construction of a single-story building and parking areas. The project will be subject to design review. Due to the location, nature and size of the proposed project, and application of the design review process, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts to visual resources or to produce any significant adverse light and glare impacts. XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or D 0 0 181 the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 181 aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 D 181 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or D 0 0 181 sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 181 D EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The project site is highly disturbed, graded and surrounded by development. No impacts to cultural resources would result from project implementation. XV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Wili the 0 D 181 0 proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontoiogical resources? ..3-~ R \H 0 MEICO MMD EVIM 0 N A CO"8- 97.20. CKL Page 9 - . ..- "".".11, """,,,ll, sl,.m"" L... 'h.. SI,.m"" U.,... SI,.ill"., N. Imp." Mill,.." Imp'" Imp." Comments: No known paleontological resources exist on the site. The project would not result in any significant impacts to paleontological resources. XVI. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 181 c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181 plans or programs? Comments: The project would not create any demand for parks or recreational facilities, nor would it impact any existing park/recreation plans. XVII. MANDATORY FiNDiNGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative- Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 181 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-sustaining 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: None of the impacts resulting from the project are not considered significant and the project as a whole would not degrade the environment or substantially affect any biological habitats or cultural resources. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any long-term environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 181 0 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) .3-.3 ( K\HOME\COMMDEV\MONACOUs.97.20 CKL Page 10 - - ..- P",,';,II, P"...;,II, SI"m"" Lou 'h" ""mm' V,'ou Si"m"" N, Impu' Mill"", Imp", Imp", Comments: No cumulative effects would result from this project. d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 181 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The project is not of sufficient size or scope to cause any such impacts. ...J -.3 .;;t. H, \H 0 MElCO MMD EVIM 0 N A CO.5- 97 . 20. CKL Page II - - . - EJ'¡'VIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Land Use and Planning D Transportation/Circulation D Public Services D Population and Housing D Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems D Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics D Water D Hazards D Culmral Resources D Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMiNATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and . a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0 there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least 0 one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a 'potentially significant impacts' or 'potentially significant unless mitigated.' An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Sig(2?? ~ c; /3ò /9 7 Date Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista J-33 HIHOMEICOMMDEV\MONACOUS-97 .20. CKL Page 12 " . ."