The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Packet 1997/04/08 Notice is hereby given that the Chair of the Redevelopment Agency has called and will convene a special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, Tuesday, April 8, 1997 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: ". declare un"er n~nnltv of nor"JrV that I ~m ~hair . ,.. . n th- em~I~'G"b "',, 0 '" ,,:cnctthatIPostec! ~~>~:;'~:~!c~'~ . ,,' "" J" ","¡,,:;;:~ the DA~~:.jI.jlq1 S¡¡:",£D2l1-HIð ~~REV1SED Tuesday, April 8, 1997 Council Chambers 6:00 p,m, Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agencv of the City of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Agency Members Moot -' Padilla_, Rindone -' Salas -, and Chair Horton- CONSENT CALENDAR ( Items 2 through 3 ) (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, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 25, 1997 (Special Joint Meeting) 3. RESOLUTION 1535 AUTHORIZING THE CONTRIBUTION OF $15,000 TO THE COUNTY FOR UPDATE OF SOUTH BAY REGIONAL CENTER MASTER PLAN--County Supervisor Greg Cox has requested that the City participate in the funding to update the South Bay Regional Center Master Plan, The 1990 plan incorporated the space needs for the facility through the year 2010. It is now necessary to extend the planning horizon to 2015, The Agency has been asked to share a portion of these costs with the County in consideration of the services provided and economic benefits accrued from the Center, The facility is located at Third Avenue and H Street within the Town Centre 1 Redevelopment Project Area, Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) . . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR" . ADJOURNMENT TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING At this time, the Redevelopment Agency will adjourn to the Council meeting. ************* - . Agenda -2- April 8, 1997 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. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER GRANTING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT TO TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC. FOR THE REMODELING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY--Texaco is proposing to remodel and expand the existing service station located on the southwest comer of Broadway and L Street. The construction of a new facility would include gasoline pumps, a convenience store, and fast food services with a drive-thru. The project site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and final approval of a Special Use Permit and Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement is required by the Redevelopment Agency, Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) Continued from the meeting of 3/18/97. a) RESOLUTION 1531 ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-97-07 AND APPROVING SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT FOR THE REMODELLING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY b) RESOLUTION 1532 APPROVING AN OWNER/TENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR. AND MRS. ROY E. NICKERSON AND TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC. FOR THE REMODELLING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS This is the time the Redevelopment Agency will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one of the City's Boards, Commissions, and/or Committees. 5. REPORT: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REGARDING SALE OF CERTAIN BAYFRONT PROPERTIES AND THE CITY'S RETENTION OF ACCESS AND VIEW RIGHTS ON LAGOON DRIVE .. _. . .. Agenda -3- April 8, 1997 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 6. DIRECTOR'S REPORTlS) 7. CHAIR'S REPORT(s) 8. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on April 15, 1997 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 permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of.fi!1!!l action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Agency's return from closed session, reports of.fi!1!!l action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped, Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Clerk's Office. 9. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 . Instructions to negotiators regarding purchase price and terms for disposition of Agency-owned property at 760 Broadway (Parcel Nos, 571-200-13, 14, 15, 16, 17), Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone) and Broadway Village Business Homes, LP. [M :IHOMEICOMMDEVIAGENDASI04.08.97 ,RDAJ - MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, March 25, 1997 Council Chambers 6:25 p.m, Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers John S. Moot, Stephen C. Padilla, Jerry R. Rindone, Mary Salas, and Chair/Mayor Shirley A. Horton ALSO PRESENT: John Goss, Director/City Manager; John M. Kaheny, Legal Counsel/City Attorney; Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk; and Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk, CONSENT CALENDAR (Item pulled: 3) THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR WAS OFFERED BY MA YOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived, title read, passed, and approved unanimously 5-0 for the minutes of March 11, 1997, and 4-0-0-1 for the minutes of March 18, 1997, with Padilla abstaining. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 11, 1997 (Special Joint Meeting); March 18, 1997 (Regular Meeting) 3. REPORT: AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1996-- Presented for Council/Agency information and acceptance are the Audited Financial Statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1996, as prepared by the independent audit firm of Moreland & Associates, Both the City's and the Agency's Annual Financial Reports received unqualified opinions from the independent audit firm. Staff recommends the Council and Agency accept the Fiscal Year 1995-96 Financial Statements, (Director of Finance) Continued from the meeting of 3/11/97. (Pulled by Agency/Councilmember Rindone) Agency/Councilmember Rindone asked if there is sufficient revenue to sustain nearly a $7 million debt service. Robert Powell, Director of Finance, explained that typically when City's finances are analyzed, the most common type of analysis is done by a municipal financial analyst from the bond rating agency. Rating agencies look very closely at debt capacity. The general fund budget is only responsible for $3.8 million out of $6,5 million; the $3.8 million is approximately 6.2 percent of the budget which is a reasonable debt level according to the guidelines by rating agencies. When 10 percent is reached, rating agencies begin asking questions and want to make sure only those projects critical to the City are being financed. When 15 percent is reached, it affects the credit rating because 15 percent of the budget would be viewed as a fixed cost. The current generdl fund debt level is manageable, within a conservative range, and would be viewed positively by the rdting analyst. MSUC (Horton/Padilla) to accept the FY 1995-96 Financial Statements, passed, and approved unanimously 5-0. * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * ***Recessed at 6:26 p.m. and reconvened at 10:10 p.m.**" ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. .;2.- I 11 -. - .. Minutes March 25, 1997 Page 2 ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (Item 3 - The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.) OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: None, 5, CHAIR'S/MAYOR'S REPORT: None. 6, AGENCY/COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk by: Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk .;).-.2.. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item~ Meeting Date 04/08/97 ITEM TITLE: Resolution /~3 S*' Authorizing the contribution of $15,000 to the County for Update of South Bay Regional Center Master Plan SUBMITTED BY: Comm,,", D,o",o,m,", D;"~ §., REVIEWED BY: Executive Directo~ ~ ./J' ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes..x.. No_) BACKGROUND: County Supervisor Greg Cox has requested that the Redevelopment Agency participate in the funding of an update to the South Bay Regional Center Master Plan (letter attached). In 1990, the Omni group prepared an updated master plan for this facility which is located at Third Avenue and H Street within the City's Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area, The plan incorporated the space needs for the facility through the year 2010. It is now necessary to extend the planning horizon to 2015. The cost of the study is estimated at $50,000. The Agency has been asked to share these costs with the County in consideration of the services provided and economic benefits accruing from the Center. RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency authorize the contribution of $15,000 towards the funding of the study, BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: In 1990, the Omni study indicated the need to construct approximately 304,000 gross square foot building and parking structures adjacent to the existing center on County property. The total estimated cost of these facilities was $123.4 million. It is now considered appropriate to expand the timeline of the study from 2010 to 2015 at a cost of $50,000. The specific tasks to be addressed in the study will include: A facility audit of the regional center documenting the current occupancy and physical condition, Documentation of current space deficiencies and problems for occupants of the regional center, including the preparation of a space validation. Determination of the functions to be housed at the regional center. Identification of potential lease consolidation savings. Preparation of five, ten, and twenty year space projections for functions to be housed at the regional center. ~ -I 'I -. - .. Page 2, Item :3 Meeting Date 04/08/97 Identification of a phased building project including required renovation of the regional center. Estimation of the cost of the proposed projects. The Agency has a long-standing interest and involvement in the Center. In the 1970's, City staff worked with the Board of Supervisors to locate the Center in downtown Chula Vista and issued lease revenue bonds for its construction. In the late 1980's, Chula Vista contributed $1.3 million towards the renovation of the Center to accommodate superior courts. In return, the County allowed the Redevelopment Agency to retain 100% of the tax increments from the expansion of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area (although the Center is actually in the Town Centre I Project Area). At that time, Town Centre II was generating approximately $400,000/yr. In FY 1995/96, the tax increment revenue had grown to approximately $650,000. Expansion of the Center will have benefits for the City in terms of additional employment, ancillary professional/commercial activity and increased visitors to the downtown area which is commensurate with the goals and objectives of the Town Centre I Implementation Plan adopted by the Agency in 1994. It is therefore recommended that the Agency favorably consider the County's request and provide $15,000 for participation in the Omni study, FISCAL IMPACT: The South Bay Regional Center is an integral part of the economy of downtown Chula Vista. The Center provides employment, generates spinoff commercial and professional activity and brings many people to downtown Chula Vista, Expansion of the Center will expand these beneficial activities for local commerce, Negotiations with the County for improvement of the Center in 1988 to allow for superior courts resulted in the contribution of $1,3 million by the Redevelopment Agency in return for the Agency's retention of 100% of the tax increments accruing from the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project expansion. There are not sufficient funds in the Town Centre I budget to cover this expenditure. However, there are available funds in the Bayfront "Planning, Survey and Design" account (990-9907-5516) which can be transferred to the Town Centre I Professional Services account #992-9920-5201, Approval of the resolution will result in the expenditure of $15,000 from Town Centre I. IFK} H,\HOMElCOMMOEV\STAFF.REPl04-0B-97\m..pl,",upd lAp';' 3, 1997 }B,37om}] ..f-~ .. - . RESOLUTION NO, /~--1:r RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CONTRIBUTION OF $15,000 TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR AN UPDATE OF THE 1990 OMNI STUDY FOR UTILIZATION OF THE SOUTH BAY REGIONAL CENTER WHEREAS, in 1990, the County of San Diego commissioned Omni Group to do a Space Utilization Study ("Study") of the South Bay Regional Center ("Center") which is located within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Study projected space needs for the Center through the year 2010; and, WHEREAS, the County now desires to expand the Study to determine space needs through the year 2015; and, WHEREAS, the updated Study is estimated to cost $50,000; and, WHEREAS, the County has requested that the Agency share costs of the Study since the Center is located within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area; and, WHEREAS, the Agency has determined that the Center will help to eliminate blighting influences and provides economic benefits to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area and the City; and, WHEREAS, the expansion of the Center is commensurate with the goals and objectives of the Town Centre I Implementation Plan adopted by the Agency in 1 994, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: 1, The Redevelopment Agency does hereby authorize $15,000 to be contributed to the County of San Diego towards the update study of space needs of the South Bay Regional Center. 2, Said funds are available in the Bayfront Planning Survey and Design Account (990- 9907-5516) which will be transferred to the Town Centre I Professional Services Account (992- 9920-5201 ). Presented by Approved as to form by @Át S-~ Chris Salomone ')- Director of Community Development [lFK! H,'HOMElCOMMDEV'RESOS'm"pl,n,,", lAp'" 1, 1997 {S,37pmll .J-3 .. - . GREG COX l~ -"I SUPERVISOR, fIRST DISTRICT -81997: SAN DIEGO COUNTY ROARD Of SUPERVISORS ---- I --- February 27,1997 The Honorable Shirley Horton Mayor, City ofChula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Dear Mr'~ The population of the South Bay is projected to continue to grow at a rapid pace and place increasing demands on the Municipal and Superior Courts now housed at the South Bay Regional Center in Chula Vista. The San Diego Association of Governments projects a 70.6% population increase in the South Bay Judicial District between 1990 and 2015. The Courts indicate that criminal, civil and family law filings have been growing as the South Bay community attorneys recognize that Superior Court judges are available to handle these cases. In 1990, the Omni Group prepared an update to the South Bay Regional Center Master Plan. This master plan incorporated the projected space needs through the year 2010 for functions now at the regional center and for justice related functions in leased space. The Omni study indicated the need to construct an approximately 304,000 gross square foot building directly north of the existing regional center and south of "H" Street. The master plan also indicated the need to construct several parking structures west of the regional center. The total estimated cost associated with constructing new facilities and renovation ofthe existing regional center was estimated to be $123.4 million. It is now appropriate to extend the planning horizon to the year 2015 considering the growth projections as well as the existing and currently planned trends in a master plan update. I know that Jack Miller, the Director of General Services and City Manager John Goss discussed the need for the update at their meeting of January 16, 1997. I believe it would be in the best interest of the City ofChula Vista's Redevelopment Agency and the County of San Diego to consider sharing the costs of the update, estimated to be $50,000, J- <I COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER . 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, ROOM 335 . SAN DIEGO,CA92101-2470 '161~ 531-5511 FaxI61~235-0644 0 P""""OO'od'"""'oopO' .. - - -- The Honorable Shirley Horton February 27,1997 Page Two The specific tasks to be addressed in the master plan update would include the following: . A facility audit of the regional center documenting the current occupancy and physical condition . Documentation of current space deficiencies and problems for occupants of the regional center, including the preparation of a space validation . Detennination of the functions to be housed at the regional center . Identification of potential lease consolidation savings . Preparation of five, ten, and twenty year space projects for functions to be housed at the regional center . Identification of a phased building project including required renovation of the regional center . Estimation of the costs of the proposed projects (s) A consultant can be retained for the estimated cost of$50,OOO. County staff will provide substantial resources in the preparation of the master plan update, I look forward to the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency's cooperation and assistance in planning for future court facilities. Please feel free to contact Jack Miller at 694-2527 if you have questions. Sib GREG co Supervisor, First District cc: Council members, City of Chula Vista Lawrence B. Prior III, Chief Administrative Officer Lari Sheehan, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer John A. Miller, Director, Department of General Services Chris Salamone, Community Development Director, City ofChula Vista .3- S .. - . REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT 4 Item Æ,;1. f /) Meeting Date ~ 4 If{ q '7 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: To consider granting a Special land Use Permit to Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc, for the remodelling and expansion of a Service Station at 902 Broadway a) RESOLUTION 15'3 ( Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration lS-97-07 and approving Special land Use Permit for the remodelling and expansion of a service station at 902 -Broadway b) RESOLUTION 153 J..Approving àn Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson and Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc, for the remodelling and expansion of a Service Station at 902 Broadway SUBMITTED BY: Commo"", "'~'o,m."' Direct:~':>. REVIEWED BY: Executive Director J~ \;yJ, TIu \ (4/5ths Vote: Yes- No_X..! BACKGROUND: D~ Texaco is proposing to remodel and expand the existing service station located on the southwest corner of Broadway and l Street at 902 Broadway (see attached locator Map). Texaco leases the property from the owners Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson, The proposed Texaco project consists of the demolition of the existing structures, including a single family residence, and the construction of a new facility that will include five gasoline pumps, a convenience store, and fast food services with a drive-thru restaurant (see drawings attached to the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement (OTPA) as Exhibit A), The Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed project and issued Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-97-07 of possible environmental impacts, The project site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and final approval is required by the Redevelopment Agency. Service Stations are conditional uses in all zones in the City. RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency hold the Public Hearing and approve the resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-97-07; approving the Special land Use Permit; and approving the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement (OTPA) , BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed project at its meeting of February 17, 1997 and recommended approval of the project subject to conditions listed in Exhibit B of the OTPA (minutes of Design Review Committee are not available at this time), The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project at its meeting of February 26, 1997 and recommended approval subject to conditions listed in the Agency Resolution (see Attachment 2, Planning Commission minutes). '-I ~- ( - - .. .. 4 Page 2, Item~ Meeting Date Ga/ J/flJ¿ ( q 7 The Resource Conservation Commission reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-97-07 at its meeting of March 10, 1997, and recommended its adoption to the Redevelopment Agency (see Attachment 2, Resource Conservation Commission minutes). DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics The project site consists of two relatively Jevel parcels totalling 30,927 sq.ft, (,71 acres) located at the southwest corner of Broadway and L Street. The southerly parcel currently contains a vacant single family residence and detached garage (this constitutes a nonconforming use within the CoT zone), The northerly corner parcel contains four gasoline pumps and an automotive service building with two service bays as well as a cashier area with limited snack shop sales, ZoninQ and Land Use ZONE LAND USE Site CoT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Automotive Service Station, Single Family Residence North CoT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Automotive Service Station South CoT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Multi-Family Residences, Automotive Battery Repair East CoT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Automotive Lube and Tune Services West I-L (Limited Industrial) Recreation (Roller Skateland) Proposal The proposed project consists of the removal of the existing single family residence and the demolition of existing gasoline pump stations and automotive service bays. According to the applicant, the existing residential structure has been vacant for at least two and a half years and it is currently boarded-up and in a state of disrepair. Because the structure has been abandoned as a residence and it is a non-conforming use pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, it is not subject to the replacement obligation by the Redevelopment Agency, The proposed plans call for construction of a new facility to include five gasoline pumps arranged in a linear manner along Broadway and a 3,308 sq.ft, commercial building at the southwest portion of the site, Parking will be provided in front of the building on its north and east sides (see site plan in Exhibit A of OTPA) , Operations The new facilities will include gasoline sales, convenience store sales including the sale of beer and wine, and fast food sales including limited seating, as well as drive through services. All proposed activities will be open on a 24-hour basis (the CoT zone has no restrictions On hours of operation), 'I )f-;}-- .¡ Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date OO/1B/3'r, ( 4('il q-¡ Area allocated to the proposed uses within the 3,308 sq. ft. building is as follows: 1,300 square feet will be allocated for food preparation and customer seating for two separate fast food franchises (both of which will be operated by Texaco employees); 1,200 square feet for retail sales area; and 800 square feet for storage area, The combined fast food operations will require two employees (one for food preparation and one for cashiering) and a third employee will cashier for the gasoline and retail sales. Parkinq Fifteen parking spaces have been provided as required for freestanding fast food facilities. However, some seating capacity has been deducted due to the allocation of parking to the retail and storage aspects of the proposed operations. Specifically, the 2,000 sq. ft. area dedicated to retail and storage uses require 7 parking spaces, and the remaining 8 spaces allocated to the fast food will be attributed to customer seating for 20 people. Traffic/Circulation Site ingress and egress will be provided via one driveway along L Street and two driveways on Broadway, Due to the intensity of uses on this site, circulation is the most significant issue related to the project. Staff was initially concerned about the amount of room provided for vehicles to maneuver past one another around the gasoline pumps, Additionally, vehicle stacking is particularly important because of the orientation of the pumps relative to Broadway. The applicant has provided a site plan depicting vehicles to scale which demonstrates that there is sufficient room for vehicles to maneuver past one another (see Exhibit A of OTPA) , Further, the five gasoline pumps proposed provide capacity for ten vehicles to pump gasoline at anyone time, Sufficient room exists behind these stations for one waiting vehicle and one-way traffic between the waiting vehicle and the planter. As a result, staff believes that reasonable area has been provided and that circulation around the pumps should not be a problem, The Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission have reviewed the proposed project. Both groups have recommended to approve the project subject to conditions listed in Exhibit Band the resolution. The applicant has agreed to these conditions and has incorporated some of them to the drawings shown as Exhibit A of the OTPA. The Mitigated Negative Declaration discusses possible queuing into the intersection of westbound vehicles attempting to enter the site via a left hand turn on L Street, which could also result in what the City Engineer determined as being a dangerous turning movement. As a result, a raised median will be provided to prohibit not only this maneuver, but also left hand turns by vehicles exiting the site on L Street, The applicant will also dedicate 7 feet of right-of-way along L Street and will provide a right-turn pocket along with the necessary street improvements, Impacts on Adiacent Residential Uses/ Environmental Review Automotive and (nonconforming) multi-family residential uses are located on the southerly-adjacent commercially zoned property. The multi-family uses consist of 13 units housed within one and two-unit single-story structures on the northerly and westerly portions of the property; the battery repair shop exists to the south of the units, fronting on Broadway. " x- 3 'I - - 4 Page 4, Item~ Meeting Date ~ / <f ('i' q 7 Both noise and lighting associated with this project have the potential to negatively impact the multi-family units, However, the applicant has agreed to certain conditions which should address them in an acceptable manner. These conditions include the construction of a masonry wall at the southerly property line to address noise, and the use of shielded site lighting and wall lighting at the southerly periphery. CONCLUSION: This proposal contains a new combination of uses (gas, retail, and drive-through food services) which results in more intensive activities than other service station facilities within the city, However, staff believes that the site plan functions adequately, and that sufficient measures are incorporated into the conditions to protect the adjacent residential uses. The uses on site are consistent with other uses found in the vicinity, and with the intent of the Commercial Thoroughfare zone. As a result, staff recommends approval subject to the conditions contained in the resolution as well as the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed expansion of the gas station and the introduction of additional commercial uses at the site will result in an increase in sales tax generated by the proposed project. The remodelling of the gas station and the construction of the new store and fast food restaurant will result in the re-assessment of the property which will generate additional tax increment. The existing property (land and existing improvements) is valuated at $ 605,467; the proposed project valuation (land and new improvements) is estimated at $ 958,453. The increment in valuation in the amount of $ 352,986 will result in approximately $ 3,530 of annual tax increment. Of this, 60% or $2,120 will accrue annually to the Redevelopment Agency. Staff costs generated by the processing of the Special Use Permit that will be incurred by the Redevelopment Agency are in the amount of approximately $1,290. ATTACHMENTS 1, Locator Map 2, Minutes of the Planning Commission of February 26, 1997 Minutes of the Resource Conservation Commission of March 10, 1997 3, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study IS-97-07 4, Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement with the following exhibits: Locator Map Exhibit A: Site, Landscape, Elevations, and Floor Plans Exhibit B: Design Review Committee Conditions of Approval Exhibit C: Engineering Department Conditions of Approval IMZT) H,\HOMElCOMMDEV\STAFF,REPlO3-18-97\TEXA90Z8.RPT 1M..," 27, 1997 ",O'pm}] '-I ~-<-I ;1 _. - - RESOLUTION NO.~.3 ( RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15-97-07 AND APPROVING SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT FOR THE REMODELING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY I. RECITALS A, Project Site 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 902 Broadway ("Project Site"); and, B, Project Applicant WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use permit SUPS-97-02 was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on October 7, 1996 by Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc, (Applicant); and C, Project Description; Application for Conditional/Special Use Permit WHEREAS, said application requests permission to remodel an existing service station, to include the removal of existing facilities and the construction of 5 gasoline pumps and a 3,308 sq.ft, building to house retail convenience store sales and fast food services including seating and drive-through facilities, and including the construction of a raised median within the "L" Street right-of-way; and D. Resource Conservation Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission considered Mitigated Negative Declaration lS-97-07) on February 24, 1997 and voted to accept its adequacy; and, E. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on February 26, 1997 and voted 6-0 to recommend certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Project in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. SUPS-97-02; and, F. Notice of Public Hearing WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on said Special Use 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 ten days prior to the hearing; and 4 ~-s- .. - - - .. Place of Public Hearing WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p,m. March 18, 1997 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Redevelopment Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed, II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on February 26, 1997 and the minutes 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. III. INCORPORATION OF ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES The Redevelopment Agency does hereby adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for all approvals herein granted all mitigation measures identified by the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for 15-97-07 for the project which it has determined to be feasible in the approval of the Special Use Permit, SUPS-97-02. IV, 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 evidentiary basis 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 use provides necessary as well as desirable services in a convenient setting and location for residents of the community. It is located in a zone which is designated for activities dependent upon or catering to thoroughfare traffic, as this use does, and the upgrading of this site will be beneficial to the surrounding area as well as the city as a whole. As a result, this use at this location will contribute to the well being of 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, The proposed use is located in a zone which is designed for such thoroughfare- oriented uses. The proposed project design as well as compliance with additional conditions, will ensure that potential impacts to neighboring, albeit nonconforming, residential uses are minimized. Therefore, this use will not detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, t./ ~- ~ .. - . C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use will be required to comply with all applicable code regulations as well as conditions placed upon it through this use permit. D. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The approval of this permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the city, It will result in the redevelopment of a site within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area consistent with the stated goals for that project area. V. Grant of Permit The Redevelopment Agency hereby conditionally grants the Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions, whereby the Applicant shall: 1, Construct the Project as described in the application, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and/or as required by the Municipal Code. 2. Comply with all conditions of approval required by the Design Review Committee (reference file DRC-97-15). 3, Construct a 7 ft. high masonry wall along the entire length of the southerly property line, Design of said wall shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee. 4. Shield canopy lighting to eliminate any glare onto adjacent residential uses. 5. Replace freestanding lighting at the southerly property line with wall-mounted lighting, 6. Obtain permits from the Fire Department for relocation and installation of tanks. 7. Provide one 3A 20BC Fire Extinguisher. 8. Demonstrate compliance with all applicable Building Code requirements prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. Enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. 10, Limit fast food seating to a maximum of 20 people. Further, no more than 1,400 sq,ft, of area total may be allocated to fast food uses, inclusive of preparation and seating areas. 11, Contact the Police Department Crime Prevention Unit and arrange for a security survey and employee security training prior to opening for business. Submit proof of said survey and training prior to business license approval. '" ~-7 - - 12, Construct a raised median in the "L" Street right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, 13. Remove existing underground tanks and immediate contaminated soil and relocate to an appropriate repository. 14. Should queuing from the drive-through create stacking onto "L" Street, the City Engineer may require that the fast food area be decreased or that one of the fast food providers be eliminated. 15, 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. 16. 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. This Special Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if the same is not utilized within one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section 19.14,260 of the Municipal Code, Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for modification, additional conditions, or revocation, VI. 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 18th DAY OF MARCH 1997. Presented by Approved as to form by r/---,~~~ Chris Salomone Director of Community Development [(MZn H"HOMEICOMMOEV,RESOS,TEXA90ZB.RES (M..," 1Z, 1997 (Z,ZZpm)] ~-?! .. - . RESOLUTION /53.;)., RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING OWNER/TENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR. AND MRS. ROY E. NICKERSON AND TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING INC, FOR THE REMODELLING AND EXPANSION OF A SERVICE STATION AT 902 BROADWAY WHEREAS, Mr, and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson are the owners of the property located at 902 Broadway; and, WHEREAS, Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. has entered into an agreement with Mr. and Mrs, Nickerson to lease said property and remodel and expand the existing service station; and, WHEREAS, Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. has presented development plans for the remodelling and expansion of a service station ("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 Mitigated Negative Declaration 15-97-07 for the project in accordance with CEOA; 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/Tenant Participation Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed Project subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has been presented an Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement, said agreement being on file in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and known as document RACO 97-02, approving the remodelling and expansion of the service station located at 902 Broadway, depicted in Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibits Band C 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration 15-97-07 was prepared and is hereby adopted in accordance with CEOA. 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/Tenant Participation Agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson and Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. for the remodelling and expansion of the service station at 902 Broadway, in the form presented in accordance with plans attached thereto as Exhibit A and subject to 4 ~- 9 .. - - Resolution Page 2 conditions listed in Exhibits Band C of said agreement, 4. The Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized to execute the subject Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Mr. and Mrs, Roy E, Nickerson and Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. 5. The Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency is authorized and directed to record said Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, California. Presented by: Approved as to form by: ~~,~ ~ Chris Sa omone Community Development Director 4 ~ -10 " - . ,," ATTACHMENT 1 LOCA TOR MAP ..,' .. - - - .. ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RESOURCE CONSERVATION MINUTES ., - - J -,O¡¡,¡¡¡¡,Ti """"e""" D£f'A~ìMrNT , """'1" ft~ PI,"","" C"",ru."'OO Mhm'" of 2/26/9 ; r: I :'1997 ] I ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-97-02; REQUEST FOR A SERVICE STATIöN-- REMODEL TO INCLUDE GASOLINE SALES, CONVENIENCE STORE, AND CARRY-OUT AND DRIVE-THROUGH FAST FOOD SALES AT 902 BROADWAY, WITHIN THE C- T (THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE) - Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. Assistant Planner Nevins presented the staff report, and noted that the applicant had concurred with the conditions. The conditions were primarily the inclusion of a wall at the southerly property line to mitigate any noise impacts, the lowering of site lighting so there would be no standards at the southerly property line glaring down at the adjacent residential. The lighting would be at or below wall level and shielded canopy lighting. Traffic impacts would be mitigated primarily through the inclusion of a median on the "L" Street right-of-way to preclude potential traffic stacking and queuing into the intersection. In response to Commissioner Thomas, Ms. Nevins noted that at the Design Review Committee meeting, a staff sketch had been provided indicating a potential change in the drive-through stacking in order to provide an area where pedestrians would not have to walk across the drive- through. Commissioner Thomas asked where the gasoline trucks would park when they were dropping their gasoline. Mr. Lee noted that the applicant could probably respond to. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was enough parking for the employees. Ms. Nevins stated there were only three employees on site at anyone time, and they had provided at least 15 parking spaces, which was the requirement for a stand-alone fast-food. In this case, the fast- food area was only a small portion of the site. This being the time and place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Alan Sire, Tait & Associates, 3665 Ruffin Road, Suite 230, SD 92123, answering Commissioner Thomas' previous question, showed where the tanks were located and stated that the tanker truck would exit Broadway, off-load, and then go back to Broadway. He showed the location of the fills, All off-loading would be done from the passenger side. Commissioner Thomas did not feel there would be enough room for cars to back out. Mr. Sipe stated the cars would have to pull forward and around. Regarding the number of employees, Mr. Sipe confirmed that there would be only three and described where they would be working. Commissioner Willett asked if 8' could be added to "L" Street for turning into the station. Mr. Sipe replied that the median strip itself was on the northern side of "L" Street's center line, allowing for a left-hand turn pocket going onto Broadway, two lanes going straight across 4 ~ -( d- " - - - .. Broadway to "L" and a right-hand turn lane. Texaco was making a 7' dedication to the City for the inclusion of the right-hand turn pocket lane. Commissioner Willett suggested that the masonry wall not be a plain wall, but with a diamond- shaped projection which broke the sound travel. Also, Mr. Willett asked if the overhead lighting was recessed to cut the glare on the south side. Mr. Sipe stated that the canopy lighting would be shielded. Regarding the 7' high concrete block wall, the wall was planned to be planted with a vine material to help absorb the noise. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was a problem with hazardous waste. Mr. Sipe replied that the tanks had been replaced 3-112 years ago, At that time, adequate studies had been done of the tanks that were pulled out with the original facility and replaced with new double-wall fiberglass tanks with monitoring devices. Regarding waste oil, he said it would be removed to Texaco's standards. Commissioner Ray asked if by removing the queuing for the drive-through and moving the parking stalls forward, they could add more parking on the north. Mr, Sipe felt there was not enough space for double-loaded parking at that point. Commissioner Thomas asked what type of landscaping would allow the gas trucks to be immediately next to the left-hand curb. Mr. Sipe answered that there was a planter curb which would maintain the landscaping within the planter itself and would not go into the parking lot side. Commissioner Willett suggested that the landscape concept plan reflect the changes, Mr. Sipe stated that the elimination of the low ground cover was the difference between the landscape plan and the site plan as represented in the slide. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that Attachment 6 had been prepared for Design Review which showed the representation with the parking moved closer to the building along the north and some of the landscaping on the west side had been pulled in front of the building to provide more effect. The Design Review Committee had asked that Texaco look at potentially providing access from Roller Skate Land through the area, either prohibiting people from coming through there or providing a safe exit from Roller Skate Land knowing children would come through that area. He commended Texaco for being extremely cooperative in responding to a lot of different concerns. Commissioner Thomas, regarding air and water facilities, asked if the location shown was the best location. Mr. Lee replied that it was not the final location. He showed the probable location, and noted that it would be discussed in detail with Texaco, Mr. Sipe noted that one extra parking space was accommodated as a result of the change, and Texaco proposed that the last three spaces--14, 15, and 16--be designated as the employee spaces, which would free them up to move the air and water to a more convenient location. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that he did not see any conflict relative to the land use Issues. No one else wishing to speak, the publicl1aring was closed. ,jí(tJ - / 3 MSUC (Thomas/Willett) 6-0 to approve SUPS-97-02, as presented by staff. ., - - - .. 4820682 EXPRESS SECRETRRIRL 160 P01 MRR 12 'cr? 18:35 F AX TRANSMISSION ExPuI8 8BcøTA1lLU. SDVICØ . 8204 Lo:M>iA CauRl' - VlllTA, CA 8..13003021 81_8_82 I"AX: .18/4I8_8e To: MJgueI Tapia Date: March 12. 1997 CoIIIIDIIDity Development Pax fk 476-5310 Pages: 1. including this c:owr sheet. 1'Ia1ll: Barbara Taylor Subject: RCC action Ie: MItIgated Neptiw DccIanú.ion 18-97.07 Broadway Texaco COMMENTS: Aube Mareh 10. 1991 meetiøg of the Rc8ouIQI'Coasetvadon Commission, the Mitigated Neptive DeclanItion - presemed by ))q 1t.eid. Fo11bwiD¡ a review and brief di8CllSsion of tho si¡nificant but nùtigabl.e impacts &om the pIOject, 1118 motion wu made and IeCQnded (PisherIYamada) to acçept the mitIptcd ~ declaration; vote 5.0, motion çarried. i I ! 4-/'1 .. - - - ATTACHMENT 3 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DE CLARA TION AND INITIAL STUDY IS-97 -07 PROJECT NA.1\1E: Broadway Texaco PROJECT LOCATION: 902 Broadway ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 618-021-18 PROJECT APPLICANT: Texaco Refming and Marketing, Inc. CASE NO: IS- 97-07 DATE: 12/11196 A. Proiect Setting The project site consists of two parcels totalling 30,927 sq.ft. and located at the southwest comer of Broadway and L Street. Existing uses include a service station with four gasoline pumps, two automotive service bays, and a cashier area with limited retail convenience sales, and an unoccupied (boarded) single family residence with detached garage. The site is zoned Thoroughfare Commercial (CT) and is designated as Retail Commercial (CR) on the General Plan. Additionally, the site is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. A service station is located across L Street to the north and an automotive oil change facility is across Broadway to the east. To the west is a recreational (rollerskating) facility; a multi-family residential complex and a battery repair shop are located to the south of the site. B. Project DescriDtion The proposed project consists of the removal of the existing single farrúly residence and the demolition of existing gasoline pump stations and automotive service bays, and the construction of a new facility to include five gasoline pumps arranged in a linear manner along Broadway and a 3,308 sq. ft. commercial building at the southwest portion of the site to house a cashier, convenience store sales including beer and wine, and fast food services including a drive through. Parking will be provided in front of the building facing Broadway, and across the drive-through aisle to the north of the building along L Street. All activities will take place on a 24- hour basis. Discretionary actions include approval by the Design Review Committee, Redevelopment Agency approval of a Special Use Permit, and an Owner Participation Agreement. C. Compatibilitv with Zoning and Plans The current zoning on-site is CoT, Thoroughfare Commercial, and the site is designated for retail commercial on the General Plan. The proposed project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan as well as the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. 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 could have one or more significant environmental effects. Subsequent revisions in the project design and/or specific mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce these effects to a level below significant. With project revisions and/or mitigation, no significant environmental effects will occur, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following impacts are those that were determined to be potentially significant and are required to be mitigated to a level below significant. A discussion of each of these potentially significant but mitigatable impacts from the proposed project follows, Noise Increased noise from vehicular traffic, particularly in the drive-through area, could result in unacceptable noise impacts on the southerly-adjacent residential uses. Lighting Proposed site lighting at the southerly property line would result in glare onto adjacent residential uses/structUres which have windows facing this site. Traffic Insufficient area is available for queuing from westbound traffic on "L" Street attempting to turn left into the "L" Street driveway. Aesthetics Since "L" Street is a major entry to the community, frontages along this street should be enhanced. 4 -Ire, -d /.tiJ' .. - E. Miti!!ation necessarv to avoid significant effects Specific project rni!Îgation measures are required !O reduce potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the ini!Îal study for this project to a level below significant. Mi!Îga!Îon measures have been incorporated into the project design and have been made conditions of project approval. A 7' high I111lsonry wall shall be CO/lStructed along the southerly property line. Light standards along the southerly property line will be replaced with wall-mounted lighting to be located at some point below the top of the wall. A raised median will be required within the "L""Street right-oj-way Enhanced landscaping will be required along the "L" Street frontage. An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist Fonn) detennined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. D, Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Patty Nevins, Planning Ann Pedder Pease, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Doug Perry, Fire Marshal MaryJane Diosdado, Crime Prevention Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney Chula Vista City School District: Dee Peralta Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: ABen Sipe, Tait & Associates 4- -17 ;¿ /~ .. - - - .. 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Visfll Municipal Code 3. Initial Studv 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental revÏew of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. EN\TIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR pJn/is9707.mnd 4 -If' jI /9 1[ - - - . Case No.IS-97-07 El\'VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Texaco Refining & Marketing 3631 Harbor Blvd. #225 Santa Ana, CA 92704 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of ChuJa Vista 276 Founh Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Allen Sipe, Tait & Associates 3665 Ruffin Road, #225 San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 278-1161 4. Name of Proposal: Broadway Texaco 5. Date of Checklist: December 11, 1996 Pot,.".u, P.~.u.tI, S¡..IOa.' Lou 0". Si,,"a.' U.I~ S¡..¡Oa., ,. Imp", Mi"..~d tmp." tmp," I. LAND USE AND PL.\N1\'ING. Would the proposal: a) CÒnflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 181 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans 0 0 0 181 or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 181 (e.g" 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 proposed project will be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan if a Special Use Permit is obtained. 0/ -19 ;;2 /6 WPC P,'liOMElPIA"NISG'STOREDU7lS,94 Page 1 p.".Ii.n,. P".,Ii.n,. S;,.;.~.. 1.<.. <h,. s;..;.~,. u"... s;,.m.,.. " Imp", Mil;..',' tmp... tmp'" II. POPUU.TION AND HOUSING, Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 [81 population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 [81 directly or indirectly (e,g., through projects in an undeveloped area or e~:tension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 [81 housing? - - Comments: One vacant single family residence will be displaced. ill. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or apose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 [81 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 [81 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 [81 features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 [81 any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in "~nd or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 [81 either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 [81 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 [81 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: Implementation of the proposed project would not create any significant geophysical impacts. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 0 [81 patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 J:8I related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c¡ - 2,0 ~ /9 wpc F'\HOME\PlA.~"'!NG'SI'OREDU718," Page 2 11 - - P,".",II, P,","-II, Si,.mo,.' Lon <h.. s;"m~., ".,... s;,.m~.. S, tmp", , 'Uti",.. tmp", Imp", C) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 181 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved m,ygen 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, 0 0 0 181 either 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? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181 otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: Groundwater quality would not be affected through project implementation, V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 0 181 to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) E¡:pose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 181 or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181 e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 181 non-stationary sources of air ernissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The facility will be implemented in conformance with APCD regulations to assure compliance with the Air Quality Attainment Plan. 4- - 2-1 d.. 2.0 ",pc BIIOMlN'L"N>'INGISTORED~ 718,94 Page 3 - - Po"",.II, p.,,"i.n, Si,.i'<o" t....".. Si"i'"., C.I... Si""o..' ~. tmp," "iH,.... Imp.., Imp." \1. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUL<\.TION. Would the . proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 1'81 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g., 0 0 0 ¡¡¡¡ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g" farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 1'81 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- 0 0 0 1'81 site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 1'81 bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 1'81 alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 1'81 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 1'81 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: A traffic study performed by Darnell and Associates, Inc., has calculated that the project wi1l generate 1305 average daily trips and 130 peak-hour vehicle trips. The project therefore will have not resu1t in negative traffic impacts, VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of [j 0 0 1'81 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e,g., heritage 0 0 0 1'81 trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 1'81 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc,)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g" marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 1'81 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 1'81 f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 1'81 efforts? Comments: The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing site. No biological impacts would be created through project imPler;¡ntation. -2. 'L rX '") L "'PC Po\HOMElPLAN"""G'ST'OREDU'18,94 Page 4 11 - - - .. - P""'toll, P'«."oll, Si,.""., t..""o. Si..'.oo., ".,... Si,.i."., ,. tmp." Mitt,..., Imp.., 1mpo" nIl. ENERGY A]'I;1) l\fiNER<\L RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 ~ plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 0 0 ~ and inefficient manner? c) If the site is de~ignated for mineral resource 0 0 0 ~ protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposed project will not have any impact on energy or fuel consumption. c/. - 23 0::2 .;;..~ WPC F,IHOMNIA""'1!<G'sroREDU7!S.94 Page 5 .. - - P...nli.II,. P".nli.II,' S',nifi~.. Lo.. <b.. ",...~., Cnl... ",n'fi,.., ,. Imp." "it".,.. Imp.., tmp." IX. HAZARDS, Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental eJ'plosion or release of 0 0 0 181 hazardous substances (inc1uding, 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? d) EJ'posure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181 brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The project site is designated by HazMat as containing only tank and immediate soil contamination. The soil and tank must be removed and taken to an appropriate repository. The proposed project would not cause a risk of upset in the City. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 181 0 0 b) E¡,:posure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181 Comments: With the e¡,:pansion of existing and addition of new uses to the site, there will be some increase in noise levels. In order to address potential noise impacts upon the southerly-adjacent multiple family units, a 7' masonry wall will be constructed at the southerly property line. 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 0 181 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181 c) Schools? 0 0 0 181 d) Maintenance of public facilities, inc1uding 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 Comments: No new governmental services will be required to serve the project. 4/ - 2.4 ,;2 .23- wec P,IHOME'J'L\N""'G\STORED\l7J8,94 Page 6 .. -. - .. P"",li,II, P"""II,II, Si""',",,1 t.... <b", 5'"""",,, ""I... "...m"", S" J~p,d "I<i"lod t~P"1 I~P'd XII. 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 0 0 0 181 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 one mile away and would be associated with a 7 minute or less response time. The propos~d project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The nearest fire station is one mile away and response time would be within 7 minutes; the Fire Department will therefore be able to provide an adequate level of service. The Fire Department will require permits for the removal and/or installation of tanks, and one 3A 20BC fire eXtinguisher is required. b) Police 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or Jess, Po1ice units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Due to the 24-hour nature of the proposed uses, the Police Department recommends training for all personnel regarding security and police reporting procedures. c) Traffic 0 0 0 181 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 signa1ized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 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 proposed project comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: A traffic study has been submitted and the Traffic Engineering Division has determined that a median within the "L" Street right of way will be necessary to prevent queuing into the intersection. d) Parks!Recreation 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,OOO population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Parks and Recreation standards do not apply to this project. 4-:z.S- ~ ....( ~- J WPC EIHOME'J'IJ.N"ING'SJ'OREDU718.94 Page 7 11 - . P."";olly P.".lIolly S;,.;",., Lm 'boo S;,,;',o.' L.'m Si"tO"" ,. tmpo" 'lill,o'" Impo" tmpo.. e) Drainage 0 0 0 [g 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 Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project compIy with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Drainage capacities will not be affected by project implementation, f) Sewer 0 0 0 [g 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 proposed project comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Sewer capacities will not be affected through project implementation, g) Water 0 0 0 [g 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 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 tssuance. Comments: Groundwater quality would not be affected through project implementation. XII. 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 [g b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 [g c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 [g distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 [g e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 [g f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 [g 4-*2..G, c2. .2S Me F'\HOME'J'IA>,"';ING'5TORED~71',94 Page 8 P.,.....u,. P...."."y S;,.;.~., un 'h.. S;,......, C.I... ",.i...., ,. Imp." Mi",.,.d tmp"" Imp." Comments: The proposed uses will not generate a need for new systems or alteration to the aforementioned utilities. CVMC Section 14.20,120 requires the incorporation of storm water pollution prevention measures intO the Facility and Hazardous Materials Response Plan. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 ~ 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 ~ scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 0 ~ effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 ~ 0 0 increase the level of s1:y glow in an area or cause this project to fail to çomply with Section 19,66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: The project could result in increased lighting spillover onto adjacent residential uses. Freestanding lighting at the southerly property line will be required to be replaced with wall- mounted lighting to eliminate glare into northerly-facing windows on adjacent residential structures. Since "L" Street is a major entry to the community, enhanced/more intensive landscaping should be utilized along this frontage. XlV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 ~ the destruction or a prehistoric or histOric archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 ~ aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause 0 0 0 ~ a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 ~ 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: There are no cultural resources within the project area, 4-'2-; !OJ J (- wPC BHOME"'LAN"'1NG'STOIŒDU'18,94 Page 9 ., - - p"..hon, P",.holl" Si..;o~.. Lm lb.. Si,.i..... V.im S¡..¡..... S. too.oct Mili"". too.", ¡oo.,,' :\:V. PALEO~'TOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Will the 0 0 0 I8I proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: There are no paleontological resources within the project area. "-VI. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 I8I regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 I8I c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation- 0 0 0 I8I plans or programs? Comments: There are no recreational facilities that will be affected by the project. "'VII. MANDATORY FTh'DINGS 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 I8I 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: If mitigated, none of the impacts associated with the project will be 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 I8I short, term, to the disadvantage of long-tenn, environmental goals? Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any long term environmental goals. 4-2fi ~ r.J..7 ",pc PiIHOME\PlA.""1SG'STOREDU718.94 Page 10 .. - - - .. P,',,",Ur Po"""ur s;,.m,,", Lon".. ",.m"., "".n S;,.;,..., " Imp." M;,;,.'.d tmp.., Imp..' C) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 [g] individually limited, but cumulative]y considerable? ("Cumu]atively considerab1e" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: There are no incrementa] impacts associated with the project. - . d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 [g] 0 0 which will cause substantial adverse effects o,n human beings, either directly or indirect1y? Comments: Drainage capacities will not be affected by project imp]ementation. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be imp1emented during the design, construction, or operation of the project: 1) A 7' high masonry wall shall be constructed a]ong the southerly property line. 2) Freestanding lighting at the souther]y property line shall be rep]aced with wall-mounted lighting, 3) A raised median shall be constructed within the "L" Street right-of-way, 4) Enhanced ]andscaping shall be provided a]ong the "L" Street frontage. Project ProponentDate 4- '2-' ,;} ~'i? \Wc E\IIOME'l'LANJŒ"G\SJ'OREDU71B.94 Page 11 11 - - - .. E'-.,1RO:\'\1E'-.iAL FACTORS POTE!'\TL\.LLY 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 . Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems 0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources . Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality - . Noise 0 Recreation 0 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, 0 and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the . environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the nritigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MmGATED N"EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0 at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by nritigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless nritigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature Date Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 4-30 ;¿ ~9 "1'C F,IHOME'J"-"""'INGISTOREDU718,94 Page 12 .. - . ATTACHMENT 4 OWNER/TENANT P ARTICIP A TION AGREEMENT WITH EXHIBITS A, BAND C ., - - Recording Requested By: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 When Recorded Mail To: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attn: Alice Kemp (Space Above This LIne For Recorder) APN: 618-021-18 618-021-26 OWNER/TENANT PARTICIPA TION..AGREEMENT [902 Broadway] Mr. and Mrs, Rov E. Nickerson, Owners and Texaco Refininq and Marketinq Inc.. Tenant 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. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson and Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. (hereinafter referred to collectively as "DEVELOPER") effective as of March 18, 1997, 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 remodelling of a service station and construction of a building to contain a convenient store and carry-out/drive-through fast food shop (the "Project"); and, WHEREAS, said plans for development have been recommended for approval by said committee; and, WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER presented plans for development of the Project as well as an application for a Special Land Use Permit to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that. the Redevelopment Agency approve said plans and Special Land Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the AGENCY has considered the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission 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, NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER agree as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Agreement, 1 4-31 ., - - 2. The property to be developed is described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 618-021- 18 and 618-021-26 located at 902 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA., shown on locator map attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein ("Property"). 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" A", which is on file with the AGENCY Secretary, as Document No. RACO-97-02 ¡SW/OTPA 97-02). 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 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 himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, c%r, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sub/ease, 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 /and." E. In all leases demising an interest in all or any part of the Property, the following language shall appear: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and a/I persons claiming under or through him, and this lease /s made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: 2 4-32.... .. - - That there sha/J be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, national origin, or ancestry, In the leasing, subleasing, transferring use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein leased, nor shall the lessee himself or any persons claiming under or 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 AG~NCY as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and (b) the City Planning Department and Engineering Department and the AGENCY.. as described in Exhibit "C' 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 3 4-33 .. - - 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. 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 Direct!;" 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 SOUTHWEST 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 SOUTHWEST 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, "liabilities") 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. 4 4-:3.'1 11 - - - .. - 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. 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: Roy E. Nickerson, Owner DATED: By: DATED: By: M~i'~~~ Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc., Tenant GtNtRAl MANAGtR. 8U~!NtSS DtVElOPMtNi NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card. APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: John M. Kaheny, Agency Attorney 5 ~-3r CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of ¿;AC"J/"!' County of ¿'" c .1;7~,,"./; C" On ~;/'/. It 1??7 before me, personally appeare:I' ..!3 ck(-S-4Lt) Nam,(,) ofSlgo",(,) j(personallY known to me - OR - 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the personteT whose namefeJ isJafe subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hef5heltAey executed the same in hisrhetftheir authorized capacity¡iee1, and that by 1- - ~ - ~ ~~:~ ~ 1 hi~r signature~ on the instrument the person¡ej, or the entity upon behalf of which the person\6'j' acted, :< COMM.#IO614C1 I executed the instrument. Z Notay PubIc - CaI-- - Z KERN COUNIY I WITNESS my hand and official seal. J '.. ....0 My Comm. ExpIres JUl28. 1999 ~,~~~ ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . Slg I", 01 Nofa", Po U, OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reallachment of this form to another document, Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: ß~I7,D/~/lçf ßn4U/4 /;(f'>') ,~r"""h,.~f- Document Date: Number of Pages: ..s Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: ,c;,X. k?~b' Signer's Name: 0 Individual 0 Corporate Officer Title(s): 0 General 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Trustee . 0 Guardian or Conservator . Top of thumb here 0 Other: Top of thumb here f Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: ~~~ ~trnlÍ/d-,1 ~_If" {-;tf ~t',. - c.. "1994 Nailoo,' Nofa", A..oclal;oo' 6236 R'mm"IA~., P.o. eo> 7164' Cacoga Pa", CA 91309-7194 P'od. No. 5907 Roo"'", Call ToII.F.., 1-800-876-8827 .. - - 1O, 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. 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 "DEVELOP~R=--) C:./ 7 DATED: ?/J,z) 97 BY~~~ 4A"/~~ RyE. Nickerson, Owner ¿/ /9 'f{¿t' Q c ~ ~ DATED: J).;¿ '7 By:Ln1AJ.: La.., '\.I', 7/ --L,¿' . , , , Mrs. Lelia I. Nickerson, Owner DATED: By: Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc" Tenant NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card. APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: John M, Kaheny, Agency Attorney 5 4-37 . I - - - . CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ~------, ~ County of~Iv1?¡(Sýj£; I' , On 1tf<{1}¡.//),f{}7 beforemeJAm"ECIJJìllìAmJ "," II'" rY}, ð~. ,Namaa_"dl1llaOI~ff'O"¡a_g_"J"eDOa'NO,,~p"bIiO") '.' , personally appeared ~E. (ì lC!-<¡:.Qs¡¡f\.. L çL'A :r nIt' KA2..."'ion ,"'í -, l Name¡,) 01 S'g",,¡,) ~ 0 personally known to me I' i' proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ~"""~~L~~~1 to-be the person(s) whose name(S).ja{~bscribed to the I " HOrNIV'l'UIUCoCMFaINIAt within inslrumenl and acknowle ed to me thal~ ~ "'~~ executed the same i,' eir uthorized capacity(les), ~ """""""""""IIIIIIJ and that b their gnature(s) on the Instrument the ~ person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) ~,,' acted, executed the instrument. ~ ~ WITNESS my hand and offici~1 seal. ~ ~ ~ II.." OPTIONAL ~ ' Though the information beiow is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent ~ ~ fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document, g ~ ~ ~ Description of Attached Document ". ~ I Title or Type of Document: (}Lf)¡:;K.,~fn~J~f)ATJlJíJ ~Pð t ml'ft f ~ ~"j Document Date: rv'\fW(\1-I. 1~1 \C1C\ì Number of Pages: ~ ~ ~ ~ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: - ~ ~."- Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) I"~.,,".:. ~ Signer's Name: Signer's Name: - I I, 0 Individual 0 Individual ", 0 Corporate Officer 0 Corporate Officer I , Title(s): Titie(s): ] " 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 Generai 0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Attorney-in-Fact 0 Trustee 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator . 0 Guardian or Conservator . 0 Other: Top 01 thumb hele 0 Other: Top of Ihumb hele Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: 0> 1996 Natiooal N"a~ ""°0""°" '8236 Rammo! A".. P.o- Be, 7184' C"oga Pal', CA 91309-7184 PlOd" No" 5907 Reo"", Call Toil-FIe. 1.BOo-a?6-682? ., - - - .. EXHIBIT A .-- --- FARMERS LAND PRODUCE limP \ \ OF¡:ICE CANNED CLUB FOOD \ SïORi: \ \ IL \ \ \ CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~ÞtJ~, Texaco Refining & C) Marketing, Inc. ~<6'lt~t 902 Broadway SCALE, I FILE NUMBEIè 4-3' NORTH ., _. - .. - EXHIBIT A . ¥ i;ü (Ç(9)[F>W I ¡Ii ~ IIi i: ¡ !~.f III¡I,.~. 'I!o rnm'" d h f ~ In . """1 ; it' I i I z , I I .It !.I J' i ~~i I I IIIII . ;, ~'Ii'" Ii II"'H, : ~PI I I 'j M ~I ~Ii~ ¡! If! II ill ~U §m~ .1 I 1111 - î II; ! Ih r ~n ~ ~u ..... -. ¡ {} ... ..... .. II' i :. '.' ! i ~I H --.J I -r--'=-~"'" ¡ -- ~.. ~ i inGAv ..r.~QItØ . - . - .. - "'H' "". EXHIBIT A II i ~ III; ¡ à !i~ii iinl ~II" 8,~~~' = . i. i i ï ï II I IIi 1J5~1 !I ~!~j¡;il:~ i ~t I !I I. ~ I.. IU I z"'.: ; " I ~ II i iI illS, n ~I I ~ "5 II " I to- ~ ! ~ ~.~ ~ LI ~i i U hil ~i II I Ii I! III 1111 0 e ¡ ; i i ; ~; i ¡ t i ". ,I ,21 = ¡ !. i ~11~ii;I!~il II¡ liI;!i! II idHI¡ i! IIII II II 1111 Ii II¡IIII!! 11~~1ii I; Ii Ii I ~!I Ii! .d. 0~0~ce ~m- J,UliMI IIIII ell I Ii I ; -] ~ :5a i I I I I I I I 0 0 -~ì I ~ ~ ~ I @ @ @ I I -.J I I I I I I I I } -l ----------- --------- ~.., ~"m~ ~;.: :a;,=",¡¡;, "'='2'::'::E ~:; ~.,,;:;--¡;:g.~:::E -=- ~::- -:':::::;:~ 'Ë I - - .. EXHIBIT A ' ~ æ d S!à ¡ o;~ i W I .'~~' 2~ ~ . °-" ~,; a . .h;2 ~~ 8 j ~ ~i ~ ~o ~.. ~ ~~. ""'~B" "~I!!!!I Ii r ."'1 .~ I ..¡ ~~~ do C= § 1:5 §~ §~ 8 ~~ .5 . è - . $" , ~ :¡¡ .B . W @ , '~". ,~:::: ii U Ui in {5 ¡:: ~ W ..J W w~ Q~ iñ, ~ ¡:: <t ~ ¡ w. ¡:: w' <t 0' ~ ~1 ..J w </-<1 z.. ~; ..1 EXHIBIT A ~W.,-,. - 4-43 - ß . ~" ;¡ ~ u ' . "-õ ¡j, < <? EXHIBIT A ~.~¡~ I. S ~ 1::1 .ê.,¡'¡ ;¡.~": zO a I ~ Ii! ~ .~~.; .~ i ~ ~h .~.,,-.. . ¡.. ~ o;¡- ": ~;~ 0 ~ h~ I'~I ~j ~:I § ~i ~ð~"* IÞ= 8 ~ Ii ~~ §~g ~ . ~7" .. ~ ~ . ~... ~~~ ~ . ~;;;; z ",0' ,0 ,0 .. m ; ; @@ @ @ . i . I - - EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval OwnerlTenant Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson/Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. 902 Broadway Chula Vista. CA DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) This approval is contingent upon the approval of Conditional Use Permit PCC-97-20. b) Two 3 ft. square planted tree wells, in accordance with city standards, shall be placed in the L Street sidewalk, c) All roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened from view. d) Both price signs shall be reduced in area to conform to Municipal Code 19.60.360. e) The freestanding price sign along L Street shall not encroach into the required 10ft. interior side yard setback for signs (19,36.040.2,f). f) The pay phone shall continue to be located in the planting area adjacent to the public right- of-way. g) A water management plan consistent with the City Landscape Manual shall be submitted for approval at the building permit review stage. h) The height of Washinqtonia robusta at installation shall be a minimum of 8 ft, to 10ft. brown trunk height (BTH). i) The applicant shall assist staff in developing conditions to be included in the Owner Participation Agreement which will ensure wearability and ease of maintenance of the wall panels. j) A pedestrian link with the neighboring parcel to the west shall be provided for and a concept developed for staff review and approval. Any fencing used to separate the parcels shall be of decorative wrought iron. The property OwnerslTenantslApplicants shall execute this document by signing the lines provided, said execution indicating that the property OwnerslTenantslApplicants 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 Development Department. Failure to sign this document shall indicate the property owners' ITenants' IApplicants' desire that the project and the corresponding application for any and all City permits be held in abeyance without approval. SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS 4-4~ '[ - - .. EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson/Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. 902 Broadway Chula Vista, CA SIGNATURE PAGE Owner Mr. Roy E. Nickerson Date Owner Mrs. Lelia I. Nickerson Date Tenant/Applicant ~J-a.~çr GLxac[ Re~n~ a~d ~~~eti~[t ~ate NtHA MA! ,A cK. US,Ntw Dt" PMtN 4 - 4/., ;1 - - - .. EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement Mr, and Mrs. Roy E. Nickerson/Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. 902 Broadway Chula Vista, CA SIGNATURE PAGE Owner Owner ~~J'1~~ Mrs, Lelia I. Nickerson Date Tenant/Applicant Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. Date 4-47 ., - - - .. Exhibit C Conditions of Approval Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. NickersonlTexaco Refining and Marketing Inc. 902 Broadway Chura Vista. CA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The following fees may be required under the authority of the Municipal Code in conjunction with a building permit: a. Sewer Capacity Fees b. Traffic Signal Fee due to the change of use. c. Dedication of seven feet of right-of-way along "l" Street frontage. 2. Public improvement requirements may include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Monolithic curb, gutter and 8-foot-wide sidewalk. b, Commercial driveways in accordance with City standards. c. Street widening with asphaltic concrete and base. d. Raised median along "l" Street frontage. 3. The Traffic Engineering Section may request a Traffic Signal Modification plan. 4, Mitigating street improvements may be required by the Traffic Impact Analysis, which will be required for the project. The applicant is to be advised that the requirements and fees included herein may be amended at the time his/her development takes place andlor a building permit is applied for, based upon final plans submitted for building permits. This response is based solely on the plans that were submitted for our review, The property OwnerslTenantslApplicants shall execute this document by signing the lines provided, said execution indicating that the property OwnerslTenantslApplicants 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 Development Department. Failure to sign this document shall indicate the property owners' ITenants' IApplicants' desire that the project and the corresponding application for any and all City permits be held in abeyance without approval. 4-q'l " - - Exhibit C Conditions of Approval Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. NickersonlTexaco Refining and Marketing Inc. 902 Broadway Chula Vista, CA SIGNATURE PAGE Owner Mr, Roy E. Nickerson Date Owner Mrs. Lelia I. Nickerson Date Tenant/Applicant ~-(í,(Ç'f7 Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. Date GENER,~l MANAGtR. BUSiNESS DtVElOPMENT '~~"'n DO" xn""""A~'.O'AI 4-tlq " - Exhibit C Conditions of Approval Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement Mr. and Mrs. Roy E. NickersonlTexaco Refining and Marketing Inc, 902 Broadway Chula Vista, CA SIGNATURE PAGE ~ .J Date Owner .«-~ LD ) ~ ~ ¡ P~ffV'- Mrs, Lelia I. Nickerson Date Tenant/Applicant Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. Date ,""""n DO" X"'^"=^~'.O'AI 4 -::.--0 ., -. - .. TO: Chair and Members of the Redevelopment Agency "..' .. -. .........'.""M'tH :\ .mC:OMf.""'" '..".:;;:i' , ::::: :~:. 7, c,- L ~; 18 1 SUBJECT: Sale of Certain Bayfront Properties and the City's . Retention of Access and View Rights on Lagoon Drive. REFERENCE Baxfront Specific Plan, with regard to pedestrian access and retention of views to Bay. Maps, as attachEd It has recently come to our attention that the Redevelopment Agency is considering the sale or is in the process of selling one or more properties around the westerly terminus of F St./Lagoon Drive. Regarding the sale of any properties to the Port District, it is our understanding that the City Attomey's office has determined that such a transaction would resuh in the City's relinquishing its land use authority over such property. Therefore, we respectfìùly but urgently direct your attention to the following reconnnendations: 1. Any sale of parcels in and around the terminus of Lagoon Drive shall retain easements for the City's right of way along Lagoon Drive for pedestrian and bicycle access, as well as view conidors, all of which are identified in Section 19.85.001--.010 of the Municipal Code (Reference Exlnòits 7 and 8 and maps attached). 2. The City should not, under any circumstances, vacate Lagoon Drive; said vacation could resuh in the land reverting to Port ownership, thereby aborting the City's ability to preserve views, pedestrianlbicycle access, and future land controls. Any consideration for sale of property in and around Lagoon Drive which could involve the City's relinquishing land use authority should always be looked at in context of its effects on the overall Mid-Bayftont Specific Plan. 3. Any consideration for sale of property south of Lagoon Drive should include a required reservation for the necessary street width to accommodate the future Marina Parkway in the alignment identified in the City's adopted Bayftont Specific Plan. Failure to do so could resuh in the necessity for the City to acquire said right of way at a future date. ( Continued to Page 2 ) ~-I 'I - - - - 25 March 1997 Page Two We urge that the City tJ:y to insure, in the process of sale of any of these properties, that the Port District be requked to use the property in substantial confonnance with the land uses in the Mid- Bayftont Specific PIan, including use of a portion of the land for habitat restoration, as requked by the adopted Local Coastal Program Omitting this would require an amendment to the LCP, which could resuh in a modification to the requked habitat restoration program The Design Review Committee is concemed to support and preserve the Bayftont resources for the City's future enjoyment and enhancement; in particular, the substance of the Bayftont Plan as the instrument for its development. Your attention to the above points is not only urgently requested, but very much appreciated, We would be happy to respond to any questions the Agency might have. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. RespectfuIly, i:~ D SIGN REVIEW COMMITfEE By: J.c. Rodriguez, Chair Members: J. C. Rodriguez J?jchard Duncanson Patricia B. Kelly Michael Spethman Patricia Aguilar cc: City Attomey Bob Leiter Chris Salomone S"-Å ., . - -. . r ¡ ~ ' e -+- . . ~ --:1- --- . ¡ . :/. J"" ~L n"1 I, 0>: I ~--" ~ { II '::::~'~/:..,- 06Q)~ I E?:?~ lo~ LL CU '\ ill ' I 8: I <{ I I I ~ I è I < I 1 ~ I ~ ~ I ! ! ~ ~ I §I I f I ~ .~ l. ' IHPd I IHlll11 I illillillillOOœ~~ I I 5-4 1395 (R 12/94) I u / ..J = = c-. -.... = ~~ --=< ........ = c-. -.... = -.... ...... -'- + --- a -- -- 8OUQ'; - ~ ..., --&- ~ Vl5rA ~~;';;':IRI I:: ~.!, ....,...,. 12 L CGastãI Program '°/1)102 ~ ~ $"-S*" (R 12/94) 1416 _. - . - 11