Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1997/02/04 ~~.~;~~!~:~ ".~h- --~-~'" ~f ~_.'~-v t"~t\~:nt I posted C~...,. 'c"'O t:¡"¡ .~l{þ ,g;1J?" PU" -ø".,' ','" Tuesday, February 4, 1997 "':f¿~¡¡~Ü:.- Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Regular Meeting of !he Redevelopment Agencv of !he Citv 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 pulledfrom 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: January 21, 1997 3. RESOLUTION 1528 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-97-06 AND APPROVING AN OWNER/TENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MARINA A. PICCIONI AND KENTUCKY FRIED CmCKEN OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING AT 1305 TmRD A VENUE-- Kentucky Fried Chicken is proposing to lease the site, demolish !he existing building and construct a new restaurant. Staff recommends approval of the resolution subject to conditions listed in the agreement. (Community Development Director) Continued from the meeting of 1/21/97. . . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR' . . ADJOURNMENT TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING At this time, the Redevelopment Agency will adjourn to the Council meeting. *****....**** Agenda -2- February 4, 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 Council on such a subject, please complete a "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. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDER This is the time the Redevelopment Agency will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Agency Members. OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) 5. CHAIR'S/MAYOR'S REPORT(S) 6. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjouru to !he Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on February 18, 1997 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. [M:\HOME\COMMDEV\AGENDAS\O2-04-97 ,AGD] ." " , ~ MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, January 21, 1997 Council Chambers 7:40 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/CounciImembers John S. Moot, Stephen C. Padilla, Jerry R. Rindone, Mary Salas, and ChairlMayor Shirley A. Horton. ALSO PRESENT: John GOBS, Director/City Manager; John M. Kaheny, Agency Legal Counsel/City Attorney; Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk; and Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: None) THE CONSENT CALENDAR WAS OFFERED BY CHAIRlMAYOR HORTON, including continuing Item No.2 to 02/04/97, reading of the text was waived, titles read, passed, and approved unanimoll<ly. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 17, 1996 (Joint meeting); and January 7, 1997 (Joint meeting). 2. RESOLUTION 1528 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1S-97-Ø6 AND APPROVING AN OWNERffENANTPARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITII MARINA A. PICCIONI AND KENTUCKY FRIED cmCKEN OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR ,THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING AT 1305 THIRD AVENUE-Kentucky Fried Chicken is proposing to lease !he site, demolish the existing building and construct a new restaurant. Staff recommends approval of the resolution subject to conditions listed in !he agreement (Community Development Director). The applicant requested this item be continued to 02/04/97. . . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. . . PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 3. PUBLIC HEARING SUPS-95-Ø2 - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A MUNICIPAL WASfE TRASH TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET - MACE STREET TRANSFER STATION, INC.-The applicant is requesting approval of a Special Land Use Permit to construct and operate a municipal waste trash transfer station and material reqovery facility in the Limited Industrial - Precise Plan Zone. Staff recommends approval of the resolution denying the application to construct and operate a trash transfer/material recovery facility at this site. (Community Development Director) Item continued from the meetiM nf 11/19/96 AGENCY RESOLUTION 1529 DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET Martin Miller, Associate Planner, gave a presentation explaioing the reasons for staffs recommendation to deny the special use permit. The facility will accept municipal waste, sort !hat waste, recycle those items which are ~ -/ - Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 2 recyclable, and transport !he remaining nonrecyclable material to a landfill. This work will be done in an enclosed approximately 36,000 square foot structure. Approximately 1,000 tons of municipal solid waste is expected to pass through the facility on a daily basis when operating at maximum capacity. The operation will initially begin wi!h 500 tons per day, and all waste brought into the facility is proposed to be shipped out !he same day. The trash transfer station will generate approximately 300 trips per day by traffic arriving at and departing !he facility. Some of !he vehicles will be the neighborhood-type trash trucks with 8 to 10-ton pay loads, while others will be the larger semi-tractor-trailer-type trucks with 25-1on pay loads. Staff recommends denial of the permit because the project is not consistent with the provisions of !he various applicable plans, the type of traffic attracted to !he proposed facility will degrade !he community, and the project is not compatible wi!h nearby residential land uses. Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator, concurred wi!h the Planoing Department's recommendation. He slated that a number of the concerns raised by residents in the area were more solid waste related !ban land use related. This being !he time and place, the public hearing was declared open. 8 Robert Epler, 9601 Ridgebaven Court, San Diego, CA, Assistant Director ofEnvironmentai Services Department for the City of San Diego, spoke in support of staff's recommendation to deny !he permit. He slated the site will not meet the needs of Chula Vista and will require new trash to be brought to Chula Vista and will be suhsequently exported out of the County. He indicated that trucks from the City of San Diego would not be diverted to this facility even if it is approved and constructed. 8 Steve Palma, 176 Montgomery Street, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in support of staff's recommendation to deny !he permit. He stated the residents encoursge new business, employment, and revenue to the City but do not encoursge traffic in this area of the City. 8 Mark Kroeger, 3691 Via Mercado, Suite 16, La Mesa, CA, owner of !he industrial complex across !he street from this project, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation to deny !he permit. He felt this project would be better suited at the dump area where there are trash facilities and mitigation issues !here to accommodate it. He commented that this site on Mace Street currently has loaded trash trucks which are uncovered, an extensive fly problem, and he has seen barrels of human waste in the dumpsters. He stated the odor from the dumpsters from the residue on !he side of the containers even when empty is as much a problem as !he trash itself. 8 Bud Chase, 3730 Valley Vista Road, Bouita, CA, representing Sexton Sand & Gravel, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. He stated over three years ago, the City went out for a request for proposal on the trash trsnsfer project and from the 35 initial sites, it was narrowed to 3 fina1 sites at the Bayfront, Energy Way, and Maxwell Road. There were many puhlic forums, and the vast majority of those attending the forum felt !he Maxwell Road site was !he best location. 8 Charles R. Gill, 600 West Broadway, Eighth Floor, San Diego, CA, representing Mace Street Inc., spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation and felt this facility will be an asset to the community. The assessments associated with !he property taxes are such that redevelopment of the site will provide significant tax benefits ihrough tax increments to the City that can be used in the City's redevelopment area. The proposed operation will remove all of the existing truck storage and a 36,000 square foot building will be constructed. The trash brought into this facility will be commercial industrial department-type uses, will not be hazardous materials, and all of the operations will be indoors. This type of a facility is extensively regulated by the Integrated Waste Management Board by the State of California. He indicated Mace Street Inc. would agree to any type of a covenant the Agency feels is consistent with the terms of the use permit. A traffic stody was conducted, and the proposed use has the same or fewer trips. There may be a difference in the type of trucks that come in, but in general there are no traffic impacts. He suggested that Main Street will probably become an issue wi!h every redevelopment project that comes forward in the limited industrial area because there is a lot of non-=nforming uses. He suggested that impact .;¿-~ -. - .' .Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 3 issues regarding the noise, odor, and concerns about hazardous materials be included as condition imposed by the Agency. ChairlMayor Horton asked Mr. Gill to address the concerns regarding odor that may permeate from !he trucks due to the leftover residue. Mr. Gill stated the facility has several issues associated with odor to reduce it. There would be a vacuum mechanism created through a suction inside the building so when the doors open, the odor does not leave the building. There is also a misting operation that will mask the odor based on its chemical components to break it down so !here is no residual odor in !he building. There would be no storage of materials in this building because all materials that come in will leave !he facility the same day. There will be trucks that drive up and down the street with sòme odor associated with the individual trucks, but the odor will be transitory in nature unless the truck Was stopped for any prolonged period of time. ChairlMayor Horton clarified that Mr. Gill recommended to include a covenant that if this proposal was approved and there Was a problem in the future, the Agency would have the power to revoke the permit. Mr. Gill answered it was correct, and not only would the Agency have the power through the conditional use permit findings to revoke the permit, if !he Agency found it was a nuisance or !he terms of the conditions were not being fulfilled, an additional layer of protection could be added to give !he Agency !he right to put a lien on !he property. ChairlMayor Horton stated in her conversation wi!h the proponent, a development impact fee was discussed to address !he main concern from the members of the community regarding traffic. Mr. Gill replied that traffic in this area is an existing problem. The eastern territory has !he opportunity for infrastructure needs to be met. The imposition of a development impact fee on the commercial industrial areas will provide a vehicle by which the City, in its redevelopment of!hese properties, would ensure there would be adequate funds available for improvements. While this project will not have any specific traffic impacts, Mace Street Inc. would be prepared, depending on its reasonableness and cost, to fund the initial development of such a development impact fee which would require significant engineering to determine !he types of improvements !hat will be necessary. . Blanca R. Bystrak, 24 Tourmaline Street, Chula Vista, CA, expressed concern !hat her residential area has been downgraded due to a lack of improvement in the area. She was concerned for the heal!h and welfare of !he residents and children, and she invited the Agency/Council to visit her neighborhood to visualize !hese concerns. She indicated there are four schools in the area that are impacted due to the existing truck problem. The trssh transfer facility is one more Ihing they will have to fight. With the substantial ,tonnage of trash arriving at the facility on a daily basis, !he doors will constantly open and close, odor will emit from !he building, and the trucks will be lined up on the streets waiting to enter the facility. There 1;>eing no further speakers, the public hearing was declared closed. Glen Googins, Agency Legal CounsellDeputy City Attorney, commented !hat staff was not of the opinion !he existing or proposed uses were necessarily legal and non-conforming uses. As to date, the applicant has not submitted evidence supporting this indication. The use would need to have been existing and legal at the time of !he adoption of land use regulations which may be non-conforming and that use must be continuous and non- inteffilpted. He stated that staff has not had the opportunity to make that analysis yet. Cliff Swanson, City Engineer, stated when the traffic stody was completed for the project, the engineers did a truck count of the existing use. Based on the counts, there were 400 two-way trips of trucks and cars daily. From that number, there were 366 two-way trips for trucks and 34 two-way trips for patrons. Under the proposed use, !he maximum tonnage was 1,000 tons per day. Assuming !he trash trucks have loads of approximately 8 tons per trip, 02-3 Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 4 that gave 250 trips; there are also transfer trucks that will hold 25 tons per trip which would be 80 trips. The total means 330 two-way trips, and there is anticipation !here will be an additional 70 passeoger vehicle trips for customers, employees, and patrons to !he site. From a traffic standpoint in numbers, it just about balances out. Agency/Councilmember Salas asked if the plot plan changed. The County was concerned the scales were 250 feet from !he site's entrance, and wi!h an approximate lengIh of 30 feet for each truck, only six trucks can be stacked before !hey are lined out in !he street. Mr. Swanson commented that !he traffic stody only considered !he number of trucks on the street; however as !hey get more into !he site plan review process, !hey could ask for sufficient stacking distance during peak hours. Mr. Mitchell stated the site plan was originally proposed to be a 63,000 square foot building, and was later revised to reflect a 36,000 square foot building; however, !he daily tonnage of a maximum use of 1,000 tons per day did not change. Staff was concerned wi!h traffic and recognizes there wonld not be a significant change in !he number of vehicles coming and going from the facility; bowever, staff was deeply concerned wi!h !he types of vehicles coming and going. Agency/CounciImember Salas stated !here is a substantial amount of public opposition regarding this facility, and she did not hear anything to convince her to approve this project. Agency/Councilmember Moot commended Mr. Gill on his presentation and !he owner of !he property for recognizing a need to improve !he facility. He stated !hat locations are important factors in land use decisions, and one of !he advantages of !he Maxwell site is !hey are next to !he County facility. Agency/CounciImember Rindone stated !hat a transfer station if well designed, well placed, and well planned is a project that provides a great deal of public benefit and is essential for our community because of rising tip fees. He commented !hat in the past six years he has served on !he Agency/Council, he has not seen as much opposition for this project from !he boards, commiBSions, committees, and residents. He stated there is a need for economic viability in this redevelopment area that is critical to !he growIh and development of this City, but this proposal doesn't seem to be the right project or right time for it. He supported staff's recommendation but indicated he would reserve serious consideration for an appropriate transfer station as we proceed with the study towards the Maxwell site. Agency/CounciImember Padilla commended Mr. Gill on his presentation regarding this project and stated !here were legitimate issues pointed out by staff regarding compatibility with the plan. Chair/Mayor Horton stated she is a member of the Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee, and they unanimously opposed this project. She requested staff retom to !he Agency with a report on !he concept of having a developer impact fund for this part of !he community to generate new development. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1529 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER SALAS, reading of the text was waived, title read, passed, and approved unanimously 5-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTCS): None. ~ -9- - . Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 5 5. CHAIR'S/MA YOR'S REPORT(S): ChairlMayor Horton requested staff return to the Agency with a report or action to officially dissolve !he Sou!hwest Project Area Committee, as recommended by the Economic Development CommiBSion. 6. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: 8 Agency/CounciImember Rindone concurred with ChairlMayor Horton that capital improvement projects were needed for !he Sou!hwest area. 8 Agency/Councilmember Salas commented that the area for the proposed transfer station is an area of Chula Vista on the verge of becoming an economically viable area due in part because of the MCA amphitheater and the waterpark. She commended all of !he citizens !hat were involved in this process who came together to make this area of Chula Vista a better place for themselves. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk by: Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk . c::J-S- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item .3 Meeting Date 64'.2.;Î'Z¡ / '1'7 ¡5J- <:¿ ITEM TITLE: Resolution Adopting Negative Declaration IS-97-06 and Approving an Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement with Marina A. Piccioni and Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. for the construction of a building at 1305 Third Avenue. SUBMITTED BY: Comm"";w D",,'oom""' D;"""~ c" REVIEWED BY: Executive Directou~ ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No IlL) ...--? Council Referral Number: N/A BACKGROUND: Kentucky Fried Chicken of California (KFC) is proposing to construct a building at 1305 Third Avenue, located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area (locator map, Attachment 1). The site includes a building formerly occupied by a bank. KFC proposes to lease the site, demolish the existing building and construct a new KFC restaurant. The Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the project and issued Negative Declaration IS-97-06 of no significant environmental effect (Attachment 2). This proposal is being presented to the Agency for consideration and approval of the development plans and an Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement (Attachment 3). RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency adopt Negative Declaration IS-97-06 and enter into an Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement (OTPA) with Marina A. Piccioni and Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Band Exhibit C of the Agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed project at its meeting of December 9, 1996 and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposal subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement (minutes, Attachment 4). DISCUSSION: Proiect Location The project site is at the southeast corner of Third Avenue and Palomar Street. On site is a vacant building which was formerly used as a bank. The site is located at a major retail commercial intersection bounded to the east and south by a neighborhood shopping center. However, the subject site is at a higher elevation, physically inaccessible from the shopping center, and has its own vehicular access. To the west and north, across Third Avenue and Palomar Street, are other retail establishments, including restaurants, a liquor store, and a service station. KFC currently operates one of its restaurants at 1351 Third Avenue, one block from the subject site. The existing KFC restaurant will be closed as soon as the new facility is in operation. Project Proposal The proposal calls for the construction of a 2,496 square foot fast food restaurant with seating for 44 customers and drive-thru service. The architecture is contemporary southwest -3 - ( -.. - .. - Item 3 Meeting Date 0'W;itT/1I '¡ ( c;J/4 q 1 style. The applicant has made great efforts in the design of the building to de-emphasize the corporate image and provide a subdued architecture compatible with the mixed architectural styles of the city. The proposal also calls for additional landscaping, leaving some of the mature trees in place and adding new trees, shrubs, and ground covers. The parking lot will contain 18 parking spaces, including two for handicapped customers. In addition, the applicant will be performing street improvements along the site which include widening of Third Avenue and Palomar Street by five feet, reconstructing sidewalks, curves, gutters, handicap, and traffic signal modifications (see Exhibit C of OTPA). ComDliance with Citv Requlations The project (as recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee) is in compliance with the regulations established in the City's General Plan, Southwest Redevelopment Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable regulations. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the retail commercial designation of the site and surrounding land uses. The site plan and the landscaping plan fulfill the specifications of the City regulations. The number of parking spaces comply with parking requirements of 1 space for every 2.5 restaurant seats (44 seats). The project will make use of a vacant building and thus be an enhancement to the area. It is therefore recommended that the Agency approve the OTPA and conditions as approved by the DRC. The agreement is tri-party and includes the property owner (Mrs. Piccioni) and the Tenant (KFC). FISCAL IMPACT: The valuation of the proposed project is estimated at $290,000. land is currently assessed at $365,000, while the existing building's assessed value is $35,000. Assuming that the 1990 base valuation for the site is $400,000 and its estimated valuation after the project is constructed is $655,000, the added value of the property would be approximately $255,000. This would generate tax increment revenues in the amount of $2,550 the first year after construction, increasing annually by approximately 2%. Sixty percent of this amount ($1,530) will be received by the Redevelopment Agency, while the remaining forty percent ($1,020) will be distributed to other taxing entities. Since the proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant is being relocated from its existing site a block away, the net sales tax revenues from the new restaurant may be reduced if a new tenant is not immediately found for the existing location. Property tax revenues from the existing restaurant site will remain constant because the existing restaurant site is part of a large parcel. Attachments: 1. locator Map 2. Negative Declaration IS-97-06 3. OTPA with Exhibits A, Band C 4. Minutes of DRC (MTI M:\HOME\COMMDEV\ST AFF.REP\01-21-97\KFC1305.REP [January 15, 1997 (4:38pm)] 3-d... RESOLUTION /$'d.? RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-97-06 AND APPROVING OWNER/TENANT P ARTICIP ATION AGREEMENT WITH MARINA A. PICCIONI AND KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING AT 1305 THIRD AVENUE WHEREAS, Mrs. Marina A. Piccioni is the owner of the property located at 1305 Third Avenue; and WHEREAS, Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. has entered into an agreement with Mrs. Piccioni to lease said property and construct a building to establish a Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant; 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 determined that the project will have no significant impact on the environment and, accordingly has prepared Negative Declaration IS-97-06 for the project in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee reviewed and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed project subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement; 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 97-01, approving the construction of a building at 1305 Third A venue, depicted in Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibit B of said agreement. WHEREAS, the Environmental NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: 1. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; accordingly Negative Declaration IS-97-06 was prepared and is hereby adopted in accordance with CEQA. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and shall implement the purpose thereof. 3. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the 3-3 Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement with Mrs. Marina A. Piccioni and Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. for the construction of a 2,496 square foot building for the establishment of a Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant at 1305 Third Avenue, in the form presentedJin accordance with plans attached thereto as Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibits B and 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 Mrs. Marina A. Piccioni and Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. S. 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: (J Á-J ~ ' - Chris Salomone Community Development Director [FILE,\MZT DISK Xll\A,\KFC1305T.RES] 3-c/ . - - - ATTACHMENT 1 ::$. ..5<;~ "" OI'GO co"," . , . ,::~S:".~S .~~~.;~i'" ';s;.~;, ,~~(~; CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATOR Ä~R1~T. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN (') PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA, INC ADDRESS. 1305 Third Avenue SCALE. I FILE NUMBER. .3-s;- l NORTH - .. - negative declaration ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT NAME: Kentucky Fried Chicken PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Third A venue and Palomar Street ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 619-300-15 PROJECT APPLICANT: Kentucky Fried Chicken 2201 Dupont #250 Irvine, CA 92715-1515 CASE NO: IS-97-06 DATE: October 16, 1996 A. Proiect Setting The project site consists of a 22,500 s.f. (0.517 acres) parcel located at the southeast comer of Palomar Street and Third Avenue (precisely 1305 Third Avenue). It contains an unoccupied financial building and an Automated Teller Machine (ATM). Surrounding land uses include: Palomar Street to the north, a strip commercial center to the east and south and Third Avenue to the west. B. Proiect Description The applicant proposes constructing a 2,246 s.f. Kentucky Fried Chicken. The structure will be 18'3" in height with a 26' tower and will house a fast-food restaurant with a drive- thm as well as inside seating. The txisting structure will be demolished as well as the existing Automated Teller Machine (A TM). Hours of operation will be from 9 a.m. till 10 p.m. A total of 18 parking spaces will be provided on-site. There win be 4 employees per shift for two shifts. The average finished slope of the site is I % with a maximum finished slope of 2%. The primary roads are not adequate to serve the site. In order to provide adequate service, the City will require a 5' widening on both streets (Palomar Street and Third Avenue). In addition, a 7' dedication and raised medians will be required on both streets. On-site drainage is adequate to serve the site. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, school impact fees and a soils report are required. The discretionary actions include the approval by the Design Review Committee. (MI'J>om,\pl,nn;nglk,;thlnd.kf,) p~{~ 3-~ :::::~ ._~:; city of chula vista p18nnlng department em OF environmental review ..ctlon. æulA VISTA C. Compatibility with Zonin~ and Plans The current zoning on-site is CC (Central Commercial) and has a General Plan designation ofC-R (Commercial Retail). The proposed project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. D. Identification of Environmental Effects The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant. A discussion of each of these less than significant impacts from the proposed project follows. Fire Fire Department staff state that a fire suppression system is required for all cooking surfaces capable of producing grease generated vapors. Also, all drapes, hangings, decorations, or anything which will add to panic in the event of a fire must be flame retardant or of inherently flame retardant material. An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. E. Mitigation necessarv to avoid significant effects The proposed project will not result in any significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation is required. D. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Keith Barr, Planning Barbara Reid, Planning Ann Pedder Pease, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Steve Thomas, Engineering Garry Williams, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Doug Perry, Fire Marshal MaryJane Diosdada, Crime Prevention Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney (M,'~om,\p1'nninglk,ith\nd.kf,) p",2 ,3-7 Chula Vista City School District: Dee Peralta Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Casco Corporation 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chu1a Vista Municipal Code "Report of Geotechnical Exploration, Proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant, 1305 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA" (Kleinfelder, August 21, 1996) 3. Initial Studv This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. øz/ (M'lhomolpbnninglkoithlnd.kfo) p'go' 3-f Case No.IS-97-06 ENVIRON~MENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Name of Proponent: Kentucky Fried Chicken 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number 2201 Dupont #250 of Proponent: Irvine, CA 92715-1515 714/263-2626 4. Name of Proposal: Kentuck-y Fried Chicken 5. Date of Checklist: P"','iall,. P",.tiall,. Sigoifi=1 L= than Sigoifi=1 UoI", Sigoifi=1 ". Imp,,' Mill"", Imp'" 1m.." I. LAND USE AND PLAI\'NING. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 ~ zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 ~ policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 ~ (e.g., impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 ~ an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The project will remain consistent with the current land use of the project area. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 ~ population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 [8] directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? 3- 9 -.. - .. r."ohall, r."ohall, S;gnifi~", L<~ ,haG Si¡;oifiœo, Uo'= Signifiœo' ,. 1m.." MiO"", Imp", Imp", C) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 [2 housing? Comments: The project does not propose any activity that will effect growth rate or location of existing population. Ill. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.' a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 [2 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 [2 0 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181 features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 [2 any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 [2 either on or off the site? t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 [2 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 0 181 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: A geotechnical/soils report was perfonned on the site. The report concluded that no significant impacts would be created through project implementation. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in.' a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 181 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 [2 re1ated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 181 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181 water body? ~ ~ (0 P"'nÜaU,. P""MII, Si¡:nif.~, ","",an Signifiant Unl", Si¡:nifi,,", 'n tmpa" >liÜ""" Impac, Imp'" e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction D D D t8:I of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either D D D t8:I through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of D D D t8:I groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? D D D t8:I i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood D D D t8:I waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water D D D t8:I 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 to D D D t8:I an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? D D D t8:I c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, D D D t8:I or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? D D D 181 e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or D D D t8:I non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: Deterioration of air quality would not result from the proposed project. Vehicular emissions resulting from the project are not considered significant, either on an individual or cumulative basis. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? D D t8:I D b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., D 0 0 181 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ..,3-/( - . ro"o,iaU, ro"oûalJ" Signifi,"ol L", Ihon Sign,"=t UnJ", Sign,","nl ~n Impo" 'fiti"". Imp"" Impo" c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 [8: e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181 bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181 alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 [8: Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The primary roads are not adequate to serve the site. In order to provide adequate service, the City will require a 5' widening on both streets (Palomar Street and Third Avenue). In addition, a 7' dedication and raised medians will be required on both streets. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 181 trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 181 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 [8: vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181 f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 [8: efforts? Comments: The proposed project site does not contain biologically sensitive habitat. This project will not create biological impacts. VITI. E!'\'ERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 [8: plans? ~ - (d- _.. .. .. P.""h,U, p""""'",- S;""ifi~", em",. S;¡:nifi"" ,.I,g S;gn;fi~., ,. tmp'" '¡;""'" Imp", Imp." b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 t!SI inefficient maIllJer? c) If the site is designated 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. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 ¡¡:¡¡ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 t!SI response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 ¡¡:¡¡ health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 ¡¡:¡¡ potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 ¡g¡ brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed project would not cause a risk of upset in the City. The project would not release toxic or hazardous material into the environment during upset conditions. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 ¡g¡ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 ¡¡:¡¡ Comments: Noise levels will not increase with project implementation. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas.' a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 ¡¡:¡¡ b) Police protection? 0 0 0 ¡¡:¡¡ c) Schools? 0 0 0 ¡¡:¡¡ ~ - (3 P""",,.u, p","".", Si""ir",", c"" """' Si",,"~", C""" Si_~", ~, tmp", 'Ii",.". Imp'" Imp", d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 Conunents: No new governmental services will be required to serve the project. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? 0 0 0 181 As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) FirelEMS 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 .5 miles away and would be associated with a less than 4 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Conunents: The Fire Department will be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection without an increase in personnel or equipment. b) Police 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10 % 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 comply with this Threshold Standard. Conunents: HAVE NOT RECEIVED POLICE COMMENTS. 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 signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Conunents: Traffic circulation will improve to acceptable standards with implementation of required roadway modifications. d) ParIes/Recreation 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standard for ParIes and Recreation is 3 acres/I,OOO population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. 3-1'-/ POIOoliall, PoIOoliall, Si""","ol Len 1"0 Si""",""1 Uol= S"""',"OI ~o tm.." M'Ü",."d tmpn<t Impn" e) Drainage 0 0 0 1:8:1 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 will comply with this Threshold Standard. f) Sewer 0 0 0 1:8:1 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 will comply with this Threshold Standard. g) Water 0 0 0 1:8:1 The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. XIII. UTILITIES AI\'D 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 1:8:1 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 1:8:1 c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 1:8:1 distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 1:8:1 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 1:8:1 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 1:8:1 Comments: The proposed restaurant will not generate a need for new systems or alteration to the aforementioned utilities. ..3-1::;- "o""iall" "oo'",..U,. s"",m,"", Lo~ "CO" Si""'",""' li""~ S"",in,""' ~o Imp", '!iii"". tmp", tmp," XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 [21 public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181 d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 [21 increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 -0 181 Comments: There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the site that will be affected by the proposed project. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 [21 the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 181 aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structUre or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 181 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultUral values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 181 sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 181 EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: There are no cultural resources within the project area. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 181 proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: There are no paleontological resources within the project area. .3 -r&' p",,",,", p",,",~u, S'go'fi~"' L", 'ha" S'",","'"' V"I", "go",,"", ~, tmp." '."""'" Imp." Imp." XVII. RECREA nON. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 t8I regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? D D D t8I c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation D D D t8I plans or programs? Comments: There are no recreational facilities that will be affected by the project. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIG1\'IFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for rru:mdarory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade D D D t8I the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: None of the impacts associated with the project are 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 D 0 D t8I short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any long term environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 D 0 t8I individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: There are no incremental impacts associated with the project. ~ - / 7 -. - ., p""",~",, p"""'~II, S;'""'~"' C", ,"," S;'""'~"' Urum SI",m~", '" tmp", ""'~,"d tmp", Imp", d) Does the project have environmental effect D D D t5'!:I which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The project is not of sufficient scope to cause any such impacts. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: N/ A Project Proponent Date XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems 0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance XXI. DETERM:INATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the 181 environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0 environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and 0 an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. -3-(?? -. - .. ! find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0 at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Si£r ß2( /¿I /1 '-I! <ït; Date / ' Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista J-/9 . , SVVEETWATER AUTHORI, y 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912.2328 .,~.qJ'. (619) 420.1413 GOVERNING BOARD FAX (619) 425.7469 GEORGE H WATERS, CHAIRM'" /$7.'~"~~~ MARGARET COOK WELSH. VICE CHAIR ((~?~ JAMES F DOUD SR \~. SUE JARRETT v '.:',"~ BUD POCKLINGTON ~{,~~:~ JAMES 5 WOLNIEWICZ , ž.1iQ!" CARY F WRIGHT October 7, 1996 WANDAAVERY TREASURER DIAN J, REEVES SECRETARY Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Subject: WATER AVAilABILITY PROPOSED KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN 1305 THIRD AVENUE CASE NO: IS-97-06 SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1996 Dear Mr. Reid: This letter is in response to your Notice of Initial Study for the subject project within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is a 6-inch water main located on the north side of Palomar Street and a 12-inch water main located on the east side of Third Avenue adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate that there is one water service to this property. Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 142 map which shows the existing water facilities. At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing system to provide fire protection for this project. As plans develop for structures, the Owner must submit a letter to the Authority from the appropriate fire agency stating fire flow requirements. Based on this requirement, this project may result in the need for new water systems or substantial alteration to the existing water system. The Authority recommends that your Agency work with ours to determine if the existing water facilities are adequate to meet the added demands prior to issuing a building permit. If the Owner provides the required fire flow information and enters into an agreement for water facility improvements with the Authority, water service can be obtained at a pressure ranging from a maximum of 70 p.s.i. to a minimum of 60 p.s.i. .3 - d.-O A Public Agency, Serving National City, Chula Vista and Surrounding Areas . , Mr. Douglas Reid City of Chula Vista Re: Water Availability Proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken 1305 Third Avenue Case No. IS-97-06 October 7, 1996 page two If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at 422-8395, ex!. 639. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY d~~)~ /James L. Smyth v Chief Engineer JLS:RC:ln enclosure: photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 142 map i:\eng"pool\1305_3rd,wat .3-.;2..( . . . .'d " ---,,¡,¡,,' ,,'-', ",.. >cu. 'R. Of S. 1790 "'" .." "'" 'oo., - "'" F ""0 ~ i "'00 . ~ -" LD""'TL>U'-"'llJ_-, , ;¡.o .." . ~ ~ ~~ ,",' " 'I I 12 .~~ "'" 0 ,.'" I "'" "" .; < "" ,.,.. 0"", ~ c .¡. ",., .". ",., "" "'n 13. 0> . 19 ; "'" ~~~~~ . PROJECT SITE ,i ;g '" ~ ~~~. 0 ~~"' '"... . 22...:~~~ 21 '.'U""'o<T""~1 , "-..-",, I" ~ "? ,-. IO'US""NT . ~ :~: ::; r:: ~ ¡fti~"';!; ,,-s.-,.., \ .¡~I~. ':1-2 (íi~'Y IA." ¡""'" ~~¡¡¡; '; ~~~ " it \"'1)......., .,.="o~~~~ ..I",~ ~..' '::J've¡¡ . ~~'" ¿ ~y~ "'1"'°"" . - '" /! 8 QJ mo' E~LL'IO"ASf""'T foc C) (.) .s 0 -s ""'.',.,, ~ '-co, .:::¡ '-I '- Z 0 ~. H c:7 ;:': ~ .f;! 0:: .~~27 ~ J! (2:0 ð: iiO. -, .~ c' u "'.:) ~ ~ U d I ~ r; (c ,-'" .::::. (J ~'w' I- [ ~~o I . ~: ò,,(;uJ!!! (/) ~ : .' 8 ,~.. :,:;; I ~ ,'u Q ""'00 '- , I :::> - ,;). ;).... <i: ¿j ð" .;'E' ;.'1 š: : ~ ~~&O - ~¿. ,',.'", ' r"",",". ...."'.. ...,.." "'""."'. \'~"~""'!':' .') n - .. ,., r'\ "weetwater Union High School District Administration Center 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 "::. ,':" ,". "'-', f::--., (619) 691-5553- 1,'-" -Y ¡ ..", Division of Planning and Facilities PLAI\! ['):1..',- October 2,1996 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: Case No: 15-97-05 and 15-97-06 The above project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to issuance of the building permit. Sincerely, tk~d/ Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/ml 3-c23 CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH ,-,'-.- ", '-- BOARD OF EDUCATlDN ".. , JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D, [. ," -;- P~~~¡'M~D October 4, 1996 ~ I PAMELA B. SMfTH MIKE A. SPfYRER SUPERINTENDENT Ms. Barbara Reid UBIAS.Gl~Ph.D. Environmental Section City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: 15-97-06/ FA-706/ 00-331 Applicant: Kentucky Fried Chicken Location: 1305 Third Avenue, Chula Vista Dear Ms. Reid: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above mentioned project. This project is located within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. Lauderbach School is the home school for this project. District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of approximately 2 - 3 percent over the past several years, and this is projected to continue. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District also buses students outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance. State law currently provides for a developer fee of $.30 for non-residential area to be charged (Chula Vista Elementary School District - $.14/square foot; Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) - $.16/square foot) to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, ~It[?~t: Planning Department ¡dp ~~ ~;,~~~ed and approved by Lowell Billings: ~ .3-:Lf .. . - .. ATTACHMENT 3 Recording Requested By: APPENDIX D 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 (Space Above This Line For Recorder) OWNERITENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Marina A. Piccioni. Owner Kentuckv Fried Chicken of California. 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 wAGENCr) and Marina A. Piccioni and Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPER") effective as of ,1997. WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desires to develop real property within the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT Project Area which is subject to the jurisdiction and control ofthe AGENCY; and, WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has presented plans for development to the Design Review Committee for the construction of a Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant (the "Project"); and, WHEREAS, said plans for development have been recommended for approval by said committee; and, WHEREAS, the AGENCY has considered the Design Review Committee recommendation 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. 2. The property to be developed is described as Assessor's Parcel Number 618-300-15 located at 1305 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA. 1 .3 -;¿~ .. - .. 3. The DEVELOPER covenants 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" and on file with the AGENCY Secretary, as Document No. _/OPA -' B. DEVELOPER shall obtain all necessary federallstate and local governmental permits and approvals and abide by all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, policies and approvals. DEVELOPER further agrees that this Agreement is contingent upon DEVELOPER securing said permits and approvals. DEVELOPER shall pay all applicable development impact and processing fees including, without limitation, City of Chula Vista sewer capacity and traffic signal fees. C. DEVELOPER shall obtain building permits within one year from the date of this Agreement and to actually develop the property within one year from the date of issuance of the building permits. In the event DEVELOPER fails to obtain such building permits within said one year, the approval of DEVELOPER's development proposals shall be void and this Agreement shall have no further force or effect. D. That 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, color, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself or any persons claiming under or through him establish or permit any such practice of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenant lessees, or vendees in the premises herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land." E. That 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 all persons claiming under or through him, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation 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 2 .3 - c2-t.c - - - - such practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number or use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the premises herein leased.. 4. The property shall be developed subject to the conditions imposed by (a) the Design Review Committee and the AGENCY as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and (b) the City 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 Premises and all Improvements 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 Premises 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 sub-sublease then in effect for the Premises or Improvements with respect thereto or, if no sub-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 deter- minations as to whether the property is in a first class condition. If he determines it is not, he (1) will notify the owners 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 owners. 3 3-:27 - 0' - .. In the event that there is a dispute over whether the property is in a first class condition or over the amount of work and expense authorized by the Director to cure, the parties agree that the City Manager or his designee, shall resolve that dispute; provided however, DEVELOPER shall have the right to appeal this decision to the AGENCY BOARD by making a written request therefor within ten (10) days of being informed of such decision. All City action to cure shall be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. In the event that the Director decides without dispute, or the City Manager decides in dispute, that the City has to cure and the amount of cure, then owners have 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 premises. D. FIRST CLASS CONDITION DEFINED. First class condition and repair, means Restoration which is necessary to keep the Premises and Improvements in efficient and attractive condition, at least substantially equal in quality to the condition which exists when the condition(s) in attached Exhibit Bare completed." 6. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein shall run with the land for the duration of the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT project area, currently due to expire on November 27, 2030. 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 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. 10. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS 4 ..3 - ;¿f' . -, - .. SIGNATURE PAGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA "AGENCY" DATED: By: Shirley Horton, Chairman "DEVELOPER" DATED: By: Marina A. Piccioni, Owner DATED: By: Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc., Tenant NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card. APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: John M. Kaheny, Agency Attorney 5 ..J-.:¿9 . .. ., .... ... ..~, EXHIBIT A fé:#;" ,.,,1>,':"""""'" """""""""""""" ..;" 1. ,:.:; ~ ~ / ø I .II.~~ ¡ / n ~ ; ~/ ./' ,/ O.;.-~/~' J/ <.><:,~,,':'" ".. ..!'.~"""",~.'...'."""" ;: ", 1:I'IUIJf ,.<,>h::k:<:.~:i;:¿tl'III,~lll:tll.,., .' ""':':.:' ....:;';"S';¡Vd,\ .,..,,':';fll-'II¡,tlhJ~P'l "1111111 ;¡"'f';:"l(r,".,/'" '1'1 . ", , ,. i.. I ., .;, :., ¡. . " ':','. 11'11 . . . " ," ,", " . :', 'II, ":" :.'. '.'-, ", .' ".., :~;.. ' .,.~~,:;:Jt~,,'i~~¡ too/tOO II!! Ala .LSaII :JdJl gLO~ CO~ HL XVd ~g: n L6/~VJO . .. - ., EXHIBIT A '" ."":';lj{.:7,:~ "\:::~:}~r~:(: .',,' ", ..¡. ." "". ,...,:',:.,," ",~ mt':1:' ~~.t:~~ , ", ,',C"c .;:c,,:!":!~~f5,~/ . , ,'~.,;:~>~~;.f;x«,\:),:::::: Ilii'¡,.iii! ¡ii,j ¡¡ili i ¡i i ìtlji .;~~\,: I I II Is I ..,' II I ~. ' I I 3- .' i 1.llJ:...:;;IIIIJ :'~;=:":'<:"::"":" ,,-' ,,',,' Ala .LS!LI! :>dJl g¿9~ C9~ HL XVd tÐ: n L61Z~ItO -. - .. ~ EXHIBIT A " ", " :.'.. .:'" - ',' '" ": ..., ' l' ). , ~, i.': ..' -I ,::~:~;~:¥,;.{>~: "';"'::" . " Ala .LSail O.ÐI un CÐ~ nL XVII og:n - . - - EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval Owner/Tenant Participation Agreement Marina A. Piccioni/Kentucky Fried Chicken of California 1305 Third Avenue Chula Vista. CA DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) A revised conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to the building permit submittal stage. b) An inventory of existing trees shall be made and submitted along with the conceptual landscape plan. c) Pedestrian walkways across the parking lot shall be of a contrasting paving material. d) Parking spaces shall be 19 ft. deep or 17 ft. if overhanging landscaping. e) The landscape buffer along Third Avenue shall be widened by a minimum of 5 ft. f) There shall be no exposed neon strip at the cornice, but what is intended is a continuous metal shroud with a reveal for lighting. g) A proposal for the freestanding sign shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. h) Any conflicts between fenestration as shown on the elevations and fenestration indicated on the floor plan shall be resolved in favor of the proposal shown on the elevations. i) The graphics on the window awnings shall be removed. j) The pilasters shall project a minimum of 8 inches from the building walls. The property Owners/Tenants/Applicants shall execute this document by signing the lines provided, said execution indicating that the property Owners/Tenants/Applicants have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded, as part of the Owner Participation Agreement to which it is attached and a part thereof, with the Clerk of the County of San Diego, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency with a copy to the Community Development Department. Failure to sign this document shall indicate the property owners' /Tenants' /Applicants' desire that the project and the corresponding application for any and all City permits be held in abeyance without approval. SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS ~ 3.-33 .,' - .. EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval Mrs. Marina A. Piccioni K.F.C. of California Page 2 SIGNATURE PAGE Owner/Applicant Tenant/Applicant Marina A. Piccioni Date Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. Date IFllE,\MZT DISK XII\A:\KFC1305T.CONJ ~f 3- -3-4 . .. - - EXHIBIT C ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Developer shall perform the following work within or near the City's right of way, as appropriate, at Developer's sole expense in accordance with then effective City standards and plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer: a. The widening of Palomar Street and Third Avenue by 5 feet along the frontage of the Project property using asphaltic concrete and base. b. The installation of curb and gutter and an 8 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the frontage of the Project property. c. The construction of two new driveways. d. The construction of a handicap ramp at the corner of Third and Palomar. e. The construction of traffic signal modifications, if any, required by a Traffic Signal Modification Plan prepared by Developer and approved by the City Engineer. f. Such other public improvements as may by required by the City Engineer based upon City's review and approval of the final project plans submitted in connection with Developer's application for building permits. 2. Developer shall dedicate to the City any right of way necessary for the installation of the above improvements and/or otherwise required in order to provide for a street width of 47 feet from the center line along the Project property's frontage along Third Avenue and Palomar Street. [AU!'IMZT DISK ""^"""""'" OPAj ----' ..J~ 3-3~ ." - - ATTACHMENT 4 EXCERPT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1996 2. DRC-97-12 Kentucky Fried Chicken 1305 Third Avenue 2,496 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with drive-thru service Staff Presentation Assistant Planner Ms. Ann Pedder Pease presented the project which consists of a 2,496 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with seating for 44 and a drive-thru service. She stated to the Committee that the applicant has chose to demolish, rather than remodel, the existing bank building, but has preserved as much of the existing landscaping as possible. Ms. Pease continued with an overview of the architectural features of the project which represents an attempt by the applicant to maintain its corporate image while still having a building that would be consistent with Chula Vista's design standards. Ms. Pease reviewed the site plan, circulation, and the landscaping. She indicated that there are presently a number of mature tress on the site. The Landscape Planner has requested that an inventory of existing trees be taken at the building permit stage to determine if the trees can be preserved with the landscape concept plan. Ms. Pease continued to review staff conditions. She mentioned that staff was concerned about the neon strip at the cornice. She also pointed out that no proposal has been submitted for the pole sign indicated on the site plan, although the notes indicate a height of 25 feet, which the municipal code would permit. However, staff feels that because sign and building visibility at that intersection is in no way impaired, a monument sign would provide necessary identification while enhancing and harmonizing with the building. Staff is thus recommending that a monument rather than a pole sign be encouraged. Applicant Presentation Jeff Looker, project architect, addressed the Committee with an overview of the project and indicated that the building is a much more modern Kentucky Fried Chicken prototype. He explained that the building represents the KFC's of the future and went over the architectural features of the building. Mr. Looker went on to clarify the lighted band at the top of the building. He stated that the band is recessed and illuminated. He indicated that the applicant is in agreement with staff recommendations. ~, 3-~ - . Committee Discussion Chairman Rodriguez asked the applicant to explain what they were planning to do to conform with condition c which addresses the pedestrian walkways. The applicant explained that they would use broom finish concrete both around the building and for walkways across the parking lot. Discussions continued with emphasis on the building architecture, building materials, landscaping, recessed lighting and the signage. Chairman Rodriguez noticed that on the floor plan and site plan there were some panels and glazing that did not match the elevations. The applicant stated that the elevations submitted are correct. Member Pat Kelly indicated that she would like to see the pilasters dimensioned on the plans. (Rodriguez/Duncanson) (3-0) to approve DRC-97-12 with conditions l~sted in the staff report 1, 2a-e, f with an addition at the end of the sentence to read - with a continuous metal parapet shroud with a reveal for lighting; g, added condition h to include that the exterior elevations will supersede the floor plan, and the graphics on the window awnings shall be removed; added condo i to read - the pilasters shall project a minimum of 8" from the building walls. ~ 3~37 -, - -