The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Packet 1995/07/11 f~1 OCI.:Jare under penalty 01 perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the Communiw Development Department and that I posted Tuesday. July II, 1995 this Ag,:nca/N,,'otlc,e on th~l!e,tin Board at the 6:00 p,m, PUbhS _,;,e"~Jce~. BUildin'0'ndJj~.cjty Hal!ofil (immediately following the CityI!)":A~ee~) / ~GNEh tt0<',f/(:d., (: _, /) /~ :>1 =J ",- ''')->'l~ / / Joint Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/City Council of the Citv of Chula Vista Council Chambers Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER I. ROLL CALL; Agency/Council Members Alevy _, Moot _, Padilla_. Rindone _' and Chair/Mayor Horton _ 2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 20. 1995 and June 27, 1995 BUSINESS 3, AGENCY REPORT: STATUS OF THE BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT--The Agency recently requested a status report on development of the Chula Vista Midbayfront, Staff recently received and reviewed a Market and Feasibility Survey prepared for the MidBayfront property owner/developer. Adnan Zillou!. Staff is providing a status update to the Agency. Staff recommends acceptance of the report and requests the Agency to name a subcommittee to work with staff in negotiating with the developer to expedite development of the MidBayfron!. (Community Development Director) 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 Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak infavorofthe staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staffrecommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual, 4. PUBLIC HEARING: JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL HEARING PURSUANT TO THE CHVLA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33431 AND 33433 REGARDING THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION BY THE AGENCY OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 2.53 ACRES TO BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P, AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SAID PROPERTY INTO A 36-UNIT MIXED-USE BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT, SUCH PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC PROPOSED ACTIONS:--The City Council and Redevelopment Agency are requested to hold the requisite public hearings and take the actions necessary to approve the Broadway Business Homes Project and authorize execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement with Joelen Enterprises (Josef and Lenore Citron) for the development of the project. Actions required include a zoning change for the project from Thoroughfare Commercial to Central Commercial-Precise Agenda 4. 5. A. JOINT COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17964 AND AGENCY RESOLUTION 1460 B. COUNCIL ORDINANCE 2636 C. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1461 D. JOINT AGENCY RESOLUTION 1462 AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17965 -2- July 11, 1995 Plan; a Special Use Permit with Shared Parking Agreement to establish the mixed-use project; and approval of a Precise Plan with Conditions for development of the Project and approval of the DDA, and sale of the property without public bidding. Staff recommends the Council and Agency approe the resolutions and place the Ordinance on first reading. (Community Development Director) l. Review and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum IS- 95-03 2. Approval of an amendment to the zoning map or maps established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code by rezoning the 2.532 acre parcel located at 760 Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area from C- T (Commercial Thoroughfare) to C- Cop (Central Commercial with Precise Plan) 3. Issuance of a Special Use Permit to construct a 36-unit commercial/residential mixed-use project with Shared Parking Agreement Approval of a Precise Plan to allow construction of a 36-unit mixed-use project including associated site improvements Approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and Joelen Enterprises ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM IS-95-03 FOR A 36-UNIT BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT AT 760 BROADWAY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REZONING THE 2.53 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FROM CoT (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE) TOC-C-P, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN (First Reading) MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT, LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P. APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT AND A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES, L.P., AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE SAME Agenda -3- July 11, 1995 E. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1463 WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A TWO.PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WOODWARD. CLYDE CONSULTANTS FOR SOIL TESTING AND REMEDIATION CONSULTING SERVICES AT 760 BROADWAY, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--Demolition of buildings at the Fuller Ford site will necessitate removal of contaminated soils. It will be necessary to have a qualified hazardous materials consultant present during demolition. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. NOT A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. BUT A RELATED ITEM. (Community Development Director) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter within the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not incladed on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "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. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker. OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) 6. CHAIR'S/MAYOR'S REPORT(S) 7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS Councilmember Rindone a. Status report on negotiations of the Broadway Business Homes Project. The request is to discuss in Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn (to a closed session and thence) to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on August 1, 1995 at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting. in the City Council Chambers. Agenda -4- July 11, 1995 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 items 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 final 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 dosed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Clerk's Office. 8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) Chula Vista Auto Park developers - South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia v. City/Redevelopment Agency based on statements made in June 8th letter from Auto Park developers to staff (Continued from the meeting of June 27, 1995) 9. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION **""""** COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend. and/or participate in a City meeting. activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at 619.691.5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 619.585.5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. [C:\WP5 t \AGENCY\AGENDAS\07-11-95.AGDl MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 20, 1995 8:06 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, and Chair Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss. Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 6, 1995 MSC (Rindone/Alevy) to approve the minutes of June 6, 1995 as presented. Approved 4-0-0-1 with Padilla abstaining. CONSENT CALENDAR None Submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 3. PUBLIC HEARING SALE OF AGENCY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 315 FOURTH A VENUE WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, WITHOUT PUBLIC BIDDING--Staff informed the Agency at its 5/23/95 meeting the three proposals received for purchase of the building were unacceptable. The Agency directed staff to prepare a Purchase and Sale Agreement for Agency/Council review and approval. Staff recommends this item be continued to a date and time uncertain. (Community Development Director) A. RESOLUTION 1458 APPROVING SALE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 315 FOURTH A VENUE WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA WITHOUT PUBLIC BIDDING, APPROVING PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAME B. RESOLUTION 17926 APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 315 FOURTH A VENUE WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, APPROVING A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, recommended the Agency/Council continue the hearing to August 1, 1995. An appraisal was being done and staff felt it would be completed within that time frame. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. Agency/Council Member Rindone questioned if it was staffs belief that if the Agency went out for a bid they would not receive anything more substantial. ;l - / Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 2 Mr. Salomone replied that the experience with the recent RFP would substantiate that going out for bid would not generate a higher offer. MSUC (Horton/Rindone) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of August I, 1995. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ACTION ITEMS 4. RESOLUTION 1454 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AT THE FULLER FORD SITE AT 760 BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (RD-133)--The work includes removal of buildings and disposal of existing improvements, excavation, grading, and other miscellaneous work. The clearance of the site is being done to facilitate the construction of the Broadway Business Homes project. Staff recommends the Agency accept the Infonnation Memorandum and consider approving the resolution. Continued from the meeting of June 13, 1995. (Community Development DirectorlDirector of Public Works) Joseph Monaco, Environmental Projects Manager, stated the environmental consultants gave staff a verbal report and the indications from that report was that the cost for clean-up of contamination on the site was not expected to exceed the anticipated level of approximately $40,000. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated staff had a negotiating meeting with the Citrons and their representatives and he felt they had reached agreement on all the key issues at the present time. The Citrons agreed to pay up front their half of the mitigation and site characterization ($20.000), agreed to provide an opportunity for the Agency to recover the demolition costs, agreed upon the basic criteria for the assessment district, i.e. the City would be indemnified by an insurance policy and the Citrons would bear all costs for the formation of the district including City staff costs, and they agreed to prepare the development agreement expeditiously. It was his feeling that if the Agency chose to move forward with the demolition contract that the Agency would have a development agreement before them at the 7/11/95 meeting. Member Alevy questioned if there was a signed agreement. Mr. Salomone stated there was only verbal agreement in principal. The attorney representing the Citrons had taken the obligation to draft the development agreement and return it to the Agency in a timely fashion. A public hearing had been scheduled for July II, 1995 at a special meeting of the Agency. At that time the Agency would review the environmental, development agreement, and land use issues. Member Alevy hoped it would be a tremendously successful project but until the Agency was actually asked to vote on the project he did not know how he would vote. He wished they had a signed agreement. He had other concerns regarding the timing of the project. Member Rindone stated the progress that had been made with the Citrons was indicative of the quality of the applicant and their intense desire to have a quality project. RESOLUTION 1454 OFFERED BY MEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-1 with Alevy opposed. 5. REPORT REQUEST FROM AUTO PARK DEALERSHIP FOR ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE--The Redevelopment Agency considered the request for additional financial assistance from the Auto Park Developers on February 14, 1995 and directed staff to obtain and analyze financial data on dealership operations. Additional information has been received and analyzed, and recommendations are offered ,(-2- Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 3 for consideration. Staff and the Auto Park developers request the item be withdrawn. Continued from the meeting of June 6, 1995. (Community Development Director) MS (Rindone/Horton) to accept the staff recommendation to withdraw the item indefinitely. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, felt the item would be brought back to the Agency some time in the future as the attorneys for the auto park wanted to speak to the Agency but had not been able to coordinate their activities. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS 6. DIRECTOR'S REPORTlS) - Nonc 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT(Sl - None 8. MEMBER COMMENTS Memher Rindone Member Rindone stated it was his understanding that staff would point out the irregularity of the adjournment to the Agency. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, requested that the meeting be continued to a meeting of August 1. 1995. Both of the dates in July were not the regularly scheduled dates for Agency meetings. However, as he previously stated, there was a need for an Agency meeting on July 11, 1995 and he would seek the Agency's permission to hold that meeting. It was likely the Agency would also request a second special meeting in July due to the Agency's workload. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 8:17 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on July 11, 1995 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. CLOSED SESSION The Agency did not meet in Closed Session. 9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(h) Chula Vista Auto Park developers - South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia v. City IRedevelopment Agency based on statements made in June 8th letter from Auto Park developers to staff (Continued from the meeting of June 13. 1995) 10. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Give Instructions to Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 ~-3 Minutes lune 20, 1995 Page 4 Property: 760 Broadway (Parcel #s 571-20-13, 571-200-14, 571-200-15, 571-200-16, and 571-200-17). Negotiating Party: Josef and Lenore Citron (Joelen Enterprises)/Chris Salomone, Community Development Director and Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator (on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency) Price and Payment Terms. (Continued from the meeting of June 13, 1995) Ii. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - The Agency did not meet in Closed Session. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk '\ by: c1.-t MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 27, 1995 10:38 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER I. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Alevy, Moot, Padilla, and Acting Chair Rindooe ABSENT: Chair Horton ALSO PRESENT: Joho D. Goss, Director: Bruce M. Boogaard, Ageocy Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 13, 1995 (Adjourned Special Meeting) and June 13,1995 (Special Meeting) MSC (Padilla/Moot) to approve the minutes of June 13, 1995 (Adjourned Special Meeting) and June 13, 1995 (Special Meeting) as presented. Approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent. ****** Mr. Boogaard stated the meeting had been called to order in conjunction with the City Council meeting to deliberate on Council Comments - Councilmember Rindone, Item a., Status report on negotiations of the Broadway Business Homes Project. The request was to discuss the item in Closed Session. BUSINESS 3. RESOLUTION 1454 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS, AND A WARDING CONTRACT FOR DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AT THE FULLER FORD SITE AT 760 BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (RD-133)-- The Agency adopted Resolution 1454 at their meeting of 6/20/95. The City Attorney has requested staff resubmit the resolution with wording in the text of the resolution to appropriate funds and indicate therein the account from which funds would be appropriated. Staff recommends the Agency reconsider and re-adopt the resolution. (Community Development DirectorlDirector of Public Works) Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated the Agency Attorney had added language in the resolution and the Agency's action would be to approve the resolution. The Agency met in Closed Session at 10:42 p.m. and reconvened at 10:59 p.m. to discuss Item 3 on the Agency Agenda and Item 15a. on the Council Agenda Mayor Pro Tern Rindone adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:59 p.m. RESOLUTION 1454 OFFERED BY MEMBER PADILLA, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 3-1- 1 with Alevy opposed and Horton ahsent. 4. RESOLUTION 1459 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--The Redevelopment Agency budget, with conunentary, was presented for approval as part of the City hudget process. As required under California Redevelopment Law, the Redevelopment Agency must meet and adopt their Budget. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) - e-{ -~ Minutes June 27. 1995 Page 2 Mr. Goss stated the overall City budget included the Redevelopment Agency budget. Staff was bringing both budgets forward together. He then presented an overview of the budget with transparencies. The actual deficit of the Agency was approximately $2.5 million and that was assuming conservatively that the growth of the tax increment would be about 2 %. Acting Chair Rindone stated the debt service was almost $3 miIlon and questioned if it went to the year 2024. Lyle Haynes, Principal Community Development Specialist, replied that the debt service, $2.957 million, contained the tax allocation bonds for the Bayfront, the BCT, CHIP program, and insurance premiums costs through 2011. The only difference between the $2.957 and the amount on the overhead was the certificates of participation, i.e. $2,055,000 because that amount was in the General Fund budget and would not be approved with the RDA budget. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated the $2.446 million was through 2024. Acting Chair Rindone stated he could not agree with the statement in the General Overview which stated "The result has been that the Agency has not experienced the tax increment growth necessary in order to protect the General Fund from exposure". He felt that was part of it but the land sales, investments made where top dollar was paid, and the need to get future projects on line significantly contributed to it. It was not just the tax increment growth. RESOLUTION 1459 OFFERED BY MEMBER ALEVY, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent. MSC (Rindone/PadilJa) Agency to receive a mid-year report on the Redevelopment Agency Budget no later than the last scheduled RDA meeting in December 1995. Approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORTlS) - None 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT(S) - None 7. MEMBER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 11: 13 P.M. to a Special Joint Redevelopment Agency/City Council Meeting on July lJ, 1995 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. CLOSED SESSION The Agency did not meet in Closed Session to discuss Chula Vista Auto Park developers _ South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford/Kia v. City/Redevelopment Agency based on statements made in June 8th letter from Auto Park developers to staff. ;{ -~ Minutes June 27, 1995 Page 3 8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) Chula Vista Auto Park developers - South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia v. City/Redevelopment Agency based on statements made in June 8th letter from Auto Park developers to staff (Continued from the meetin!! of June 20. 1995) 9. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed Session. Respectfully submitted, _ BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk ~\ '\ c:- ) '- "'~J-...'\(- Vicki C. Soderquist, CMC, by: ;<-7 This page Blank 02..-f? CHULA VISTA CAPITAL CORPtJRWYrON 80 I National City Blvd., # 1230. National City, CA 91950. (619) 336- 7 .Jl Cao) 3Al~ July 6, 1995 lief QiJLA VIS; ILIM'S OFFk Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item #3 The Honorable Shirley Horton, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 This item was received by staff on Monday, July 10 and is related to the Report: Status of the Bayfront Development. Dear Mayor Horton and Council Members: Over the past month, I have had the opportunity to meet with each member of the City Council, City Manager, Deputy City Manager, and Community Development Director. The purpose of these meetings was to review the marketing study and feasibility of developing the most recent revisions to the Chula Vista Mid-Bayfront Plan. As a result of our review of the marketing study and listening to what was being said during these meetings, Chula Vista Capital, the owner of the property, believes the project as proposed, with its 5000-seat ice skating arena, tennis facility, underground parking, 1600 hotel rooms, cultural arts center, and Special Assessment District for funding the Nature Center, is simply not financially feasible. I do want you to know that as representative for the owership of this property as well as other projects throughout California, I am committed to the ultimate feasible development of the Mid-Bayfront property. As further evidence of that commitment to the City of Chula Vista, Chula Vista Capital has paid all debts on the Mid-Bayfront property and now owns the land free and clear. It is our desire to develop a Bayfront plan that meets the goals of the City of Chula Vista and is financially feasible to us. My consultants and I have been pleased with the support for working together that has been expressed during so many of our recent meetings. Therefore, I would like to request that a Council workshop be convened to jointly pursue plan revisions that will be mutually beneficial. Best regards, AZ:dk REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item .3 Meeting Date 07/11/95 ITEM TITLE: Report Status of the Bayfront Development SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director C/;' , REVIEWED BY: Executive Director (4/5ths Vote: Yes No_l BACKGROUND; The Agency recently asked for a status report on development of the Chula Vista Mid-bayfront. Staff recently received and reviewed a Market and Feasibility Survey prepared for the Mid-bayfront property owner/developer, Adnan Zakkout, which is summarized below. RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency accept the report and name a subcommittee to work with staff in negotiating with the developer to expedite development of the Mid-bayfront. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: In July 1990, Chula Vista Capital, represented by Bill Barkett, purchased the Bayfront property which included the 96.66 acres comprising the Mid-bayfront project, 22.74 acres north of the Sweetwater River, and a license to 94.72 acres for mitigation purposes. By the end of 1991, the Developer, City staff and the Bayfront subcommittee (including Mayor Nader, Councilwoman Horton and interested citizens) developed an alternative plan for development of the Mid-bayfront. The plan was reviewed by the City Council and approved in February, 1992 with conditions (Resolution 16467 attached as exhibit A). In January 1993 the California Coastal Commission adopted Local Coastal Plan resubmittal #8 with modifications which approved the further processing of the Mid- bayfront Development Plan (Exhibit B). Negotiations proceeded with the developer, represented by Bill Barkett, towards the completion of a development agreement through March 1994. At that time Mr. Barkett informed City staff that he was selling his interest in the project to his limited partners, and that they would shortly contact the City concerning the continuation of negotiations on the development agreement. In the summer of 1994, Mr. Adnan Zakkout presented himself to the City as the representative of the new ownership interests, Pearl US Management Company. Mr. Zakkout further indicated that he planned to reassess the project and advise the City in three or four months as to the intentions of the owners. Development Services Company of Ventura, a con'sultant to land developers, was chosen to undertake a market and feasibility analysis of the project. .3-/ Page 2, Item Meeting Date 07/11/95 .3 It was not until May of this year that staff was finally able to secure a copy of the consultant's study despite numerous requests dating back to November 1994. The report attempts to analyze the marketability and financial feasibility of the project, and concludes with a list of options for property utilization for the owners to review. A copy of the report is attached as Exhibit C. The report generally concludes that the project, as approved by the Council, is overburdened with infrastructure and public commitments, and is financially infeasible and impractical. The report questions the market assumptions of the previous developer and his marketing consultant, Price Waterhouse, that the project could successfully compete with other international destination resorts in attracting large, national and regional convention groups to the site. Although the report provided a list of alternative uses for the property, it did not make any specific recommendations as to which alternatives would be preferable. However, the report does discuss problems associated with selling the land with the current entitlement. It is staff's opinion that the Market and Feasibility Survey submitted to the City has a number of shortcomings including the following; the survey relies too heavily on interviews with regional tourist industry authorities in order to determine marketability of the project to target large convention groups rather than undertaking market research and analysis. the survey makes assumptions concerning rental rates for commercial properties, hotel room rates, and occupancies based upon more traditional and smaller resort projects which don't account for the "vision" of the Barkett plan. Project revenues predictions are, consequently, lower than Barkett's. while the survey lists alternatives for development of the property, no speCific recommendations are made. Several of the alternatives are clearly not beneficial to the City. In subsequent meetings with Mr. Zakkout and his consultants, staff has learned that the charge of the consultant was to undertake a preliminary market analysis only, and that they were requested not to make specific recommendations. The report has been sent to Kuwait for review by the property owners who will decide what steps to take next. Staff remains in contact with Mr. Zakkout in an effort to expedite discussions on the future of the project. However, due to the importance of the project to the City, the fiscal health of the Redevelopment Agency, and the apparent indecision and lack of urgency on the part of the new owners, staff recommends that the Agency form a subcommittee of two members to work with staff towards resolving the present impasse with the owners. s -:2.., Page 3, Item 3 Meeting Date 07/11/95 FISCAL IMPACT: Development of the Mid Bayfront will have great financial impact on the City and the Redevelopment Agency. The project, as previously approved by the City Council and as negotiated with Bill Barkett, was projected to provide $111 million to the City through year 2024. The developer was to receive $45 million in reimbursements during the same period. Financial impact of any alternative plan will require specific analysis and will be subject to a negotiated development agreement. AK:BA YFRONT\RA4S\BA YFRONT .RA4 J -3 This page Blank 0-1' RESOLUTION NO. 16467 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO APPROVE THE MIDBAYFRONT CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SUBCOMMITTEE ALTERNATIVE) WITH MODIFICATIONS, MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, a draft Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report, dated August 1990, eva 1 uati ng the proposed Mi dbayfront Local Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmi tta 1 was prepared and was transmitted by the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and, WHEREAS, noti ce of the avail abil i ty of the draft Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report was given as required by law; and, WHEREAS, written comments from the publ icon the draft Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report were accepted from August 6, 1990 to September 26, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on the draft Environmental Impact Report on September 26, 1990; and, WHEREAS, at this hearing, CHULA VISTA INVESTORS (the project applicant) introduced a new revised concept plan described as Alternative 8; and, WHEREAS, based on new information raised in the public comment period and at the public hearing, a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated July 1991, was prepared for Alternative 8; and, WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft supersedes the previous Draft Environmental Impact Report; and, WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated July 1991, eva 1 uati ng the proposed Mi dbayfront LCP Resubmi tta 1 No. 8 Amendment project, was prepared and was transmitted by the City of Chula Vista to all concerned parties for review and comment; and, WHEREAS, noti ce of the avail abi 1i ty of the Reci rcul ated Draft Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report was given as required by law; and, WHEREAS, wri tten comments from the publ icon the Reci rcul ated Draft Environmental Impact Report were accepted from April 10, 1991 to May 22, 1991; and, WHEREAS, the pub 1 i c revi ew peri od on the Reci rcul ated Draft EIR was extended until May 24, 1991 to allow additional response time for the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service; and, -3-5 Resolution No. 16467 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report on Hay 22, 1991; and, WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for Hidbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment, dated July 1991; and, WHEREAS, the Hidbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 project was heard by the City Planning Commission on July 24, 1991; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has, by separate resolution (Planning Commission Resolution No. EIR-89-08) on July 24, 1991, certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (No. EIR-89-08) (hereafter "EIR") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal, Code of Regulations, tit. 14, section 15000 et seq.) whi ch analyzes the envi ronmenta 1 effects of the proposed Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8, Alternative 8; and, WHEREAS, the City Council certified the EIR on August 20, 1991 wherein the Project was described as Alternative 8; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16328 on August 20, 1991, which neither approved nor disapproved of Alternative 8 but referred same to the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee for their review and recommendation; and, WHEREAS, the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee held approximately 15 public meetings and recommended to the City Council that they approve Alternative 8, as identified in the EJR, with minor modifications, As so modified by said subcommittee, the recommendation of said subcommittee is officially referred to as the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative), and shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Subcommittee Alternative"); and, WHEREAS, these mi nor modifi cati ons proposed by the Subcommittee A lternati ve to Alternative 8 include the elimination of a previously designated luxury hotel and placing in its stead a Cultural Arts facility on approximately three acres, a reduction of the number of residential units from 1400 to 1000 (though the total square footage remains the same), and minor design modifications to the northern residential area; and, WHEREAS, the EIR certified by the City Council on August 20, 1991 addressed the impacts of such Subcommittee Alternative modifications; and, WHEREAS, on or about December 10, 1991, an addendum to the EIR was prepared which identified the proposed Subcommittee Alternative modifications and which concluded that said modifications did not change the conclusions as contained in the EIR as to the impacts of the Subcommittee Alternative on the environment; and, WHEREAS, public notice was given on December II, 1991, that the EJR for Resubmi tta 1 No. 8 woul d be used as the EIR for the Hi dbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative); and, 3-b Resolution No. 16467 Page 3 WHEREAS, the Pl anni ng Commi ssi on conducted a publ i c heari ng on December 18, 1991 for the purpose of hearing public testimony as to the Subcommittee Alternative and the proper and adequate preparation of the EIR, and at a continued meeting thereof held on January 8, 1992, by the adoption of their res- olution, PC No. 89-08A, recommended to the City Council the certification of the EIR and approval of the Subcommittee Alternative with additional minor modifications ("Planning Commission Alternative); and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on January 14, 1992 for the purpose of approvi ng Hi dbayfront Conceptual Development Pl an (Subcommittee Alternative) providing, among others, for the development of the site in the manner described by the Subcommittee Alternative, and for the further purpose of certifying the EIR, making findings and adopting a mitigation and monitoring program and statement of overriding considerations; and, WHEREAS, at their meeting of January 14, 1992, the City Council did conduct and close said public hearing, certified the proper preparation of the EIR for the Subcommittee Alternative by their adoption of Resolution No. 16466, proposed amendments to the concept plan (which as so amended, shall hereinafter be re- ferred to as the "Council Alternative", or alternatively hereinafter as the "Project"). and directed staff to prepare and return to the Council a revised approval resolution which incorporates their proposed amendments; and, WHEREAS, the EIR certified by the City Council on August 20, 1991 and again on January 14, 1992 addressed the impacts of the Council Alternative; and, WHEREAS, the EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment caused by the Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council is required, pursuant to CEQA, to adopt all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires, in accordance with CEQA, to declare that, despite the occurrence of certain significant and potentially significant effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives, there exist certain overriding economic, social, and other considerations for approving the Project that the City Council believes justify the occurrence of those impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. Project Approval The City Council approves the Midbayfront LCP Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative) as herein modified ("Concept Plan") and by doing so, directs the staff to process, and return to Council for approval of, an LCP Resubmittal for the territory of the Hi dbayfront , a Redevelopment Plan Amendment and a General Plan Amendment that provides a plan for the development of the Midbayfront consistent with the Midbayfront LCP Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative), .3-7 Resolution No. 16467 Page 4 with the following changes, conditions, information and additional processing direction: A. Informational Conditions At the time the General Plan Amendment and the LCP Resubmittal are returned to the Counci 1 for revi ew and approval, they shall be accompanied by the following types of information: (1) Economic Feasibility An Economic Feasibility Analysis ("EFA") shall be prepared, submitted to the Council, and approved prior to, or concurrently with, the approval of the LCP Resubmittal and Genera 1 Pl an Amendment. The report sha 11 be prepared in a format acceptable to the City's Director of Finance and be available with adequate lead time for a thorough staff review. The criteri a for approval of thi s report sha 11 be that it demonstrates cl early that the project/phasi ng proposed is economi ca 11 y feas i b 1 e. The report sha 11 i nc 1 ude a supportable statistical basis for marketi.ng (revenue/absorption) and costs associated with the feasibility analysis. (2) Minimal Residential Density to Permit Economic Feasibility. An economic feasibility analysis that demonstrates the minimum number of residential units that can be built and still permit the project to remain economically feasible. (3) Shipbuilding Jobs One or more optional plans for the Council's approval and imp 1 ementati on that wi 11 permi t the preservati on of jobs otherwise provided by the shipyard at the foot of F Street that may be di s located by the Project. One such plan may include the relocation of the shipyard facility. (4) Coordination with Coastal Commission Processing Staff is directed to review with the Coastal Commission what other communities have done with regard to mass transit programs and how such programs affects traffic and to work with the Coastal Commission staff as to the acceptability of the proposed building heights and other project features. B. Project Related Conditions At the time the General Plan Amendment and the LCP Resubmittal are returned to the City Council for their review and approval, they are to be returned in a manner that proposes, among such other conditions that the staff deems appropriate, the following conditions: .J-rf Resolution No. 16467 Page 5 (1) Cultural Arts Facility Upon determination by the Ci~y Council that a cultural arts facility of the type described herein ("Facility") is most appropriately placed within the territory of the Concept Plan, the Developer shall dedicate the land sufficient for the Facility (including parking for the facility), within the territory of the Concept Plan, and develop and present to the Council for approval, a feasible (in the judgment of the City Council) financing plan that will permit the design and construction of a multi-functional cultural arts center with a minimum goal of 2,000 seat capacity of such a design that meets with the satisfaction of the City Council, and which, as part of said financing plan, will provide for significant Developer contribution to such a project, and which may further provide for Port participation. (2) Ice Ri nk/Park The Developer shall dedicate the space and parking for same, within the territory of the Concept Plan, and either cause the desi gn and constructi on of, or fund the desi gn and construction of, a 62,000 square foot, 5,000 seat capacity ice rink of such a design that meets with the satisfaction of the City Council; or, in the alternative, a park or other recrea- tional facility designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Council. (3) Limited Number of High Rises The General P1 an Amendment and LCP Resubmi tta 1 shall be processed to provide no more than four (4) "high rise" struc- tures. The term "high rise structure" means any building more than ten (10) stories tall. (4) Parking A minimum of 75 percent of the required parking for the Resort and Resi denti a 1 uses shall be provi ded in subterranean or concealed parking structures; (5) Bike/Hiking Trails An integrated trail system to maximize trail and visual access to the bayfront shall be provided and shall provide linkage to the Chu1a Vista Greenbelt (as described in the General Plan); (6) Water Access A location for future direct access to the Bay shall be identified on the final plan in the event that future Federal, State, and Port District approvals would permit such access; J-~ Resolution No. 16467 Page 6 I (7) Traffic The Project shall not cause traffic in the Project vicinity to be reduced to below accepted City Thresholds as articulated in the Growth Management Program. A traffic monitoring program shall be established as an implementation and phasing requirement; (8) Conversion of Hotels Hotels may not be converted for residential use, and authorized but not-built hotel units are not contemplated for residential use; (9) Affordable Housing The project shall address the City's policy and practice of providing a 10 percent Affordable Housing goal (per City's Housing Element), and in this regard, the City Council may entertain fees in lieu of construction; (10) Air Quality An Ai r Quality Improvement Pl an (as defined in the Growth Management Ordi nance) shall be requi red for approval concurrently with the project submittal (SPA Plan); (II) Water Conservation A Water Conservation Plan (as defined in the Growth Management Ordinance) shall be required for approval concurrently with the project submittal (SPA Plan); (12) Schools An agreement will be reached between the Districts, applicant, and City to assure that facilities for students generated by the project will be available when needed; (13) Nature Interpretative Center Benefit or Assessment District. The propert i es enj oyi ng the benefi ts of the Nature Interpretati ve Center (i ncl udi ng the Mi dbayfront) wi 11 be included within a yet to be established Benefit or Assessment Di stri ct whi ch wi 11 contri bute full operati ona 1 costs of Center programs); and, (14) Private Lagoon The private lagoon in the northern residential area would be a private amenity for that area; 0-/6 Resolution No. 16467 Page 7 (15) Phasing Entitlements to develop the Project shall conditioned on a Phasing Plan acceptable to the City Council which Phasing Plan shall be programmed to ensure fiscal benefits to the City, and early implementation of public parks and the Cultural Arts Facility. Updated and objective market, economic, and fiscal analyses shall be provided prior to the commencement of any phase of development. Phasing program shall be conditioned to require performance guarantee of developer. (16) Assurances of Development--Development Agreement The General Plan Amendment or the LCP Resubmittal, and any entitlements therein conveyed, shall be conditioned upon the City and the Developer reaching an agreement ("Development Agreement") which addresses, among other things as the parties may desire, those matters hereinbelow set forth as Development Agreement Conditions. C. Development Agreement Conditions The Developer shall commit, in the form of a proposed and executed Development Agreement, to, and provide the City with, security sufficient, to the City's reasonable satisfaction, to insure that the different phases of the project prior to commencement of any such phase will be completed. It is the intent of this paragraph that the completion of all public infrastructure shall be guaranteed or otherwise suitably bonded prior to commencement of any such infrastructure and that the comp 1 eti on of each pri vate structure shall be guaranteed or suitably bonded prior to the commencement of construction of any such private structure. The Council may consider waiving the security sufficiency requirement for a Developer that is a governmental agency. (1) Cultural Arts Facility Contribution As part of financing plan required by the conditions of this resolution hereinabove set forth, Developer shall provide for significant Developer contribution to the design and construction of such a Facility, and which may further provide for San Diego Unified Port District participation. . By approving the Concept plan, the City Council intends only to give, and gives only, development processing direction to the staff of the City in order that staff may efficiently and effectively develop an LCP Amendment and General Plan Amendment. Such approval is not intended to, and shall not, constitute final approval of the plan at this stage nor is it intended to, and shall not, convey any entitlement or expectation of development to the developer; finally, approval of the concept plan is not intended to, and shall not, commit the Council to approval of the LCP Resubmittal, the General Plan Amendment, or the Redevelopment Plan 3-// Resolution No. 16467 Page 8 Amendment, or any other land use right. Rather, the Council shall retain full and unfettered discretion to consider the LCP Resubmittal, the Genera 1 Pl an Amendment, and the Redevelopment Pl an Amendment wi thout consequence, despite its decision to approve the Concept Development Plan. Developer shall receive no vested rights to develop prior to the entering into a final Development Agreement with the City of Chula Vista, and/or the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, and such rights shall then be only those conferred by such Development Agreement, but in the absence of reaching terms as to a Development Agreement wherein the City confers vested rights in the Developer, the Developer shall receive no vested rights to develop prior to the commencement of construction pursuant to validly issued building permits. (2) The Development Agreement shall provide that the first phase of development shall i ncl ude development of the core area comprising the lagoon, core hotels, retail/commercial with residential above, and sports complex. Residential development in the northern area (north of Marina Parkway) may be included to a maximum of 25 percent of the total number of units. 2. CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations A. Adoption of Findings The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and everyone of the CEQA Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A or on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as document number C092-013. B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto or on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as document number C092-013, the City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, that certain of the mitigation measures described in the ErR as feasible are feasible, and will become a binding condition or conditions upon the Proj ect. C. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives. As set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto or on file in the City Cl erk' s Offi ce and known as document number C092-013, the City Council finds that the remainder of the proposed mitigation measures, identified therein as infeasible, and none of the proposed Project alternatives set forth in the Final EIR can feasibly substantially lessen or avoid the potentially significant effects that will not be substantially lessened or avoided by adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. ..J - /:u Resolution No. 16467 Page 9 D. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program. As requi red by Public Resources Code sect i on 21081. 6, the City Council hereby adopts the mitigation monitoring program ("Program"). set forth in Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference or on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as document number C092-014. The City Council finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during Project implementation, the Project applicant, and other responsible parties, implement the Project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings. E. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant adverse environmental effects caused by the Project will remain. Therefore, the City Council hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093 and as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto or on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as document number C092-013, a statement of overri di ng consi derati ons i denti fyi ng the specifi c economic, social, and other considerations that render that unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. Presented by (!L~~/ Christopher Salomone Director of Community Development ruce M. Boogaar Ci ty Attorney S-l3 Resolution No. 16467 Page 10 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 4th day of February, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Counei 1 members: Grasser Horton, Mal co 1m, Moore, Nader, Rindone NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None Council members : None Councilmembers: None :r.~ ~ / Tim Nade , Mayor ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16467 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council held on the 4th day of February, 1992. Executed this 4th day of february, 1992. j -If CHULA VISTA MID-BAYFRONT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: SUMMARY fuydatedl January 1994 3..-/5 This page Blank .3 ~/G CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT SUMMARY OF "BASE PROJECT" JULY 23, 1992 o 1610 HOTEL ROOMS o 1000 HOUSING UNITS o 150,000 SQUARE FEET COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE o 60,000 SQUARE FEET OFFICE SPACE o CONFERENCE AND TENNIS FACILITIES o ONSITE/OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE o PARKS, LAGOONS, PUBLIC AMENITIES o SCHOOL MITIGATION o AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION o MULTI-PURPOSE SPORTS FACILITY/ICE SKATING RINK o CULTURAL ARTS FACILITY SITE (WEST OF MARINA PARKWAY) DONATED FOR PUBLIC USE o FUNDING OPERATION OF THE NATURE CENTER .3 ~J7 This page Blank J~/f PROJECT DESCRIPTION Chula Vista Investors has proposed a dynamic and exciting project for Chula Vista's bayfront which has been designed to provide open space, parks, sporting facilities, day-care center, residential housing, retail shopping, hotels and entertainment. It is truly a world-class development that will bring many benefits to the City of Chula Vista and its citizens. The bayfront site encompasses approximately 400 acres. Following dedication of land for open space, the net planning area for the project is 112 acres. The property is located in the western- most portion of the City of Chula Vista bounded by Interstate 5 to the east, F street to the south, 24th Street in National City to the north and fronting San Diego Harbor on the west. The project components analyzed in this report will occupy approximately 31.8 acres of the pad area. The remaining acreage will be utilized for other project amenities, additional open space, parks, roads, etc. Chula Vista Investors is currently processing development approvals for the project. substantial pre-development work has been completed including engineering, planning, conceptual architecture and environmental impact report (EIR). The Chula Vista City Council gave conceptual approval of the project and certified the EIR in January, 1992. The developer is processing a revised Local Coast Plan (LCP) with the California Coastal Commission which will be forwarded to the Chula Vista City Council for ratification once approved. Negotiations for a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) are currently in process between the developer and the City of Chula Vista. It is acknowledged that the final unit mix and plans for this project will most likely be refined subsequent to the date of this report. The current development proposal being processed provides for a festival architectural theme that will center around two man-made lagoons (see enclosed site plan exhibit). The development plans include separate co=ercial and residential nodes oriented around two man-made lagoons. The commercial .core" lagoon is surrounded by three hotel owners totaling 1360 rooms and 300 rental apartments above 145,000 square feet of retail space in a European urban village setting. The residential lagoon, which is located approximately 300 feet north of the core lagoon, will be surrounded by 700 condominiums with 264 units located in two high- rise owners, 60 townhome units and the balance of 376 units in low-rise (three and four story) stacked-flats. There is also 5000 square feet of retail planned at the southeast end of the lagoon. In addition, located east of the lagoons is a 350 room motor inn and 60,000 square feet of office space. The project will also contain the world-class Nick Bolletieri tennis academy including 36 tennis courts with a 2ooo-seat tennis stadium, a 40,000 square-foot conference center, an olympic size swimming pool, a 7000 square-foot child care center,public parks, natural open space, walking trails, active lagoons and other amenities. There is a possibility that a 5000-seat Multipurpose Sports Facility/Ice Rink may also be included as a project amenity. The City is considering a 100,000 square foot cultural arts center on the northwesterly point of the property where the core lagoon meets San Diego Harbor. .J -/7 Adjacent planned projects which have been evaluated as part of the LCP by the City include Rohr's 560,000 square-feet of office and manufacturing space located on approximately 25.1 acres, and a 6.5 acre parcel of land owned by the City of Chula Vista located at the northeast corner of the project which may be earmarked for retail, commercial or hospitality uses. The project amenities described above (tennis complex and conference center), Rohr's office and manufacturing complex, and the City-owned parcel are not addressed by this report. The above project amenities are assumed to be stand alone businesses which would generate a return sufficient to pay for the construction of the facilities. A market analysis of these uses has not been performed, and revenues and expenses that will result from the development and operation of these amenities have not been included in the financial analysis. In the event that subsidy is required, it would increase the project-wide amenity budget. The scope of this report addresses the following aspects of the development: · Land and other related improvements including the lagoons, public parks, wetlands mitigation and other site improvements. · A total of four hotels, three of which are located around the core lagoon, consisting of a total of 1610 rooms. · 150,000 square-feet of retail space. · 60,000 square-feet of office space. · 300 rental apartment units located above the retial space. · 700 condominium units, 264 of which are located in two towers, 16 townhome units and the balance of 375 units in low-rise (three- and four-story) stacked-flats. The owner's proposed development schedule for these projects is presented in the following exhibit. A critical element of the project construction schedule is that the infrastructure is all assumed to be built in a single phase over a three year period. In addition, the "core" lagoon area, including three hotel towers (1360 rooms), 145,000 square feet of retail space, 300 rental apartment units and related parking structure, is planned as a single massive first phase of development. This phase is assumed to commence at the beginning of the third year of land development and take approximately two years to complete. [C:\WP5 t \BA YFRONTIDEVELOP2. TX1l ..3 - ~(j '" " <? co - - 0 I- Z 0 W m a: --' :::> LL 0 >- w ;r:. '" <: () en (/) w <: 1- --' Z OJ I- w "- <:: ~ f- C/) Q. > 0 --' <: w <0 > -1 w :J 0 I '" 0 "<t <? co o o a: w 0- I- Z W ~ 0- o -' W G; o "- <0 o z <:: -' ,.. '" en "0 ci:i Q) ...JE-:=~ W :J 0 Q) t-:S~'X2 O<::a:w_ :r: .-' = .:.i Q) Q) <~~ t;;.<:.<: a: 0-0- CJ) f- Z W ~ a: <( 0- <( w () 11: u. o .3 -.if ~ <(.....C\I....-C\l~ i= f I I . E Z CD Q) Q) Q) 0 w..5:2~(,f)(I).s::: O........--c -.<:.<: li li >: (/)99000 ~:Z::C-J--'t- c: !2 a. l5 '" D ::: c: c: s!s!c 00.2 220. Ui'Z5o c c '" OOD ()()<( .,; '" " o .c (j; n; 3: '" E u: '" l5 ;;; '" > oS '" ;;; ;; '" :; .c () CD o :; o CJ) -...... ~.- a: UJ f- Z UJ o UJ > UJi= a: a: ~~ zUJ f- .2~ <D <D >> >, .8 .8 gJ := <(<(:;::; 0 .("() (U :6 &: Q)~:;::;<o ~<DCLL C>, Da:<D g:=: I:::::-U<D ....=.0 <D .("() 'w CO ~ ~ ~ :J ..... <D <D <v - oW C 0: <D ~ {"() C LL 0 0: <D--.'-CO<DW U - <D 0- en <D >- 2 J:: Ow '(U C 0: U C9 t::: .c 0 o .0) <D ill 0 <D :c 6 8. c :::: W I I a: a: 0 .2 0 0 (f) F!? 0 Y: 6@)@@)@)@<8@@@@ ~~; >J?<ll :5~ ~CJ Q] ~ -f--6 ~Q 00) 000 O)c 0:0 roO 1.....-+-' -+-'0 C._ 0)1..... 0115 "- o tt) '" 0; ;;; ~ E 8 G I 3 ~I ~ I" .9- .c '" ~ leI 1;; 10 C5 I "EI E l<: <n lei & a: a @ ct <Xl ~IR <D "2 0 ...J "" '" ::; "'" --, m E => Q. 6, "00-, '" 0 a; 0 5 0 en 3 ~..2 ~ ;t.' I. - oof--J CO' 0.. +=iQ) Co we :-gO (/)0 (1) a:oof--J o "- ~ oof--J CI) "- o Wac >w wi=..... a:a:Z ::>ww b"-U ",a: ZW I- .E~ E ::J .E x <IS ~ Q) (ij~ <IS ~ (ij .- (J).- CI)'- .- Q) ~ ~ .....-......, C"OCQ) COCCI) Q) W Q)'i:: Q)...... Q) a: "D "00 "DC/) "0 ._~ .-.......- .-.r::. CI) L.. CI) (/) CI) -.;t CI) (J) 0) <IS Q) 0). 0)._ 0: a... a: C\l 0: C\l 0: I []D 'co .... Q) a: -- co :;::; C Q) :0 ~ C a: .f; -..I?? ::::::::: '" '" '" q; 4 2 s; ><:: a: if. U :J ro ::> "- - ^"'^'lfJ"d eutJ"V'l -'1-1- oO:a:U a:o- I-",a: zwt;) ~a:a 3-..23 . ~~~; 61:>: '0 ' >6: Ctl :S~ ::Ju 2J] a. :E '" 1;; .s ~ (l) "0 1;; ...., >> .D C Ol '0; (l) Cl a; 12 ::> o (f) :f: This page Blank 3 --~f This page Blank ..3-:L~ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Executive Summary 3. Property Fact Sheet 4. Location Maps A. California State Map B. San Diego County Map C. San Diego Metropolitan Area Map 5. Site Map and Aerial Photograph 6. Property History (Through Date of Acquisition) 7. Status of Approvals and Entitlements 8. San Diego Metropolitan Overview A. Geographic Overview B. Economic Overview C. Demographic Summary and Supporting Data 9. Analysis of Proposed Product Pricing and Occupancy A. International, National & Regional Group Markets B. Hotels and Conference Centers C. Retail Space D. Office Space E. Water Oriented Housing 10. Review of Existing Financial Analyses A. Price Waterhouse Market Analysis B. Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates Financial Analysis C. Summary of Current Market Conditions 11. Conclusions 12. Options for Property Utilization 13. Recommendations DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY .3 -e21 This page Blank 3 -;<? INTRODUCTION This report is being prepared to assist Pearl U.S. Management Company with the analysis of their pending management decisions relating to the use and/or disposition of the Mid-Bayfront project. Mid-Bayfront is a proposed mixed use hotel project On the San Diego Bay in the City of Chula Vista, which includes 1,610 hotel rooms; 150,000 square feet of retail space; 60,000 square feet of office space; 700 condominiurns; and 300 apartment units. Upon completion of a preliminary review of the two existing financial analyses, the approved entitlements and the draft development agreement, Pearl U.S. Management believed there was sufficient evidence to warrant a review of the Mid-Bayfront project in order to assess the feasibility of the project program in its current form based on current economic conditions. Pearl U.S. Management retained Development Services Company to gather factual data relating to the pricing and absorption of the various products conceived of by the Mid- Bayfront project, as well as to conduct an analysis of the general economic conditions in San Diego, in order to allow Pearl U.S. Management to assess the current feasibility of the project. The goal of this "Market and Feasibility Survey" is to compare the current market condition in Chula Vista and San Diego County to the assumptions used in the previous Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates and Price Waterhouse studies, and to provide recommendations based on this comparison. It is assumed that project costs and the phasing of these costs will be within the range used in the previous reports. Our analysis includes a review of the current market for all products proposed for lease or sale. In addition, we reviewed the existing studies and compared their assumptions with current market realities. Based on the above analysis and within the context of the Southern California and San Diego economies in general, we have developed various options for the utilization of the Mid-Bayfront property. Recommendations have been made, based on the above information, analysis and options, regarding the most beneficial course(s) of action for Pearl U.S. Management Company to take at this time. This survey is valid as of the published date; changes in economic and market conditions over time will inevitably reduce the accuracy of the survey. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY .3~;;l' This page Blank .3 ~ 36 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Mid-Bayfront project, located on approximately 96 acres on the San Diego Bay in the City of Chula Vista, has been owned by Chula Vista Investors since July of 1990. The project has been controversial for many years because of its location in an environmentally sensitive area and the fact that it is one of the last significant land parcels remaining on the San Diego Bay within close proximity to existing urbanized uses. The Mid-Bayfront property became entangled in a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club because it was close to a proposed freeway interchange, the construction of which was being contested in order to stop the alleged damage to the Sweetwater Marsh which would result. The case was settled out of court after the previous owner of the Mid-Bayfront project granted approximately 75% of the land area of the property to the federal government. Chula Vista Investors went through a three-year process, beginning in 1990, to entitle the property in its current configuration. In May of 1993, the Local Coastal Plan was formally amended and a specific plan approved for the Mid-Bayfront project. These entitlements allow for 1,610 hotel rooms, 300 apartment units, 60,000 square feet of office space, 150,000 square feet of retail space and 700 residential condominium units. Prior to concluding a settlement agreement with the former general partner of Chula Vista Investors in September of 1994, the Chula Vista City Council was considering the merits of a draft development agreement relating to the property. By way of this development agreement, the owner of the property was agreeing to provide funding for a Cultural Arts Facility (CAF), a Nature Center (NC), and an Ice Skating Rink (ISR). The CAF is estimated to cost the land owner $15.5 million. There is, however, language in the draft development agreement which allows the City to provide alternate funding for the NC thereby allowing the developer NC payments to be applied to the CAF. If this were done, the CAF payments would be capped at the lesser of $45 million or actual cost of the CAF. The development agreement requires annual funding of the NC by the land owner which will cost from $420,000 to $500,000 per year. These payments are to be made in perpetuity; therefore, the total cost of payments can be arrived at by capitalizing the annual cost. At a 9.5% cap rate the total cost is estimated to be $4.5 million to $5.25 million. The 5,000 seat ISR will require the construction of a 1,428-space parking structure. The total cost of the ISR complex is estimated to be over $21 million with a capitalized value of only $2 million. The above extraordinary expenses, amounting to between $39.2 million to $69.5 million, were used as incentives by the previous general partner of Chula Vista Investors in order to gain project approval from the City of Chula Vista. Two previous financial analyses were prepared for the Mid-Bayfront project. In order to determine the feasibility of the project, as well as the net increase in city revenues which would be generated by implementation of the project. These analyses describe a range of increased net revenue to the City of between $48.78 million and $84.59 million over a period of approximately 20 to 25 years. The total definable value of benefits to the City, therefore, range from $88.0 million to $154.1 million. DEVELOPMENT SERVlCES COMPANY 3~31 The Mid-Bayfront project is located in what is known as the South Bay region which is generally south and east of downtown San Diego. The naval shipyards and industrial areas immediately south of downtown form a barrier between the Mid-Bayfront and downtown San Diego which precludes a beneficial planning relationship between them. The South Bay area in the vicinity of the Mid.Bayfront property has a predominantly industrial character. In addition, a demographic analysis of this same area indicates the area tends to support a population with lower income levels and fewer professional skills than other areas of San Diego. In general, we believe this type of area will not provide an optimal setting for a destination resort as envisioned by the Mid-Bayfront project. In economic terms, the San Diego metropolitan area was the 19th most populous in the United States in 1992, while the City of San Diego was the sixth largest in the nation. In descending order of size, the largest economic sectors in San Diego County are the manufacturing, defense and visitor industries. Those industries account for 24%, 17% and 6% of the total San Diego economy. The San Diego area, generally speaking, is a good market for well conceived tourism projects because of its many natural features and entertainment opportunities. The visitor industry in San Diego is recently recovering from a downturn which was caused by the California recession and the over-building of hotel capacity in the 1980's. The Mid-Bayfront project's forecasted revenues are based on the success of the hotel component of the project. The current marketing plan envisions occupancy of the hotels being driven by the regional and national group meeting market. Fully 76% of total demand for the project's rooms is projected to be achieved through the group meeting market. The success of the balance of the core of the project (retail, office and apartment users), will be driven by the success of the hotels. It is, therefore, paramount that the hotel component of the Mid-Bayfront project succeed in order for the entire project to succeed. There is an apparent conflict, however, between the marketing program and the design of the project. The marketing program only provides for 40,000 square feet of meeting space in a remote facility and is not specific as to the quantity of meeting space in the hotel facilities. It would be imperative that sufficient conference space be incorporated into the hotels in order to be consistent with the marketing concept. This report analyzes comparable product in the hotel, retail, office and residential markets in order to establish current occupancy, lease rates, and sales prices. This data is compared to the previous financial analyses prepared by Price Waterhouse and Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. in order to assess their validity. The hotel industry can be segmented into geographic regions and market segments. An analysis of the South Bay sub-area revealed that hotel occupancy rates are at about the same level as the county average, while room rates are typically 50% to 55% of the county average. The Mission Valley sub-area includes conference center hotels which are not located in a particularly desirable area from a natural amenity point of view. These hotels have occupancy rates which are at or below the county average, and room rates which are typically 80% of the county average. We looked at the hotel market, segmented by price into percentile ranges for the combined geographic area of San Diego, Mission Valley and La lolla/Point Lorna. The top and second 15 percentile ranges are identified as luxury and upscale hotels, respectively. The occupancy rates for both of these market segments DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3-3L typically run 3% to 5% higher than the county average. Room rates for the upscale segment are essentially the same as the county average, while the average luxury room rate is approximately $40 to $45 per night higher than the county average. There is, however, a wide range of pricing at the most prominent hotels in San Diego with a high-end rate in the mid $200 per-night range. The Mid-Bayfront, upon build-out, could certainly attract group users and would be considered a more desirable location than the Mission Valley sub-area because of its proximity to the San Diego Bay and design as a multi-use destination resort. It would, however, not be as desirable as the downtown San Diego market. Downtown San Diego provides proximity to the Bay and a wide range of dining and shopping facilities, all within the vibrant setting of the sixth largest city in the United States. Hotel pricing for the Mid- Bayfront should therefore reflect a premium over the Mission Valley sub-area and a discount from the downtown San Diego luxury market. We feel that this rate, in current dollars, should be in the $95 per-day range, which is significantly below the $1 IO per-day room rate projected in the existing studies. We found that this type of aggressive pricing structure was assumed throughout both previous reports for the various products envisioned on the Mid-Bayfront. Exhibit 16 depicts the pricing discrepancies between the current market and the existing financial analyses. The most optimistic financial analysis, which was prepared by Price Waterhouse, results in a I 1.3% internal rate of return. Based on our analysis of current market conditions, the revenues for the project are substantially overstated, which would significantly reduce the internal rate of return. The Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates analysis calculated a net present value based on a 13% cost of capital. This resulted in a negative $77.5 million net present value relative to a negative $33.0 million net present value for the Price Waterhouse study. For a project of this scope, the cost of capital should be on the order of 20% to 30%, which would dramatically increase the negative net present value. It should be noted that these studies both assume a non-leveraged financial structure. The internal rate of return and net present value of the project may be improved if debt financing is utilized. The increase in internal rate of return, however, would need to be significant enough to attract debt financing in order to make this a viable alternative. Based on the negative net present value for the current project as concluded by the two previous financial analyses, and the overstated revenue structures they assume, it is clear that the Mid-Bayfront project in its current form is not economically viable. This is not to say that the group marketing concept is flawed. The failure of the project in its current form is caused primarily by the burden of extraordinary costs imposed by the City on the project. If the costs associated with the cultural arts facility, nature center, ice skating rink, tennis center and subterranean parking were removed from the project cost structure, the project may be feasible. To fully assess project feasibility, we recommend that the national group hotel market concept (as discussed in the Price Waterhouse Study), be analyzed to determine current viability of that concept. Such work was beyond the defined scope of this preliminary market survey. The national group approach referenced by Price Waterhouse assumes 60% of the demand will be created by national conference groups. They do not identify the other 40% of demand, but speak of possible international users. It may be difficult to attract international convention users because of the lack of international flights into San Diego. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3-3'j There are several options available for the use of this property. The property could be sold "as is," re-entitled for tourist/amusement-oriented development with some hotels, re-entitled for a neo-traditional village on the Bay, re-entitled for "Big Box" retail users combined with residential, traded for more easily developed federal land or have the draft development agreement renegotiated and a revised land plan approved. We recommend that the property not be sold "as is" since the market value with existing entitlernents is probably not greater than the current land basis, including carrying and processing costs. An effort should be made by the land owner to renegotiate the proposed development agreement with the City in order to eliminate the extraordinary costs which are currently in place. The land plan should be revised to eliminate the non-viable sports center which would allow for more surface parking. This extra surface parking should allow for the virtual elimination of the subterranean parking. If a revised agreement cannot be finalized within a short period of time, efforts toward re-entitlement should be pursued in a cautious, deliberate and low-cost manner. A land plan concept should be selected by the land owner which responds to current market conditions, financial constraints and political realities. An agreement in concept should be reached between the City staff, City Council, land owner, financing sources and possible end users, prior to an application being filed and/or significant funds being expended. Given the current level of environmental analysis which has already been completed, the City should be comfortable in entering into a development agreement which would describe the project concept, vesting, land owner/City responsibilities and any other relevant issues. This agreement would be subject to approval of revisions to the environmental impact report, specific plan and local coastal plan. In other words, a financially viable project concept should be agreed on up-front rather than submitting a development application and being subject to the time consuming and costly governmental review process. With new entitlements in place, the project would experience a significant increase in market value. At such point, Pearl U.S. Management could sell the property or develop it and enjoy the profits of a well-conceived development program. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY ,8.-31 .' PROPERTY FACT SHEET Owner: Chula Vista Capital, a California Limited Partnership Property Size: 96.66 Acres Location: West of Interstate 5, between the extension of D and F Streets in the City of Chula Vista. Parcel Numbers: 565-010-30 & 567-011-05 Purchase Price: $10,500,000 (Book Value) General Plan Land Use Designation: RC - Commercial Resort CV - Commercial Visitor RH - High Density Residential (18-27 DUlAC) PRK - Parks and Recreation Current Zoning: CRD - Central Resort District CV - Commercial Visitor PQ - Public and Quasi Public RH - Residential High Density PR - Parks and Recreation Governing Jurisdiction: City of Chula Vista (Lead Agency) California Coastal Commission Utility Providers; Sewer: Water: Gas: Electric: Telephone: Cable Television: Laidlaw Waste Systems Sweetwater Authority San Diego Gas & Electric San Diego Gas & Electric Pacific Bell Chula Vista Cable Adjacent Property Uses: North: South: East: West: Sweetwater Marsh Wildlife Preserve. Rohr (manufacturing), F & G marsh area, and abandoned commercial building. Interstate 5 Freeway San Diego Bay and Sweetwater Marsh Wildlife Preserve DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3-35 Subject Property Condition: The property is relatively flat with sparse vegetation limited to low grasses and a few areas of naturalized shrubs. There is a paved pad located at the extension of "E" Street which provides parking for the Nature Interpretive Center (N.I.C.). A graded dirt road links the N.I.C. to the parking lot. A concrete slab is located south of the dirt road extension of "E" Street. On the south side of the property adjacent to the "F" Street marsh there is a low area which was a part of the "F" Street marsh prior to the extension of "F" Street. The property provides upland habitat, but is developable because the prior property owners dedicated the adjacent wildlife preserve to the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife in exchange for the right to develop the remaining 96.66 acres. DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3-3b PROPERTY HISTORY (Through Date of Acquisition) Prior to the purchase of this property by Chula Vista Capital, this site was owned by Santa Fe Industries. Santa Fe Industries submitted a plan to the City of Chula Vista which envisioned an industrial business park. The City was against this land use concept because they did not want to have one of the last significant parcels on the bay developed in a land use which would preclude significant public access to the San Diego Bay. Subsequent to the above proposal, the City of Chula Vista submitted a Local Coastal Plan to the California Coastal Commission which would allow public access and a mix of residential and commercial uses. This submittal was opposed by Santa Fe Industries and was ultimately denied approval by the Commission. At this point, Santa Fe Industries formed a partnership with Watt Industries, and the two companies worked together to prepare a Local Coastal Plan amendment which would allow a 400 room hotel on Gunpowder Point, specialty commercial and residential uses. The City of Chula Vista supported this plan. About the time of the Santa Fe/Watt proposal, the California Department of Transportation was proposing to build the Interstate 5/Highway 54 interchange which is near the Mid-Bayfront project. The Sierra Club (a pro-environment group) adamantly opposed the loss of habitat which they saw as inevitable as a result of the construction of the interchange. The Santa F e/W att project was included in a lawsuit, filed in an attempt to prevent the highway project from proceeding, since its construction was also viewed as causing significant impact to environmentally sensitive habitat areas. This lawsuit was settled out of court and result in the granting of approximately 75% of the Santa Fe/Watt property to the Federal Government. The resultant property is: the current 96.66 acres upon which the Mid-Bayfront project is planned; the 22.74 acre property North of the Sweetwater River; and a license to 94.72 acres of property for mitigation purposes. This license is effective for 20 years and allows the licensee to construct mitigation projects on the property or sell the rights to third parties. In July of 1990, Chula Vista Capital purchased the above resultant property and commenced processing of the Mid-Bayfront project. As of March 31, 1994, Development in Process, as depicted on the unaudited financial statement, was $17.18 million. Development in Process was increased by $2.97 million and $2.58 rnillion in 1992 and 1993, respectively. DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY '3-37 This page Blank 3 ~ 3S' STATUS OF APPROVALS AND ENTITLEMENTS August 1991: City Council certified final ErR. December 1991: Planning Commission voted to recommend the Citizen's Sub- Committee concept plan for the Mid-Bayfront to City Council for approval. January 1992: Resolution 16467 Approving: The Mid-Bayfront Conceptual Development Plan (subcommittee alternative). Making: Findings of Fact relating to the feasibility of mitigation measures and project alternatives. Adopting: A Mitigation Monitoring Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. February 1992: Resolution 16467 (Consent Calendar) Approving; The Mid-Bayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Chula Vista Plan). Making: Findings of Fact relating to the feasibility of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Statement of Overriding Considerations. October 1992: Resolution 16838 Certifying: Final ErR - Mid-Bayfront Local Coastal Plan Resubmittal #8 (ErR 89-08). Amending: General Plan land use element, land use circulation diagram, parks and recreation element and Bayfront area plan. Adopting: Chula Vista Local Coastal Plan Resubmittal, consisting of land use plan and specific plan. Making: Findings of fact adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Mid-Bayfront Local Coastal Plan Resubmittal #8. Based on Bayfront Planning Subcommittee alternative plan. DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY J~39 October 1992: Ordinance 2532: (First reading) Adopting: Chula Vista Local Coastal Plan implementation plan - the Bayfront Specific Plan as the zoning ordinance. Certifying: Final ErR, Mid-Bayfront Local Coastal Plan Resubmittal #8 amendment (ElR 89-08). Making; Findings of Fact. Adopting: The Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations. October 1992: Ordiriance 2532: (Second reading) With concurrent direction for staff to proceed with draft development agreement while Local Coastal Plan is proceeding . through Coastal Commission. January 1993: California Coastal Commission adopted Local Coastal Plan Resubmittal #8 with modifications. March 1993: Resolution 17036: Amending: Resolution 16838 by adopting California Coastal Commission January of 1993 action regarding Local Coastal Plan Resubmittal #8 and accepting modifications. Ordinance 2546; (F irst reading) Amending; Ordinance 2532 by adopting California Coastal Commission January 15, 1993 actions on Local Coastal Plan Resubmittal #8 and accepting modifications to specific plan. March 1993: Ordinance 2546: (Second reading) May 1993: Ordinance 2556: (First reading) Amending: Exhibit A of Ordinance 2546 One Coastal Commission modification to specific plan was not included. May 1993: Ordinance 2556: (Second Reading) During a July 1994 Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency meeting, the remaining issues relating to the project were summarized by staff. The major remaining issues from the Agencies point of view were the limitations on hotel operators, the disclosure of the DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3-;fv developer's financial statements and the timing of the payments to the City for operation of the Nature Interpretive Center. The Agency gave staff direction to continue negotiations with the developer and return in ninety days with a final. draft of the development agreement. Subsequent to this meeting, Pearl U.S. Managernent Company met with various city staff members and explained that they are in the process of re-evaluating the project and will, in the near future, provide input to staff about their plans for the Mid-Bayfront project. The approved Bayfront specific plan provides zoning for the Mid-Bayfront project. The zoning classifications are: CRD Central Resort District: Allows for resort hotels, retail, office, apartment and sports facilities which comprise the central core of the project. CV Commercial Visitor: Allows for the motel adjacent to Interstate 5. PQ Public and Quasi Public: Allows for landscaped parking on SDG&E easement. RH Residential High Density: Allows for mid rise and low rise condominiums. PR Parks and Recreation: Allows for park buffer zone between project and marsh restoration areas. Per the Bayfront specific plan the CRD, CV and RH zones on the Mid-Bayfront project allow for 1610 hotel rooms, 300 apartment units, 60,000 square feet of office space, 150,000 square feet of retail space and 700 residential condominium units. The approved zoning ordinances require the conditions of approval to be satisfied by January, 2003 or the zoning ordinance can be repealed. A significant condition includes executing a development agreement which specifies extraordinary costs to be borne by the developer. Although such additional development costs are typical of real estate projects in California, those required of this project appear to be in excess of costs which will be required to mitigate the identified impacts of the project. The exact amount of these costs have been determined via negotiation between the developer, City staff and City Council. California courts have held that there must be a nexus (direct relationship) between the impacts which the project creates and the City imposed costs to mitigate these impacts. The extraordinary costs which have been agreed to, as a part of the ordinance approving this project, are as follows: Cultural Arts Facilitv The approvals require the dedication of land for a Cultural Arts Facility (CAF) as well as the contribution of a "significant" portion of the construction costs. The land is valued at $8 million by Price Waterhouse and construction costs are estimated at $37.2 million. The draft development agreement would require a $1.0 million payment by the developer at grading permit; $500,000 prior to issuance of the first building permit; and $500,000 in the second and fourth years after issuance of the first building permit. If the DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY ,J-1/ City raises $4 million within ten years of the fourth CAF payment, the developer will be required to pay an additional $5 million toward the construction of the CAF. Therefore, the total cost of the CAF to the developer will likely be $15.5 million including land and CAF payments. The approving ordinances and resolutions give the City complete discretion in approving a financing plan for the CAF which may include "significant developer contribution." This plan must be approved prior to the developer submitting building plans for review by the City. Therefore, at the City of Chula Vista's discretion, a significantly higher developer contribution could be required to help pay for the construction of the CAF, the amount of which cannot be determined at this time. The developer contribution is capped by the draft development agreement at the lesser of $45 million or the actual cost of the CAF. Nature Interpretive Center The Nature Interpretive Center (NIC) is an existing facility which operates on a budget of $420,000 per year. The draft development agreement envisions a developer payment in the amount of the lesser of actual costs or $500,000 per year. There is a complex escalation clause which in general provides for a 3% annual increase. The capitalized cost of these payments at 9.5% is in the range of $4.5 to $5.25 million. Ice Skating Rink An ice skating rink is required to be built by the developer. This would require the construction of a 1,428 space parking structure at a cost of $14,280,000. An additional $7,071,000 would be required to build the skating facility. According to Price Waterhouse, the capitalized value of this facility would be $2.105 million; therefore, the net value (value less cost) is a negative $19,246,000. Therefore, the total extraordinary costs agreed to in order to gain the entitlements for this project range from $39.2 million to $69.5 million, assuming the draft development agreement is executed in its current form. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY J-Jf~ GEOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW San Diego County is located in the extreme southwest corner of the United States. It is bordered on the north by the Los Angeles/Orange County metropolitan area, on the east by the Anza Borrego Desert, on the south by Mexico and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The City of San Diego's location on the Pacific Ocean gives it an ideal climate with ocean breezes to cool it in the summer and a southern latitude making for mild winters. Daily temperature extremes rarely exceed 15 degrees Fahrenheit. The monthly average maximum temperature ranges from 64 degrees Fahrenheit to 76 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual rainfall ranges from 3.8 to 15 inches per year with a typical annual precipitation of 10 inches. The total county population was 2.6 million in 1992, making it the nineteenth most populous metropolitan area in the United States. Over half of the region's total population lives in the City of San Diego making it the sixth largest city in the nation. San Diego is linked to Los Angeles to the north by Interstate 5. San Diego Bay provides harbors for private industry, the military and recreational uses. Manufacturing, military production and tourism provide a strong base for the San Diego economy. The following are descriptions of the communities and incorporated cities within close proximity to the subject property. Pacific Beach, Mission Beach and Ocean Beach are on the coast near Mission Bay and contain older residential neighborhoods in average condition. The homes are on small lots creating a high density residential feel with resident serving commercial uses incorporated. Mission Hills and Hillcrest are in the hills above downtown San Diego. These communities are among the oldest in the City of San Diego. There are many well established neighborhoods with many fine Victorian and Spanish style homes catering to the numerous professionals who live in this area. Point Lorna is located on the north side of the San Diego Bay with the topography sloping upward fairly steeply to the north from the Bay. This is a desirable older community composed of hillside homes with views of San Diego Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Coronado is a resort/residential community located across the bay from downtown San Diego and connected to it by the Coronado Bay Bridge. It is an affluent community composed of an older well educated population. DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3-13 National City is on the San Diego Bay south of Downtown San Diego. Bayfront uses include naval and private shipyards and heavy industrial users. Residential uses are east of Interstate 5. These residential neighborhoods are among the oldest and least expensive in San Diego County. Chula Vista is the largest urban center in the south bay region. It lies half way between downtown San Diego and the Mexican border. Its bayfront area is similar to the National City bayfront west ofInterstate 5, and has a marina, shipyards, industrial users and a wildlife preserve area on the bay. Imperial Beach and South San Diego offer some of the most affordable housing in San Diego County. The majority of the population in the area is employed by the military. DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY J-J/1 ECONOMIC OVERVIEW In 1993 the California recession negatively impacted the San Diego region for the third straight year. San Diego continued to suffer from job losses, a depressed construction industry and, in general, a weak economy. Employment in the San Diego metropolitan area has continued to decline from a high of 977,400 in 1990 to 953,100 in 1993. The loss rate appears to be slowing with the job losses in 1993 being only 5,500 of the 24,300 job losses since 1990. The service producing, non-durable goods, transportation, public utilities, insurance services, agricultural and government sectors have not sustained job losses in the recession. High job loss industries include construction, durable goods, wholesale and retail trade and finance. The unemployment rate has increased from a low of 3.9% in 1989 to approximately 7.8% in 1993. Manufacturing production, the largest industry in San Diego County, has declined 7.7%, from a historical high level of $16.49 billion in 1990 to $15.21 billion in 1993. The decline in 1993 in current dollars was only 0.1%, an improvement from the 3.8% and 3.9% decline in 1991 and 1992. After adjusting for inflation, production is at its lowest level since 1988' s $12.62 billion value. Manufacturing accounted for approximately 24% of San Diego's 1993 gross regional product of $63.2 billion. Defense industry expenditures in San Diego County increased for the second year in a row to $10.5 billion. They are up 10.1 % from 1992 and 20.6% from 1990 levels. The increase in 1993 was due to an increase in procurement contracts awarded to San Diego companies. The defense industry is the second largest sector in the San Diego economy comprising 17% of gross regional product and providing a livelihood for 20% of the San Diego population. The visitor industry is the third largest industry in San Diego. Visitor spending of $3.45 billion in 1993 accounted for approximately 6% of San Diego's gross regional product. However, 1993 visitor spending was down 1.7% from 1992 levels but up significantly from 1990 and 1985 levels of$3.l billion and $2.25 billion respectively. The visitor industry typically employs about 115,000 people annually. The San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau is projecting a year of moderate growth in the visitor industry for 1995 based on solid meeting and convention bookings and the Americas Cup sailing regatta which culminates in May. Although total building permits and valuation increased marginally in 1993 to 29,407 and $1.7 billion, respectively, they are both down significantly from their highs of the mid 1980's. The small increase is attributed to remodeling and renovation of existing structures. Total valuations are down by 62% from their high of $4.5 billion. Residential permits and valuations both continued to decrease in 1993 with total valuations down by 74% from their high of $3.3 billion in 1986. The slight increase in total permit valuation indicates that the construction industry slowdown may be bottoming out. Valuation of residential construction activity in Chula Vista and National City continued to decline by 14% and 27% respectively from 1992.10 1993. 3 _liS LJMLOPMENT T SERVICES COMPANY Taxable retail sales in the City of San Diego in real terms have increased by 0.4% and 0.6% in 1992 and 1993, which is an improvement from the decrease of (3.8%) and (2.6%) in 1990 and 199 I. The growth rate is still extremely slow compared to the typical growth rate of 8% to 9% which was experienced in San Diego in the mid 1980' s. In 1993 San Diego County taxable retail sales were $15.2 billion, in the City of San Diego $6.9 billion and in the City of National City and Chula Vista $768 million and $915 million, respectively. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY J -- 41::, DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY AND SUPPORTING DATA The following data sets forth demographic information which describes the San Diego metropolitan and surrounding areas. The information is grouped by concentric circles with radii of 2.5, 12 and 27 miles. The center of the circles are located at the intersection of "En Street and Bay Street which is adjacent to the Mid-Bayfront project. The 2.5 mile radius describes the local area adjacent to the Mid-Bayfront property. The 12 mile radius encompasses all areas from the Mexican border north to Mission Bay and east to EI Cajon and Mount Helix which include approximately 44% of the San Diego County population. The 27 mile radius includes the majority of contiguous urban area of San Diego and comprises approximately 73% of the San Diego County population. The data is compiled by National Decision Systems and includes historical census data, current year estimates and a five year projection. Data categories include various groupings of population, households, race, income, family size and age, employment, transportation mode, education and property type. Analysis of the data indicates that the area adjacent to the Mid-Bayfront (2.5 mile radius) has greater ethnic diversity than the county as a whole with over 40% of the population claiming Hispanic origin. The area has a significantly higher level of renter occupied units which corresponds to a significantly lower median household income. In addition, the employment base of this population tends to have fewer employees in the executive, managerial, professional specialty and sales fields and more employees in the administrative support, service, precision product, craft, machine operator, and labor fields. This employment data corresponds to the lower education levels of this population. Median property values and rents are lower in this area as well and there are more multi-family units. The above summary of the demographics portrayed in the following data suggests that the geographic area surrounding the Mid-Bayfront property is not the typical environment within which to create a destination resort. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3-17 Account Number: 233077 Wednesday December 21. 1994 TICER SITE MAP 2.5, 12 AND 27 MILE RADII BY NATIONAL DECISION SYSTEMS 800-866-6510 E STREET AND BAY STREET SAN DIECO,CA SITE: 377749 COORD: 32:38.3 117:06.0 8.49 Miles I I -3 ~ "f! Account Number 233077 Wednesday December 21, 1994 POP-FACTS: FULL DATA REPORT (CENSUS '90, UPDATES & PROJECTIONS) BY NATIONAL DECISION SYSTEMS 800-866-6510 E STREET AND BAY STREET SAN DIEGO, CA SITE: 377749 COORD:32:38.35 117:06.03 DESCRIPTION 27.0 MILE RADIUS 2.5 MILE RADIUS 12.0 MILE RADIUS POPULATION 1999 PROJECTION 1994 ESTIMATE 1990 CENSUS 1980 CENSUS GROWTH 1980 - 1990 HOUSEHOLDS 1999 PROJECTION 1994 ESTIMATE 1990 CENSUS 1980 CENSUS GROWTH 1980 - 1990 1994 ESTIMATED POPULATION BY RACE WHITE BLACK ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER OTHER RACES 1994 ESTIMATED POPULATION HISPANIC ORIGIN OCCUPIED UNITS OWNER OCCUPIED RENTER OCCUPIED 1990 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 1994 ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME $150,000 + $100,000 TO $149,999 $ 75,000 TO $ 99,999 $ 50,000 TO $ 74,999 $ 35,000 TO $ 49,999 $ 25,000 TO $ 34,999 $ 15,000 TO $ 24,999 $ 5,000 TO $ 14,999 UNDER $5,000 1994 ESTIMATED AVERAGE HH INCOME 1994 ESTIMATED MEDIAN HH INCOME 1994 ESTIMATED PER CAPITA INCOME 81256 1235022 2041225 77469 1175123 1944823 73896 1114293 1832201 62215 917909 1449593 18.78% 21.39% 26.39% 30919 439387 755598 29305 414596 708815 27491 386099 654297 24506 328925 523670 12.18% 17.38% 24.94% 77469 1175123 1944823 59.30% 59.38% 69.20% 6.56% 11.41% 7.82% 8.68% 12.40% 11.18% 25.46% 16.81% 11. 80% 77 4 69 1175123 1944823 40.79% 29.06% 22.59% 27491 386099 654297 36.33% 45.89% 51.34% 63.67% 54.11% 48.66% 2.56 2.71 2.68 29305 414596 708815 2.07% 2.24% 3.29% 3.26% 3.99% 5.19% 4.94% 6.56% 8.18% 15.36% 18.65% 20.88% 16.37% 18.07% 18.21% 16.55% 15.32% 14.26% 18.79% 16.44% 14.35% 19.57% 15.63% 12.93% 3.09% 3.10% 2.71% $40,378 $44,632 $50,349 $32,135 $36,460 $41. 774 $15,993 $16,544 $18,969 / j ~tf7 Account Number 233077 Wednesday December 21, 1994 POP-FACTS: FULL DATA REPORT (CENSUS '90, UPDATES & PROJECTIONS) BY NATIONAL DECISION SYSTEMS 800-866-6510 E STREET AND BAY STREET SAN DIEGO, CA MEDIAN AGE AVERAGE AGE SITE: 377749 COORD:32:38.35 117:06.03 2.5 MILE 12.0 MILE 27.0 MILE RADIUS RADIUS RADIUS 77469 1175124 1944823 49.63% 51.21% 50.72% 50.37% 48.79% 49.28% 58545 879613 1455384 16.60% 21.03% 19.31% 10.93% 13.32% 12.92% 49.29% 46.41% 49.36% 7.56% 6.58% 6.27% 15.61% 12.66% 12.14% 9663 138696 231407 63. 36% 66.97% 70.77% 6.96% 6.40% 5.87% 28.00% 25.16% 21.85% 1.68% 1.47% 1.51% 77 4 69 1175124 1944823 9.11% 8.61% 8.22% 7.25% 7.59% 7.39% 6.25% 6.59% 6.46% 3.17% 3.37% 3.30% 4.50% 5.40% 4.83% 7.65% 7.58% 6.98% 9.44% 9.41% 9.25% 9.16% 9.72% 9.79% 7.38% 8.49% 8.81% 10.57% 11.93% 13.38% 7.50% 7.52% 8.08% 3.38% 3.11% 3.17% 4.26% 3.26% 3.25% 3.83% 2.86% 2.78% 6.54% 4.56% 4.31% 33.13 31.58 32.71 35.11 33.33 33.84 DESCRIPTION 1994 ESTIMATED POPULATION BY SEX MALE FEMALE MARITAL STATUS SINGLE MALE SINGLE FEMALE MARRIED PREVIOUSLY MARRIED MALE PREVIOUSLY MARRIED FEMALE HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN MARRIED COUPLE FAMILY OTHER FAMILY - MALE HEAD OTHER FAMILY - FEMALE HEAD NON FAMILY 1994 ESTIMATED POPULATION BY AGE UNDER 5 YEARS 5 TO 9 YEARS 10 TO 14 YEARS 15 TO 17 YEARS 18 TO 20 YEARS 21 TO 24 YEARS 25 TO 29 YEARS 30 TO 34 YEARS 35 TO 39 YEARS 40 TO 49 YEARS 50 TO 59 YEARS 60 TO 64 YEARS 65 TO 69 YEARS 70 TO 74 YEARS 75 + YEARS / j -50 Account Number 233077 Wednesday December 21, 1994 POP-FACTS: FULL DATA REPORT (CENSUS '90, UPDATES & PROJECTIONS) BY NATIONAL DECISION SYSTEMS 800-866-6510 E STREET AND BAY STREET SAN DIEGO, CA SITE: 377749 COORD:32:38.35 117:06.03 2.5 MILE 12.0 MILE 27.0 MILE RADIUS RADIUS RADIUS 39018 573379 958354 8.89% 8.57% 8.11% 6.83% 7.59% 7.29% 6.17% 6.57% 6.36% 3.26% 3.42% 3.31% 4.06% 4.62% 4.33% 6.64% 6.54% 6.23% 8.48% 8.51% 8.49% 8.45% 9.27% 9.39% 7.15% 8.23% 8.65% 10.92% 12.25% 13.61% 7.91% 8.03% 8.46% 3.71% 3.44% 3.43% 4.69% 3.71% 3.66% 4.34% 3.31% 3.17% 8.51% 5.94% 5.50% 35.01 33.02 33.95 37.10 34.89 35.20 73896 1114293 1832201 79.23% 77.02% 78.27% 15.83% 16.97% 17. 36% 4.94% 6.01% 4.37% 27491 386099 654297 11.96% 11.74% 10.91% 15.58% 13.72% 12.98% 47.43% 47.19% 50.22% 4.44% 4.32% 3.97% 14.11% 13.11% 11. 56% 4.15% 6.14% 6.36% 2.33% 3.78% 4.00% 73633 1114144 1832171 100.00% 99.54% 98.31% 0.00% 0.46% 1.69% DESCRIPTION 1994 EST. FEMALE POPULATION BY AGE UNDER 5 YEARS 5 TO 9 YEARS 10 TO 14 YEARS 15 TO 17 YEARS 18 TO 20 YEARS 21 TO 24 YEARS 25 TO 29 YEARS 30 TO 34 YEARS 35 TO 39 YEARS 40 TO 49 YEARS 50 TO 59 YEARS 60 TO 64 YEARS 65 TO 69 YEARS 70 TO 74 YEARS 75 + YEARS FEMALE MEDIAN AGE FEMALE AVERAGE AGE POPULATION BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS NON FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS GROUP QUARTERS HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE SINGLE MALE SINGLE FEMALE MARRIED COUPLE OTHER FAMILY - MALE HEAD OTHER FAMILY - FEMALE HEAD NON FAMILY - MALE HEAD NON FAMILY - FEMALE HEAD POPULATION BY URBAN VS RURAL URBAN RURAL / ~ -Sf Account Number 233077 Wednesday December 21, 1994 POP-FACTS: FULL DATA REPORT (CENSUS '90, UPDATES & PROJECTIONS) BY NATIONAL DECISION SYSTEMS 800-866-6510 E STREET AND BAY STREET SAN DIEGO, CA DESCRIPTION FEMALES 16+ WITH CHILDREN 0-17 EMPLOYED/CHILD 0-5 UNEMPLOYED/CHILD 0-5 NOT IN LABOR FORCE/CHILD 0-5 EMPLOYED/CHILD 6-17 UNEMPLOYED/CHILD 6-17 NOT IN LABOR FORCE/CHILD 6-17 EMPLOYED/CHILD 0-5&6-17 UNEMPLOYED/CHILD 0-5&6-17 NOT IN LABOR FORCE/CHILD 0-5&6-17 EMPLOYED/NO CHILDREN UNEMPLOYED/NO CHILDREN NOT IN LABOR FORCE/NO CHILDREN HOUSEHOLDS: AGE BY POVERTY STATUS ABOVE POVERTY UNDER AGE 65 ABOVE POVERTY AGE 65 + BELOW POVERTY UNDER AGE 65 BELOW POVERTY AGE 65 + POPULATION 16+ BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS EMPLOYED IN ARMED FORCES EMPLOYED CIVILIANS UNEMPLOYED CIVILIANS NOT IN LABOR FORCE POPULATION 16+ BY OCCUPATION EXECUTIVE AND MANAGERIAL PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY TECHNICAL SUPPORT SALES ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICE: PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD SERVICE: PROTECTIVE SERVICE: OTHER FARMING FORESTRY & FISHING PRECISION PRODUCTION & CRAFT MACHINE OPERATOR TRANSPORTATION & MATERIAL MOVING LABORERS SITE: 377749 COORD:32:38.35 117:06.03 2.5 MILE RADIUS 29347 4.96% 0.50% 5.51% 8.58% 0.67% 4.61% 3.04% 0.34% 3.26% 29.79% 2.43% 36.31% 27448 64.60% 22.22% 10.70% 2.49% 57611 6.93% 50.33% 4.43% 38.32% 28995 10.91% 9.76% 3.55% 10.76% 18.22% 0.69% 2.28% 14.04% 1.40% 14.13% 6.13% 3.52% 4.61% r .3 - 5".2-, 12.0 MILE RADIUS 421737 4.68% 0.47% 4.21% 9.26% 0.65% 4.20% 3.41% 0.35% 3.69% 35.16% 2.33% 31.61% 386226 70.60% 17.01% 10.70% 1.70% 867327 7.59% 54.85% 4.35% 33.21% 475726 12.60% 14.02% 4.26% 11.70% 17.20% 0.73% 1.88% 13.35% 1.67% 11.49% 4.60% 3.02% 3.49% 27.0 MILE RADIUS 708268 4.88% 0.37% 3.89% 10.04% 0.55% 3.99% 3.37% 0.28% 3.28% 37.29% 2.16% 29.90% 654366 73.86% 16.19% 8.59% 1.36% 1433935 5.52% 59.29% 3.90% 31.30% 850126 14.46% 16.07% 4.66% 12.70% 16.58% 0.63% 1. 73% 11.34% 1.40% 10.85% 3.81% 2.72% 3.04% Account Number 233077 Wednesday December 21, 1994 POP-FACTS: FULL DATA REPORT (CENSUS '90, UPDATES & PROJECTIONS) BY NATIONAL DECISION SYSTEMS 800-866-6510 E STREET AND BAY STREET SAN DIEGO, CA DESCRIPTION FAMILIES BY NUMBER OF WORKERS NO WORKERS ONE WORKER TWO WORKERS THREE + WORKERS HISPANIC POPULATION BY TYPE NOT HISPANIC MEXICAN PUERTO RICAN CUBAN OTHER HISPANIC 1994 HISPANIC RACE BASE WHITE BLACK ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER OTHER POPULATION BY TRANSPORTATION TO WORK DRIVE ALONE CAR POOL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MOTORCYCLE WALKED ONLY OTHER MEANS WORKED AT HOME POPULATION BY TRAVEL TIME TO WORK UNDER 10 MINUTES I WORK AT HOME 10 TO 29 MINUTES 30 TO 59 MINUTES 60 TO 89 MINUTES 90+ MINUTES AVERAGE TRAVEL TIME IN MINUTES HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF VEHICLES NO VEHICLES ONE VEHICLE TWO VEHICLES THREE + VEHICLES ESTIMATED TOTAL VEHICLES SITE: 377749 COORD:32:38.35 117:06.03 2.5 MILE RADIUS 18220 16.25% 32.36% 40.58% 10.81% 73896 59.48% 36.53% 0.74% 0.15% 3.10% 31598 10855 396 621 19726 32218 62.94% 16.23% 6.33% 0.67% 3.36% 2.24% 8.23% 32218 19.91% 56.00% 20.71% 2.44% 0.94% 19.18 27423 14.81% 43.21% 30.81% 11.17% 38548 /' S -53 12.0 MILE RADIUS 251776 14.05% 30.06% 43.07% 12.82% 1114293 72.08% 24.43% 0.59% 0.14% 2.76% 341503 125870 8552 9824 197257 529202 66.34% 14.23% 5.03% 0.72% 5.15% 2.07% 6.47% 529202 17.79% 58.08% 20.96% 2.04% 1. 13% 19.71 385975 11.91% 37.32% 34.37% 16.39% 611851 27.0 MILE RADIUS 434115 12.28% 28.66% 45.94% 13.12% 1832201 79.35% 17.64% 0.49% 0.12% 2.40% 439254 188187 9806 13129 228132 909988 71.23% 13.18% 3.67% 0.71% 4.02% 1. 92% 5.28% 909988 16.36% 57.22% 23.33% 2.02% 1.07% 20.41 654319 8.85% 34.48% 37.55% 19.11% 1117236 Account Number 233077 Wednesday December 21, 1994 POP-FACTS: FULL DATA REPORT (CENSUS '90, UPDATES & PROJECTIONS) BY NATIONAL DECISION SYSTEMS 800-866-6510 E STREET AND BAY STREET SAN DIEGO, CA SITE: 377749 COORD:32:38.35 117:06.03 2.5 MILE 12.0 MILE 27.0 MILE RADIUS RADIUS RADIUS 45549 674194 1142281 13.05% 10.49% 7.63% 17.41% 12.67% 10.72% 27.20% 23.61% 22.51% 21.65% 24.41% 25.05% 6.95% 8.03.% 8.25% 9.58% 13.73% 16.68% 4.17% 7.05% 9.17% 17294 314283 515467 2.91% 3.54% 3.69% 1.61% 1. 84% 2.48% 64.15% 54.39% 52.47% 3.38% 4.09% 4.32% 27.96% 36.14% 37.04% 28922 406906 691808 95.05% 94.89% 94.58% 4.95% 5.11% 5.42% 1432 20807 37512 51.31% 55.22% 51.46% 10.84% 13.66% 16. 46% 18.72% 10.39% 13.14% 19.14% 20.73% 18.94% 7337 143836 272654 0.69% 0.46% 0.35% 0.92% 0.78% 0.57% 3.63% 2.87% 1.90% 11.46% 9.96% 6.46% 32.65% 30.86% 23.23% 29.63% 26.84% 26.98% 11.12% 16.67% 22.42% 3.45% 5.93% 8.71% 2.58% 2.51% 3.80% 3.86% 3.12% 5.59% $172,331 $182,137 $212,436 17138 202335 308005 $492 $526 $569 DESCRIPTION POPULATION 25+ BY EDUCATION ELEMENTARY (0-8) SOME HIGH SCHOOL (9-11) HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE (12) SOME COLLEGE (13-15)NO DEGREE ASSOCIATE DEGREE ONLY BACHELOR DEGREE ONLY GRADUATE DEGREE POPULATION ENROLLED IN SCHOOL PUBLIC PRE-PRIMARY PRIVATE PRE-PRIMARY PUBLIC ELEMENTARY & HIGH SCHOOL PRIVATE ELEMENTARY & HIGH SCHOOL COLLEGE HOUSING UNITS BY OCCUPANCY STATUS OCCUPIED VACANT VACANT UNITS FOR RENT FOR SALE ONLY SEASONAL OTHER OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTY VALUES UNDER $25,000 $ 25,000 TO $ 49,999 $ 50,000 TO $ 74,999 $ 75,000 TO $ 99,999 $100,000 TO $149,999 $150,000 TO $199,999 $200,000 TO $299,999 $300,000 TO $399,999 $400,000 TO $499,999 $500,000+ MEDIAN PROPERTY VALUE TOTAL RENTAL UNITS MEDIAN RENT / $ -sf Account Number 233077 Wednesday December 21, 1994 POP-FACTS: FULL DATA REPORT (CENSUS '90, UPDATES & PROJECTIONS; BY NATIONAL DECISION SYSTEMS 800-866-6510 E STREET AND BAY STREET SAN DIEGO, CA DESCRIPTION PERSONS IN UNIT 1 PERSON 2 PERSONS 3 PERSONS 4 PERSONS 5 PERSONS 6 PERSONS 7+ PERSONS YEAR ROUND UNITS IN STRUCTURE SINGLE UNITS DETACHED SINGLE UNITS ATTACHED DOUBLE UNITS 3 TO 9 UNITS 10 TO 19 UNITS 20 TO 49 UNITS 50 + UNITS MOBILE HOME OR TRAILER ALL OTHER SINGLE/MULTIPLE UNIT RATIO HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR BUILT BUILT 1989 TO MARCH 1990 BUILT 1985 TO 1988 BUILT 1980 TO 1984 BUILT 1970 TO 1979 BUILT 1960 TO 1969 BUILT 1950 TO 1959 BUILT 1940 TO 1949 BUILT 1939 OR EARLIER SITE: 377749 COORD:32:38.35 117:06.03 2.5 MILE 12.0 MILE 27.0 MILE RADIUS RADIUS RADIUS 27491 386099 654297 27.54% 25.46% 23.89% 31.74% 31.22% 32.79% 17.09% 16.43% 17.14% 12.70% 13.17% 14.01% 6.37% 7.07% 6.73% 2.70% 3.45% 2.96% 1. 85% 3.21% 2.47% 28922 406906 691808 35.61% 46.57% 48.92% 6.20% 7.19% 8.12% 3.74% 3.32% 2.68% 13.58% 15.05% 13.46% 11.62% 9.54% 8.43% 12.10% 7.48% 7.13% 9.47% 6.90% 6.74% 6.32% 2.75% 3.45% 1.36% 1.21% 1.06% 0.83 1. 27 1. 48 27423 385975 654319 2.85% 1.62% 2.04% 7.25% 9.64% 12.57% 6.59% 9.08% 9.87% 20.07% 22.38% 26.63% 20.69% 17.92% 17.90% 23.71% 19.46% 17.02% 12.71% 9.72% 7.20% 6.13% 10.17% 6.77% /' 3 -55 This page Blank j -51.:. HOTELS AND CONFERENCE CENTERS The visitor industry in San Diego experienced strong growth in the 1980's. During that period, visitor spending increased by approximately 70%; visitor industry employment increased by approximately 84%; the number of hotel rooms increased by 74%; and the average hotel room rate increased by 64%. At the same time, average hotel occupancy rates dropped by 17%. With hotel occupancy rates (Exhibit 6) over 75% during the early 1980's, the San Diego hotel industry began a building boom, constructing 2,100 to 2,700 rooms per year from 1984 through 1989 (Exhibits 7 and 8). This drove occupancy rates down and slowed the previously dramatic growth in room rates. The California recession began as economic indicators started to decline in late 1990. Although room rate increases have not kept up with inflation since the onset of the recession, visitor industry economic indicators have remained relatively stable in the areas of visitor spending, overnight visitors and attraction attendance. Trade shows and delegate attendance/expenditures increased significantly in the same period. Visitor industry employment decreased by 4.8% between 1990 and 1992, but increased slightly in 1993. It appears, from the data, that the San Diego visitor industry bottomed out in 1993 and has been steadily improving in 1994. Occupancy rates were up 9% in 1994 year-to-date (October 1994), while room rates remained about the same. This occupancy rate increase is somewhat overstated, since it does not include the slower off-season months of November and December. In summary, two factors caused the hotel/motel industry downturn. The recession caused a general slowdown in tourism and visitor activity in the San Diego area. In addition, the hotel/motel market was being overdeveloped in the late 1980's and early 1990's. While visitor days were increasing marginally, the number of rooms were increasing at a rapid rate which caused occupancy rates to decrease. There is no new hotel/motel construction activity in San Diego at this time. The last hotel to be built was an 875 room Hyatt Regency located in downtown San Diego which was completed in 1993. There are plans for a Travel Lodge and a Four Seasons hotel that have been placed on hold because of the overbuilt status of the market. Occupancy rates in the South Bay Sub-Area, of which the City of Chula Vista is a part, historically lag behind those of other sub-areas around San Diego Bay, Mission Bay and Mission Valley, although all sub areas have experienced occupancy growth in 1994. Room rates in the South Bay Sub-Area, as depicted in Exhibit 6, are about 50% of the county average. Exhibit 9 shows the mean occupancy and room rates for the upscale and luxury hotel market segments for the combined San Diego, Mission Valley and La Jolla/Point Lorna sub-areas. The occupancy rates for these market segments are significantly higher than for the lodging industry in general, and were approximately 75% through October 1994. Room rates for the upscale market (70th-85th percentile by price) are in the $75 to $78 dollars per night range, which is roughly the same as the average room rates ($75 to $80 per night) for the county as a whole. This indicates that the Luxury DMLOPMENT !J r7 SERVICES COMPANY v -.:> Hotel market (85th to 100th percentile by price) has extremely high room rates. This is confirmed by Exhibit 10 which depicts the size, room rates and location of the largest San Diego hotels and conference centers. In general, the range of room rates for the largest San Diego hotels as of December 1994 are as follows: Downtown San Diego Bay Area Mission BaylPacific Beach $79 - $245/night $99 - $225/night $ I 09 - $295/night DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3 - 5? 00lr)('1")0 OON 0 N 00\0 t""--O t""--lr) O~ OO\O,\ONO '0 ~ .......'" t""--" ('1")" ~'" 00'" 00" \0'" 0" V'l'..Ooo~.......t"--- '" '0 "'00'" ~ "'^ N ~ ('1")" (".f \0" '" "" ""~ ~ 000"1 000 V) 0"1 Or- 00 N 0"10 V) ("1'1 0'0 V'l0 V) t"---v V) '" '" 0'" 0'" \0'" ('1")" t"--'" r...f r-^ ",^ .......("I'1('1")"i".......lr) ~ 00 "'O~ ~ "'- '" ~ ("I'1"'('I")"'t"--'" '" "" ""~ ~ 00.......000\0 ON 00000\0("\1('1") '" 00 OO~V'lOOv '" ~ 0'" V'l'" \0" ('fj" 0" ("\I" V)" ("1'1" OO\OO"I~Nt"-- "'N ("\It"---~ .......\0 ~ ~ ("1'1" ("\I" \0" v)'" "" ""~ ~ OO\Ot"--Ot"---("I'1 0 ~ OO("l'1\OO~('f') 0 '" \OO~t"--("I'1('1") \0" 0"1" ("\I" v" 0"1"'.......'" ("1'1'" r-~ '" '" O'\VO~("\IO"I ooN 0"''0 ~"" ~ ~ ("1'1" (".f \0" '" "" ""~ ~ - 0 ~or- 0 "'00 0 "''''''' ~^..o:: ..0:: ~^:Q^:!^..o::..o:: ..0:: N~~ 0'\--_ N^Z Z ",^Z Z Z "" - 0 "'0 '" 0 000", 0 "'''''0 ~^ ..0:: ..0:: ~::f::g^~^..o::..o::..o:: 00 ~ ~ V)--- ~^Z Z N^Z Z Z "" '" '" '" ~ N '" '" ~ ~ .. ~ '" 0 '" - ~ ~ U ... "C = ..... Q 0 - '" ~ '" In = ~ - "C ... = ..Q ... ..... -= .. ~ 0 ~ - ... '" ~ 00 '.. '" >- ~ 0 bJl ~ ... ~ = 0 ~ 00 '" rJJ ~ "0 " ii: S' ~~ 8 g a ~ g '-' ;>. ,.0 '-' b.O O'1:l Ul c: 8 -a.8 Q) ~ 'i3 0:: S ....l u.s c: Ul Cd d Q) l-; "'C u.:l' ~ ~ 0.8 0:: >-..!!J ;,: 0:: if; .... 2 .;( ~ ~ ~ ::; ;; :;: a Sa ~ 5 ;:t .'" - 0:: 0] ..0:: ~ '"' ~ .~..d 0 0 _ ..... Q) Q) ~.~~ ~ l-; t~ ~ ~ OlE iJ ",0 0"'0000 b~~b:~.~]"*~ E-o..o:::r:>..o::E-OO 3-51 ~ B '* 0 :g ::c S ~ :; ~ ~ ~ o 0 ~ .Q "" ~ ~'E o " ,S Jl ] @ '8. .... ~ E o " ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ..s ~ ~]g: 1;l ~ ~ ~ E s: o ~ j ~ ~ Q <Xl 0 " " B [ .;;; 0 ;>0 ~ ~ o Q . - o 0 o " ." ~ ij 0 g }.j u ~-a o . . ;,; ~'s 5 g Q <8 u S ; ~~ <:Il <:Il Up.. Exhibit 6 SAN DIEGO AREA HOTEL OCCUPANCY / ROOM RATES otel otel CCUDanCy Rates By Sub-Area Total Downtown Mission SaD Diego Mission Bay -I South County Vallev Bay Area Pacific Beach Bay 1994 1 69.2% 73.3% 68.0% 77.4% 69.1% 66.6% 1993 63.0% 65.5% 57.7% 69.6% 67.8% 59.8% 1992 63.6% 67.8% 60.4% 71.3% 67.9% 56.3% 1991 64.0% 66.4% 61.4% 73.8% 70.7% 65.5% 1990 64.1% 67.4% 60.7% 72.1% 71.3% 61.4% 1989 66.7% 65.7% 668% 70.7% 76.5% 64.8% 1985 75.3% 1980 77.3% H 1M 0 HotellMotel Room Rates B Sub-Area Total DowntowD Mission San Diego Mission Bay South County Valley Bay Area Pacific Beach Bay 1994 1 $79.72 $73.80 $66.49 $119.74 $96.06 $43.50 1993 $79.64 $69.85 $64.34 $118.03 $100.24 $41.62 1992 $76.78 $70.05 $6170 $12170 $102.80 $46.28 1991 $75.15 $70.09 $60.65 $118.68 $98.35 $41.34 1990 $79.32 $89.89 2 $58.01 $119.45 $97.20 $39.66 1989 $7664 $83.74 $58.72 $121.16 $95.48 $39.79 1985 $67.60 1980 $46.72 1. Year to date through October. 2. Room rates averaged $95.33 for the three month period of March through May. Source: PKF Consulting San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau 3-t"o INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL AND REGIONAL GROUP MARKETS An integral component for the overall success of the Mid-Bayfront project as planned is the ability to penetrate and capture the international and national group meeting and convention hotel market. Recognizing this fact, the Price Waterhouse study attempted to determine the strength of that market in the San Diego region, and the ability of the Mid-Bayfront project to attract that market. A review of the Price Waterhouse Study, however, indicates that there is insufficient data to fully establish the extent and degree to which the project would be able to attract these groups or trade associations. The Price Waterhouse study does not explain, for example, why group meeting planners worldwide would be motivated to select the South Bay of San Diego as the site for group meetings over locations in Australia, Europe or the Mediterranean. Furthermore, if the Western United States were selected as the destination of choice by meeting planners, what percentage would select the South Bay of San Diego over established destinations, such as San Francisco, Las Vegas, Seattle or other cities which have international airports and extensive entertainment options. While Lindberg Field is categorized as an International Airport, the only international air service currently available is to and from Mexico. The San Diego Concourse and San Diego Conference Center now attract the largest percentage of group and convention bookings in this area. During 1994, the Concourse hosted one international convention for a trade group from Mexico. Accordingly, it appears that a vigorous and extensive marketing plan would be required to penetrate the international group market and bring them to the Mid-Bayfront project. According to information provided by Mr. Lynn Mohrfeld, Research Manager OfthG San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau, 52 group meetings/conventions were held at the convention center during 1993 which required 333,727 room nights to serve this market. . The total revenue from the national market, summarized in the attached chart, is significant, however, according to Mr. Mohrfeld, the clear majority of the national convention attendees bring family with them in order to experience the many recreational and entertainment opportunities which are available in Mission Bay, Downtown, the harbor or Old Town. Ms. Laney Teagarden, Marketing Assistant for the San Diego Concourse, stated that 90-95% of the conventioneers stay at a hotel which has one or more of these amenities nearby, preferably within walking distance. The ability of the Mid-Bayfront project to attract these visitors away from these well-known amenities is questionable. DMLOPMENT 3 -~ / SERVICES COMPANY The San Diego Concourse booked 336 group events between June 1992 and June 1993 and generated 126,902 room nights. Ms. Teagarden echoed many of Mr. Mohrfelds sentiments relative to attracting group events. Ms. Teagarden feels that proximity to Mission Bay, Coronado Island, Downtown shopping opportunities and the Trolley Line are extrernely important in attracting group business. The Price Waterhouse study did conduct a regional analysis of group meeting dernand for the Southwestern United States between 1989 and 1994. The Price Waterhouse study indicates that 8.5 million hotel room nights were reserved during this period of time. Over 85% of these rooms were booked by groups with two hundred and fifty or more attendees. Over half, 55%, of all group bookings require a room block ranging from 250 to 1,750 rooms. The primary competition for the City of San Diego, with respect to group meetings, includes resort and conference hotels in Scottsdale and Tuscon Arizona, Palm Desert, and Coastal Orange County, California. Within this geographic area, resorts or group oriented hotels with 400 or more rooms and a minimum of 10,000 square feet of meeting space were analyzed. There are over 16,000 hotel rooms available within this regional market segment. San Diego contains over 6, I 00 competitive rooms, followed by Scottsdale/Tuscon with over 5,700 rooms, Palm Desert with over 3,600 rooms and South Orange County nearly 750 rooms. The Price Waterhouse study suggests that 13% of the rooms within this entire area would be contained within the Mid-Bayfront project. This number is misleading, as 13% is based upon San Diego County area room totals (6,162 existing and 4,279 future rooms), and does not take into account the entire regional market room supply of 16,150 rooms. Against this backdrop, the Mid-Bayfront project, at 1,360 rooms, would contain only 8.4% of the entire regional market segment of 16,150 rooms. Therefore, we feel the calculations set forth in the Price Waterhouse study require clarification as they are based on a 13% market capture as opposed to, what we feel, is a more accurate 8.4% regional market capture. Furthermore, these ratios are the basis for all financial and occupancy models set forth throughout their study. Scott Pascal, PKF Consulting of Los Angeles, a hotel Group Marketing Consultant, expressed that Chula Vista does not strike him as being a good location for a major resort and convention center. He based his opinion on the location of the site relative to the downtown San Diego area and the lack of nearby amenities. David Brudney & Associates of Los Angeles is a hotel consulting company which historically and presently has clients in the San Diego Area. Mr. Brudney's clients include JC Resorts which owns the Surf Sand in Temecula, the Hyatt in the "gas lamp" area of San Diego and the Double Tree Hotel in Del Mar. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3 -Ie, ~ Mr. Brudney believes that visitors attending meetings in San Diego would not stay in Chula Vista. Most of his conventioneers are interested in the social aspects provided by the Downtown and Mission Bay area. Sharon Ley, of Seminars International, Los Angeles, was also interviewed. She feels strongly that outside amenities are extremely important for a resort to attract guests regardless of the room rate structure or on-site amenities. In her opinion, groups would want to be in the center of activity, i.e. near downtown San Diego or Mission Bay. The uniform conclusion was that the single most important factor in attracting the group market is location relative to the convention/group meeting location and core recreational amenities. The other important factor is the feeling of security the guests would experience walking off-site for the purpose of casual shopping, dining, movie going, and other amusement or entertainment. According to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce Economic Bulletin dated April 1994, the Downtown average room rates for 1993 were $91.95, and for the Southern San Diego area they were $38.46. Historically the gap in room rates between Downtown and Southern San Diego runs 50% or more. Because the overall viability of the Mid-Bayfront project is predicated in large part upon the success of the resort and group marketing component, we have concluded, based upon historical data and interviews with independent group marketing consultants, hotel sales and marketing representatives and the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau, that the number of groups who would be interested in a destination resort with lower room rates, in a relatively isolated location, with very few nearby off-site amenities, would be limited. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY .5-~'3 This page Blank 3-1-4 RETAIL SPACE Taxable retail sales in the San Diego Region have increased from $6.5 billion in 1980 to $15.2 billion in 1993. This level of taxable retail sales is the third highest of any California county and has had the seventh fastest growth rate. In 1993, taxable retail sales in Chula Vista were $915,170, up 0.4% from 1992. Chula Vista ranks fourth of all San Diego cities in taxable retail sales. Only San Diego ($6.9 billion), Escondido ($1.2 billion) and EI Cajon ($0.95 billion) rank higher. Chula Vista is the retail center of the South Bay regIOn. The pace of retail sales has slowed dramatically since 1990. This is a result of the slow San Diego economic conditions discussed previously. While the number of employed individuals has not increased for four years, the civilian labor force has increased, causing the unemployment rate to increase to 7.6% as of April 1994. Retail trade employment has declined by 15,600 since 1990. Basell Land Company in 1994, the South Bay region had 4,000,000 square feet of rentable retail space, with only 213,000 square feet vacant. This resulted in a 5.3% vacancy rate, whereas San Diego County had a vacancy rate of 6.6%. The South Bay region absorbed 225,000 square feet of leasable space in 1994 with asking rents ranging from $1.11 to $1.44 per square foot per month. Asking rents for San Diego County range from $1.03 to $2.06, with median effective lease rates of $0.92. This median effective lease rate is down from $1.21 in 1992. In summary, it appears that while the retail industry has done some restructuring and downsizing of personnel, revenue growth has slowed but not declined. For analytical purposes, the Mid-Bayfront retail space should be expected to lease at approximately $0.95 per square foot per month. A prominent commercial real estate brokerage firm has expressed interest in the Mid-Bayfront project as a retail site adjacent to Interstate 5 with residential units behind the retail uses and adjacent to the San Diego Bay. It appears there would be strong interest from "big box" retail users (75-150,000 square feet pel' user) to locate on this site. A land value of $7.00 per square foot would permit feasibility for a retail project. This firm thought the South Bay market area could absorb approximately 300,000 square feet of additional retail space, however, specialty retail would not work in this area. Apparently, Seaport Village has recently been denied financing, which would have enabled them to expand, because of lender discomfort with the specialty retail market. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY E~'5 This page Blank 3 - ~~ OFFICE SPACE Over the last several years, the San Diego office market has been declining. Although vacancy rates have improved to 18.7% in 1994 from 24% in 1992, new construction and lease rates have continued to decline. New construction has been reduced from 420,000 square feet in 1992 to zero in 1994, while effective lease rates have slipped from $1.19 to $].] 7 per square foot, per month, over the same period. Asking rates in ]994 ranged from $0.70 to $2.30. In ] 993, the South Bay sub market included 24 office buildings containing 463,800 square feet of office space, the vacancy rate was ] 2% and the average asking rent was $] .23 per square foot, per month. This was by far the lowest vacancy rate and highest lease rate of any sub-market area in San Diego County. Based on this data, it would appear that the South Bay area would have strong demand for office space. This, however, is not supported by the several commercial brokers we spoke with. There was a general lack of interest by brokers to get involved with office leasing in this area. The 60,000 square feet of office space in the proposed Mid-Bayfront would increase the supply of office space in the South Bay sub-market by 13%. This could cause a softening of lease rates in the area if constructed in one phase. Asking lease rates were, an average, $0.17 per square foot, per month, higher than effective rates. Therefore, it appears that a logical lease rate for the Mid-Bayfront project should be $1.06 per square foot, per month. If office space was envisioned on this site, it would be critical to perform extensive market research in order to understand the level of tenant improvements, taxes, maintenance and insurance that are connected with the above lease rates. DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 2 -fc, 7 This page Blank 3~t,; WATER ORIENTED HOUSING The Mid-Bayfront project proposes two and four story as well as high rise condominium buildings located adjacent to and between Interstate 5 and the Sweetwater Marsh Wildlife Preserve area. This location will provide for quality views of the San Diego Bay, Coronado, Point Lorna, Downtown San Diego and the hills east of Chula Vista. It also will be exposed to the noise of Interstate 5, the unsightly views of electrical power transmission lines paralleling the freeway and ship building activities on San Diego Bay, as well as suffering from a lack of high quality community amenities within close proximity. This type of housing in this location has no exact comparable sales. The most comparable product is located in uptown San Diego, the area bordered by Interstate 5 to the west and south, Highway 163 to the east, and Washington Street to the north. These units do not have pedestrian proximity to downtown San Diego; have views over the industrial areas of the San Diego Bay to Coronado, Point Lorna and the Pacific Ocean beyond; and the local neighborhood community provides only average community amenities. The Coronado area provides similar product type to that proposed for the Mid- Bayfront, however, this product is located in one of the premier residentiaVresort communities on the west coast of the United States. Because of this, we believe any sale price for the Coronado area should be discounted by 30% to 50% to reflect a Chula Vista bayfront location. We have researched the Coronado market in order to understand the upper end of the San Diego Bay area condominium market. In addition, we examined the East Chula Vista condominium market in order to understand the non-amenitized (non-bayfront) price of similar product in relatively new master planned communities. We have used these comparables as sales indicators of the low end of the condominium market. There are no high rise condominium buildings in East Chula Vista, therefore, this comparison is limited to low rise product. The Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates study contemplated the construction of 436 low rise condominiums comprising a total of 572,000 square feet of living space or an average unit size of 1,312 square feet. This study grouped the 60 townhomes into the low rise condominium product grouping. The low rise condominium prices in San Diego range from $112 to $178 per square foot. Virtually all of the recent sales have been two bedroom, two bath units ranging in size from 1,060 to 1,570 square feet. The highest priced units are in one building on Columbia and India Streets and are not good comparables due to their excellent proximity to the downtown business core; therefore, the upper end comparable price is more accurately $125 to $140 per square foot. Recent sales in the Coronado low rise condominium market range from $162 to $275 per square foot for units ranging in size from 1,171 to 1,732 square feet. The product ranges from two to three bedrooms with two to three baths. Chula Vista comparable low rise condominium sales are all on the east side in relatively new master planned DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3-'1 commumtIes. The units surveyed range in size from 1,006 to 1,755 square feet with two bedroom/two bath to three bedroom/three bath layouts. The prices range from $95 to $136 per square foot. The Coronado and Chula Vista markets give some context to the $125 to $140 per square foot price recommended for the Mid-Bayfront. The above comparables are depicted in Exhibits 12 and 13. High rise condominiums in the San Diego area as shown on Exhibit 14 indicate comparable sales in the $96 to $164 per square foot price range. The units range in size from 1,143 to 1,770 square feet and are predominantly two bedroom, two bath, with a few of the large units having three bedrooms. Because of the Mid-Bayfront's good proximity to San Diego Bay and quality views that could be created through successful architectural design, the sales price for the product should be $150 to $160 per square foot. There is only one high rise condominium project in Coronado, which is called the Shores. It is composed of ten high rise buildings located at the south end of Coronado with direct access to the Pacific Ocean and the San Diego Bay. These units range in size from 1,080 to 1,697 square feet with two bedroom, one bath to three bedroom, three bath units. The sales prices range from $205 to $428 per square foot. There is obviously a prodigious view premium associated with these units. Many of the buyers of the units surveyed have a primary home in another city, which indicates the market demand for these units goes well beyond the local San Diego area. It is questionable whether this demand would translate to the Chula Vista Market Area. The apartment component of the project is somewhat comparable to Downtown San Diego apartments because of the mixed use design of the project. However, because of the more remote location, the residents of the Mid-Bayfront apartments will have access to a much less diverse urban setting than Downtown San Diego renters. Therefore, we believe rents should be somewhat lower. Of the apartments surveyed (Exhibit 15), the average rent is $0.92 per square foot for the Chula Vista and Bonita comparables and $1.00 per square foot for the San Diego and Coronado comparables. It is reasonable to assume that the amenities included in the Mid-Bayfront would enhance the rental value for the apartments relative to a typical south county apartment complex. It appears, therefore, that the rental rate for the Mid-Bayfront apartments should be approximately $0.98 per square foot. DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3 ~ 70 PRICE WATERHOUSE MARKET ANALYSIS At the request of the previous general partner of Chula Vista Investors, Price Waterhouse Real Estate Group prepared a "Financial Analysis of Chula Vista Bayfront", dated May 1992, in order to validate the feasibility of the Mid-Bayfront project, as well as estirnate the cash flow from development and operation. In addition, the study estimated the net incremental revenue generated for the City of Chula Vista based on development of the project. Project costs were provided by the Jerde Partnership (architect) and Rick Engineering (civil engineer). Price Waterhouse undertook the market research. The hotel component (central core) of the project was assumed to have a two year construction period and stabilized occupancy within three years of the completion of construction. Stabilized occupancy was assumed to be 76% while average room rates were set at $ I lO/day for the central core hotels and $65/day for the Motor Inn, which would take one year to construct. Projected demand for the hotels would be from group users (76%), transient users (18%), and other (6%). The retail component of the project was projected to be built with the core hotels over the same two year time period. Stabilized occupancy is assumed to occur in two years and the vacancy rate has been set at 10%. Leasing commissions are 6% of gross income, while management and operating expense are 7% of gross income. The office component of the project is assumed to have a one year construction period and a one year stabilization period. Vacancy rate is set at 5% of gross income, management and operating expense at 8% of gross income and commissions at 6% of gross Income. The apartment component of the project is projected to take one year to reach stabilized occupancy at 95% of gross income after a two year construction period. Management and operating expenses are set at 20% of gross income. The residential component of the project is scheduled to be built over a nine year period with the low rise condominiums taking two years to build and the townhouse and high rise condominiums taking one year to build. The absorption rate is assumed to be five units per month for the low rise condominiums, three units per month for the townhomes and two and one half units per month for the high rise condominiums. According to Price Waterhouse's findings, the project would generate estimated revenues to the City of $9.54 million in retail sales tax and $64.75 million .in transient occupancy tax. The cost of City services for the same time period is estimated to be $20.23 million, resulting in a net revenue to the City of $54.06 million. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency would receive $30.53 million in tax increment revenue, bringing the total combined revenue to the City and Redevelopment Agency to $84.59 million. DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3 -7/ The Price Waterhouse report was prepared on an unleveraged basis, uses a land basis of $20 million and concludes that the overall projected internal rate of return, without any tax increment or subsidized financing, is 11.3%. The net present value, utilizing a 13% cost of capital, is negative $32,984,000. The report recognizes that the negative net present value reflects the level of public participation required in order to make the project feasible. DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3-7h WILLIAMS KUEBELBECK & ASSOCIATES FINANCIAL ANALYSIS This analysis, dated October 29, 1992, was prepared for the City of Chula Vista in order to provide the City Council and staff with independent verification of the feasibility of the Mid-Bayfront project. The City was concerned that the Price Waterhouse study was too optimistic and may have overstated the internal rate of return to the developer as well as the incremental revenues to the City. This study projected more conservative phasing, income, expense and absorption assumptions than the Price Waterhouse study. Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates (WK&A) then ran another scenario holding all variables constant with the exception of phasing. This scenario, using the developer's phasing, isolated the effect of phasing on internal rate of return. They then compared both of these analyses with the Price Waterhouse study. A comparison of these studies is shown in Exhibit 6. WK&A's estimate of project costs did vary from those used in the Price Waterhouse study. WK&A assumed significantly higher costs for the Motor Inn (13% higher), low rise condominiums (17% higher), low rise townhomes (11% higher), residential apartment (50% higher), office (10% higher), office tenant improvements (33% higher) and retail (10% higher). On the revenue side, WK&A assumed lower prices for the high rise condominiums (I I % lower), and lower rents for the apartments (12% lower) and retail shops (28% lower). The significant difference in the hotel portion of the studies was due to absorption and stabilized occupancy assumptions. Price Waterhouse used four years and 76% for absorption and stabilized occupancy versus eight years and 70% in the WK&A study. Per the WK&A study, the reason for the $45.6 million negative variance between it and the Price Waterhouse study is accounted for by; Price Waterhouse's non-inclusion of the conference and sports facility (27.6%); hotel occupancy (17.5%); hotel revenue and expense (24.1%); condominium sales, apartment rent and retail revenues (19.8%); and phasing and absorption (11.0%). The project generated revenues to the City from the WK&A study (WK&A phasing) are projected to be $ I 0.82 million from sales tax revenue and $50.30 million from transient occupancy tax, or $61.12 million. WK&A included revenues from various City fees, $2.2 million and a property tax reversion value (post Redevelopment Agency expiration) of $ 1.4 million. The revenues from City fees and reversion value are relatively small and would be relatively constant between the \yK&A and Price Waterhouse studies. We will, therefore, omit these revenues to make the comparison clearer. The cost of City services is estimated to be $32.27 million resulting in a net revenue to the City of $28.83 million. The Redevelopment Agency incremental tax revenue from the project is estimated to be $19.95 million resulting in total revenue to the City and Redevelopment Agency of $48.78 million. I DMLOPMENT 3 - 73 SERVICES COMPANY This report concludes that the Price Waterhouse analysis assumes overly aggressive assumptions in the variables of hotel phasing, absorption and occupancy. In addition, WK&A believes the conference center and sports facility will be "financial drags" to the project, while the Price Waterhouse study assumes these facilities will be self sustaining in terms of income generation. DMLOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY .3 - 7tf SUMMARY OF CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS As previously discussed in the "Hotels and Conference Centers" section of this study, the current market conditions for the hotel industry have improved in the last year, with occupancy rates for San Diego County at 69.2% for 1994 through October. As one can see from 1980 to date this rate has had a low of 63% in 1993 and a high of 77.3% in 1980. The upscale and luxury hotel market experienced less fluctuation in occupancy rates but still ranged between 66.2% and 75.9% from 1989 to 1994. Even the San Diego Bay occupancy rates, which are the highest in San Diego County, peaked at 77.4% with a low of 69.6% during the same 1989 to 1994 period. It is not reasonable to assume that the Mid-Bayfront project will be able to maintain an occupancy rate, over the long run, which is at the high end of historical rates. The 70% stabilized occupancy rate, as envisioned in the Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates (WK&A) analysis, appears to be a mildly aggressive estimate, taking into account the economic fluctuations which are inevitable over the long run. An occupancy rate of 65% appears more realistic, given the lower occupancy levels of the primary group serving Mission Valley hotels. During the period of 1989 to 1994, county wide room rates have rebounded from their low of $75.15 in 1991 to $79.72 in 1994 through October. The extremes in room rates are in the South Bay, currently averaging $43.50 and San Diego Bay area, currently averaging $119.74. In the combined San Diego, Mission Valley and La Jolla sub-areas, room rates are averaging $75.42 and $119.78 respectively for the upscale and luxury markets in 1994 through October. These rates are $2.20 less and $10.60 more than average levels in 1989 for the same upscale and luxury markets. It is clear, however, that these room rates are skewed toward the low end, given the room rates for major hotels depicted in Exhibit 10. There are many hotels downtown and in the San Diego areas with room rates in the $150 to $180 range. It is reasonable to assume that in a built out condition the central core hotels at the Mid-Bayfront should bring an average room rate of $95 and that the Mid-Bayfront Motor Inn could produce a room rate of $65.00. We feel rooms with rates at this level are not being occupied by groups. The retail market in San Diego is still slow. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the specialty retail market is a very difficult market to be involved with at this time. Based on our analysis, lease rates of $0.95 per square foot seem reasonable for general analytical purposes. The office market in the San Diego area is extremely weak based on our research and conversations with active commercial brokers in the area. Lease rates are highly dependant on the particular requirements of a business, the level of tenant improvements, and operating costs which are paid for by the building owner. We feel a lease rate of $1.06 per square foot per month is appropriate for analytical purposes. The water oriented housing component of the project includes high rise and low rise condominiums in the residential district north of the urban core as well as rental apartment units as a part of the central core of the project. As previously discussed in the "Water Oriented Housing" section of this study, there are no direct comparables for the residential products approved for the Mid- Bayfrou.t location. UEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3-15 We believe that the high rise condorniniums on the hill above Downtown San Diego are appropriate comparables. The best of these comparables are newer buildings, beyond walking distance to downtown San Diego with good views of the San Diego Bay or city . views. Based on these cornparables, an average price for a Mid-Bayfront high rise condominium should be at the high end of the San Diego comparables or $150-$160 per square foot. This is significantly lower than the $200 to $225 per square foot used in the existing studies. For the low rise condominium component of the project, the hillside area above Downtown San Diego, again provides a reasonable comparable for the Mid-Bayfront project. The average sales price in this area is $13 7 per square foot. This provides a reasonable premium over the East Chula Vista average comparable sales price of $111 per square foot. This $13 7 per square foot is somewhat less than the $150 per square foot price projected in the two existing studies. Therefore, for analytical purposes, the low rise condominium component of the Mid-Bayfront project should be $130 to $140 per square foot. The apartment component of the project as previously discussed should achieve rental rates of $0.98 per square foot. This is consistent with the rental rate of $0.98 assumed by WK&A, but lower than the $1.12 per square foot assumed by Price Waterhouse. Vacancy rates are very low and appear to be within the range assumed by Price Waterhouse. Based on this survey, it appears that the Price Waterhouse study is significantly optimistic in all of its revenue assumptions, with the exception of the motel room rates. The WK&A study appears to be somewhat less optimistic than the Price Waterhouse study, but revenue assumptions are far enough off to make their study not applicable given current market conditions. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3 -7~ CONCLUSIONS The Mid-Bayfront project, it its current form, relies on synergistic effects between the various components of the project. The hotel component is the main force, and is proposed to draw group occupants to the area which will, in turn, support the retail component of the project. With the success of this relationship, local residents and businesses may be attracted to the apartment and office uses in order to take advantage of the amenities provided in the form of the lagoon, parks, restaurants, and pedestrian promenades. The condominium use is the only component of the project, in its current form, which appears to be feasible without significant reliance on the balance of the project. There would be, of course, a sales price premium for the condominium units if a successful Mid-Bayfront project is realized. The marketing program for the Mid-Bayfront project assumes that the majority of the hotel occupancy will be generated by group users. The Mid-Bayfront project will provide 40,000 square feet of conference center space in a satellite location, but is not specific as to the quantity of conference facilities which would be located in each hotel. It is typical for the largest hotels in San Diego to have from 20,000 to 70,000 square feet of conference space per hotel, or from 40 to 80 square feet of conference space per room. Lack of conference center space could preclude the proposed Bayfront hotels from accessing the targeted conference business. Therefore, each hotel should provide approximately 30,000 square feet of conference space. This space, in conjunction with the satellite space, would provide the project with 130,000 square feet of conference center space, or 80 square feet per room. It is imperative that the Mid-Bayfront attract group users, because it cannot compete with tourist oriented facilities in the San Diego area due to its location. Prevailing hotel room rates which could be generated at the project are significantly lower than assumed in the existing financial analysis. This lower rate significantly reduces the viability of the project. Hotel room demand projections were provided in the June 1993 market and demographic profile prepared by Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates, for the City of Chula Vista. The report indicated the current oversupply of rooms in the South Bay region will be absorbed by 1996. According to that report, the projected cumulative demand for new rooms in Chula Vista is 200 by the year 2,000; 700 by 2010; and 1,000 by 2015. These figures should raise serious concerns about the ability of the Chula Vista market area to absorb 1,610 hotel rooms over a time span of four to eight years, unless the group user market is successfully targeted. The retail component of the Mid-Bayfront project relies, to a great extent, on the hotel component being successful. The tourist serving nature of this retail space would not be supported in the long run by local consumption. Even though retail uses may be appropriate for the Mid-Bayfront location, in the current configuration, its success is dubious at best. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3 ~77 If the hotel and retail components of the Mid-Bayfront are unsuccessful, the required amenities will not be in place and/or maintained to a sufficient level to attract office and apartment users, and to a lesser extent, condominium purchasers. In summary, the Bayfront project is marginal because of the interaction of four factors which will have a significant negative impact on hotel room rates and occupancy within the Mid-Bayfront project, and which will translate into reduced market success of the retail, office and residential components of the project. The first factor is the location of the property in a relatively remote and non-amenitized area. From a tourist perspective, all of the major attractions; Sea World, Balboa Park, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Horton Plaza, Civic Theater, University Town Center, La Jolla, Mission Bay, and coastal beach areas are a physical and psychological distance to the north; visitors, whether in groups or not, will tend to prefer a a more centralized hotel location. The second factor is the composition of visitors staying in San Diego; 75% of all visitors are from the western region of the United States and a full 50% are from California. This proximity results in a visitor who understands the geography of the San Diego area and a visitor who knows that the Chula Vista area is relatively remote and a less desirable destination. The third factor is that the current level of entitlements through the California Coastal Commission for the Mid-Bayfront project do not provide for access (other than visual) to the San Diego Bay. This will necessitate a significant differential in room rates (lower) relative to other San Diego Bay area hotels that offer beach or waterfront activities in order to attract visitors. This factor will most likely make the success of the concept of a destination resort unlikely. The fourth factor is a combination of absorption and competition. The three to four hundred room hotel is the most highly competitive segment of the market. Approximately 60% of the proposed Bayfront project is in this market segment. The result would be relatively long stabilization periods for the majority of the Bayfront project. The above for factors limit the room rate that can be generated on the Mid-Bayfront project to $95 per day. This in turn will reduce the existing projected internal rates of return to even lower levels. The previous general partner of Chula Vista Investors set the target of a 13% cost of capital. In general, the cost of capital is the sum of the weighted average cost of debt and equity sources, plus an appropriate risk adjusted rate of return. Since the internal rate of return (cost of capital at zero net present value) for this project is less than the targeted cost of capital in the Price Waterhouse study and the Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates study, the net present value of the project will be negative. In other words, the project is creating a lower rate of return than the cost of the capital which is required to fund the project. The dollar amount of this loss is expressed in terms of a negative net present value which ranges from $33.0 million to $77.5 million as shown in Exhibit 16. These negative net present values should be taken in the context of the aggressive revenue assumptions as depicted in earlier sections of this report. More realistic revenue assumptions will make the project value figures worse. As a result of the pioneering nature of the Mid-Bayfront project, we believe that equity and debt financing sources will demand a risk adjusted cost of capital at a minimum of between 20% to 30%, which would significantly worsen the negative net present values arrived at in the previous financial studies. It should be noted that the Mid-Bayfront DMLOPMENT SERVlCES COMPANY 3 ~7! project is projected to provide the City with $48.78 to $84.59 million in net revenues. These revenues, combined with the $39.2 to $69.5 million in extraordinary costs borne by the developer to provide benefits to the City of Chula Vista, result in a total windfall to the City of between $88.0 to $154.1 million. The magnitude of these numbers suggests that there is roorn for a compromise whereby the City of Chula Vista could receive significant financial benefits from the implementation of a quality bayfront project that upgrades the City, and perrnits the developer to create a financially viable and competetive project. This would require the City to provide significant relief to the developer relative to the extraordinary costs now imposed on the project, as well as subsidies funded from the revenues generated onsite which would be received by the City as a result of successful implementation of the project. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY ~r 71 This page Blank J ~!D OPTIONS FOR PROPERTY UTILIZATION Based on our survey of the San Diego market, we are providing several alternatives to Pearl U.S. Management which should be considered as alternatives to the existing entitlements on the Mid-Bayfront. Extensive market research should be undertaken to support the feasibility of any of these options before pursuing any option; such research was outside the defined scope of this market study. We believe the options are as follows: . Sell Property "As Is". . Renegotiate the draft development agreement, revise land plan and pursue sale or development of the revised concept. . Revise entitlements for a tourist/amusement oriented development with hotels in scale and concept supportable by current demand and prevailing revenue levels. . Revise entitlements to allow for the construction of a "Neo-traditional Village on the Bay," being an upscale residential development with a variety of housing types and related uses. . Revise entitlements to allow "Big Box" retail users adjacent to Interstate 5 and residential users on the bay. . Trade Property for more easily developable Federal Land. The property could be marketed "As Is" to a developer who would negotiate the re- entitlement of this property with the City of Chula Vista. It is reasonable to assume that the city would be open to discussion with another entity relating to modification of the project since they indicated they would be willing to work with the current owner in this regard. An offer to purchase the property would, in all likelihood, either involve a low purchase price and/or an extended escrow contingent upon some minimum level of entitlement. This would be the "quick" divestiture option which would result in the lowest net profit of the four options presented, but may not, in fact, be a quick closing. As currently proposed, the Mid-Bayfront project is encumbered by significant costs associated with the Cultural Arts Facility, the Nature Center Funding and the Ice Skating Rink. In addition, the land plan depicts a tennis center and structural parking for the hotels. All of these items are extremely expensive to build and we believe they do not provide a significant increase in the revenues which can be achieved. A revised concept land plan should be prepared as a working docwnent to facilitate the renegotiation of the draft development agreement. A timeframe should be established for the renegotiations with the City with the understanding that if an agreement is not reached, the entire project may be tabled in favor of an entirely new concept which would specifically address current market conditions and maximize the value of the property while assuring the income stream to the city. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3 - g j An amusement park (with related visitor-oriented uses), could be created which would serve the greater San Diego area, as well as the large Hispanic population south of the MexicanJUnited States border.. This option would offer the same "public access" to the San Diego Bay as the current project, as well as generate significant revenues to the City of Chula Vista. An amusement park would tend to feed off of the existing visitor industry in San Diego, rather than compete with it. The particular uses would hve to be different in theme and concept to those already in San Diego, but could be part of the area's overall amusement activities, and appeal to local families as well. Several srnaller hotels could conceivably be associated with such a use. It may be feasible to design a neotraditional village around a residential serving commercial core. The commercial core could incorporate a scaled down version of a cultural arts facility, linked to a park/greenbelt adjacent to the bay and wildlife habitat area. The scale and quality of such a project should more closely match that of the Chula Vista Community as a whole and therefore not create a scenario in which the project is over- amenitized relative to the surrounding market. The fifth scenario would be to design and build approximately 300,000 square feet of big box retail space adjacent to Interstate 5. This location, along a major arterial in the heart of the South Bay area, is felt to be a quality retail location for big box users, such as Wal Mart, etc. This use would take approximately 30 to 35 acres which would leave approximately 65 acres for residential use adjacent to the bay. The residential area could incorporate high rise and low rise condominiums oriented towards a central park and scaled down cultural arts facility on the San Diego Bay. The United States Department of Fish and Wildlife is interested in being able to restore and maintain the Mid-Bayfront project as an upland habitat area. As a final option, they have indicated they would be interested in coordinating the trade of an unidentified parcel of Federal property, probably part of a closed military installation, in exchange for the Mid-Bayfront property. Any trade could be made contingent upon securing some level of development entitlement on the Federal land prior to close of escrow. In addition, the owner would need to be assured that there were no environmental problems associated with a Federal property. This option, if executed, could create ownership in a property which would be much more marketable to a third party or may create a more lucrative opportunity for development. Prior to committing to the processing of either the neotraditional village, the retail/residential use, or the amusement park, it would be necessary to prepare a detailed market and financial analysis to more accurately determine the feasibility of the chosen scenario. In addition, it would be necessary to gain the support of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission, the City Council, and key users (such as hotel or retail tenants), at an early stage of such a process. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3 ,.!..2J RECOMMENDATIONS Given the fact that the current project as now envisioned is not financially feasible, an alternative course of action must be undertaken. This new direction will need to take into account the environmental and economic constraints which are currently existing in the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego region. The Chula Vista City Council will want to see some level of benefit, whether taking the form of community amenities and/or increased tax revenues, created by approval of a project of this magnitude on the San Diego Bay. The California Coastal Commission will scrutinize any new project which they have not seen, even if the scope and environmental impact of the project is reduced. The environmental constraints must be balanced with economic realities in order to arrive at a financially feasible and entitled project. The above factors create a high level of uncertainty about the final outcome of any individual strategy. This uncertainty translates into high risk for any owner of the property. For this reason, we recommend an approach which pursues all of the options identified in the preceding section in a logical sequence. Based on the high risk nature of this piece of property, we do not anticipate identifying any entity willing to buy the property for a reasonable sum in "as is" condition. However, there may be a unique use which would facilitate a quick sale and therefore we recommend that the owner maintain contact with any interested parties and negotiate a sale as appropriate without formally listing the property. The owner should make an attempt to revise the existing land use plan and the City's current draft of the development agreement in order to create a viable and financible project. The timing to do this would be streamlined since the project's uses would not need to be changed significantly and certainly not in a manner which would increase environmental impacts. The City should be made well aware that this process must proceed in a timely fashion, otherwise the benefit of the option will be greatly diminished. Efforts to pursue re-entitlement in a cautious, low cost manner should proceed in order to create a salable or developable property. Several land plan alternatives should be generated, based on the previously stated options, and city support gained for one plan prior to any significant investment in marketing, feasibility analysis or processing. Re- entitlement should result in the rezoning of the property to allow for the use conceptually agreed upon by the owner and City. The City should be notified early in the process as to the developer/owner's requirements relative to a development agreement. This development agreement should provide the owner, at a minimum, vesting of building rights and locking in of City fees and school district fees at set levels. With rezoning and a development agreement in place, the number of prospective wholesale buyers should increase significantly as well as the market value of the property. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY 3~?3 This page Blank 3 r f'/ ITEM #4 MEMORANDUM July 6, 1995 TO: The Honorable Chairman and AgenCY.Membe~) John D. Goss, Executive DirectorJ4 ~~ S Chris Salomone, Community Developmen}..b;;:;or c- . VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Item #4 - Broadway Business Homes Project In order to finalize the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) staff met with Josef and Lenore Citron and their attorneys on Wednesday, July 5. Their attorney is finalizing the DDA and should have the document to staff on Friday, July 6. Based upon these negotiations, staff is updating the staff report and all materials related to this item will be delivered under separate cover. [BBIC ,I WP51 IAGENCYIMEMOSIINF09507 .MEM] 4--/ This page Blank 1-2- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item {a.., bl C I&.' Meeting Date 07/11/95 ITEM TITLE: A. JOINT COUNCIl! AGENCY B. COUNCIL C. AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING; JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL HEARING PURSUANT TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33431 AND 33433 REGARDING THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION BY THE AGENCY OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 2.53 ACRES TO BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES. L.P., AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SAID PROPERTY INTO A 36-UNIT MIXED-USE BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT, SUCH PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC PROPOSED ACTIONS: 1. Review and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum IS-95-03 2. Approval of an amendment to the zoning map or maps established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code by rezoning the 2.532 acre parcel located at 760 Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area from CoT (Commercial Thoroughfare) to C-C-P (Central Commercial with Precise Plan) 3. Issuance of a Special Use Permit to construct a 36-unit commercial/residential mixed-use project with Shared Parking Agreement 4. Approval of a Precise Plan to allow construction of a 36-unit mixed- use project including associated site improvements 5. Approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and Joelen Enterprises CITY COUNCIL flH;OLUTION 1'71 fa ~ AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION l'-fV;>OADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM IS-95-03 FOR A 36-UNIT BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT AT 360 BROADWAY ORDINANCE ..2..?:- 3~ AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REZONING THE 2.53 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPM ENT PROJECT AREA FROM CoT (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE) TO C-C-P. CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN RESOLUTION /;..j 0/ MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT, LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P. '1 -I D. JOINT AGENCY AND COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: Page 2, Item j c... ~. ~, t Meeting Date 07/11/95 c(,~ /1'f(PS o.--vvL ~ RESOLUTION / Af(P 2... APPROVING A PREC~SE PLJN FOR THE BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT AND A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES, L.P., AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE SAME Community DeveloptJ!JDirector C.'Sd&- Director of Planning'N - tr- ~1:. lP Executive DirectoB (4/5ths Vote: Yes No .1U Council Referral Number: BACKGROUND: The City Council and Redevelopment Agency are requested to hold the requisite public hearings and take the actions necessary to approve the Broadway Business Homes Project and authorize execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDAl with Broadway Business Homes, L.P., (Josef and Lenore Citron) for the development of the project. Actions required include a zoning change for the project site from Thoroughfare Commercial (C-T) to Central Commercial-Precise Plan (C-C-P); a Special Use Permit with Shared Parking Agreement to establish the mixed-use project; and approval of a Precise Plan with Conditions for development of the Project and approval of a DDA, and sale of the property without public bidding. All of these actions are further described in this report. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council and Agency hold the requisite public hearings and take the actions necessary as outlined above to approve the Broadway Business Homes Project and authorize the sale of Agency property to develop the project. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The following actions and recommendations have been forwarded to the Council/Agency pursuant to the Broadway Business Homes Project by the Planning Commission, Southwest Project Area Committee, Design Review Committee and Resource Conservation Commission: Plannina Commission At their meeting of June 14, 1995, the Planning Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum IS-95-03 and adopted (with one abstention) 4-0-2-1 Resolutions PCZ- 95-A and PCC-95-23 recommending that the City Council approve the rezoning and Special Use Permit with Shared Parking Agreement required by the project subject to a Disposition and Development Agreement being approved (see Minutes, Exhibit Al. The minutes of the Planning Commission will not be transcribed by the date of this meeting, but can be forwarded under separate cover upon request. Southwest Project Area Committee The Southwest Project Area Committee attempted to hold a meeting on the project on May 26, 1995 but did not have a quorum (only 3 members attended, 5 are required for a quorum). However, the members present discussed the project at length and determined the following: . The project has a number of risks, including the location, owner occupancy requirement, shortage of parking, and layout of commercial spaces. 1-2 Page 3, Item 4A,,~ ,c., J-. Meeting Date 07/11/95 · The project was substantially deficient in useable open space. . The development of the project in stages is a benefit and allowed testing of the market before the project is built out. The nine-member Committee is presently short by three members with one of the six members not attending for some time, thereby effectively having four vacancies. As the Council may recall, action was taken to redefine the overall role and function of the Project Area Committees WACs) as part of the "Permit Streamlining" efforts. In order to formalize this action, the City Attorney's Office, in conjunction with the Community Development Department, will be bringing forward a Municipal Code Amendment that will formally bring the three PACs into the City's "family" of Boards and Commissions. As part of the Ordinance, it is proposed that the Southwest PAC be reduced from nine members to seven members, thereby reducing the number of actual vacancies from three to two. Due to the pending Ordinance amendment (and the seating arrangements) staff felt it would avoid confusion by waiting until the Ordinance amendment is adopted before requesting the council fill the vacancies. The amendment to the Boards and Commissions Ordinance should be presented in August 1995. Desian Review Committee (DRCI On May 22, 1995, the DRC reviewed the project design in preliminary form and expressed some concern about the lack of common useable open space traditionally found in multi-family projects. Based on the project's unique and urban qualities, however, the DRC endorsed the design as presented, but recommended additional outdoor amenities to compensate for the lack of common open space. A revised design was considered by the DRC on June 26, 1995. The DRC approved the project design with conditions. The minutes of both meetings and the recommended Conditions of Approval are attached as Exhibit B. Resource Conservation Commission (RCCI The Resource Conservation Commission considered and recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum, IS-95-03 at their meeting of June 26, 1995. The minutes are attached as Exhibit C. DISCUSSION: The Broadway Business Homes Project includes the development of 36 town homes on the former Fuller Ford site located at 760 Broadway. Each unit includes approximately 500-600 square feet of commercial/office space on the ground floor with 1500 square feet of living area above. These units will be marketed to business owners who wish to live and work at the same location. The proposal requires a change in zoning on the project site from Thoroughfare Commercial (CT) to Central Commercial-Precise Plan (C-C-P) which allows a mixed-use (residential/commercial) project with a Conditional Use Permit (Special Permit in redevelopment areas). The project also requires approval of the project and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) conditionally approving sale of the property. A public hearing is required pursuant to Section 33433 of the Community Redevelopment Law. Since the project site is being sold without competitive bidding, a public hearing pursuant to Section 33431 of the Community Development Law must also be conducted. 1-3 Page 4, Item tfa..,b, Meeting Date 07/11/95 eJ. I The following more fully describes the project and explains each action the Agency is requested to take. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Zone Chanaes and Special Permit The 2.53 acre site is located on the west side of Broadway, between J and K Streets (see Locator Map, Exhibit D). It was previously occupied by the Fuller Ford automobile dealership and contains several vacant structures and asphalt paving. A masonry wall separates the site from the westerly adjacent residences. The property is bounded to the north by a tire store, to the south by a one-story motel, to the east by Broadway, and to the west by single family dwellings located approximately 4-10 feet lower than the project site. Adjoining General Plan designations and zoning districts are as follows: General Plan Zonina Site North South East West Retial Commercial Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Low Density Residential COT Thoroughfare Commercial CoT Thoroughfare Commercial C- T Thoroughfare Commercial C- T Thoroughfare Commercial Single Family Dwellings Proposal The proposal calls for 36 individually-owned three-story business home units featuring a 500-600 square foot commercial space at the lower level, with a 1,500 square foot two-story living space directly above. A loop road located along the perimeter of the property, as well as a single dead- end drive off Broadway, provide access to the residences, each of which is served by a single-car garage and either a tandem or open parking space (see Project Plans, Exhibit E). The commercial shops are situated around two separate parking areas oriented toward Broadway. The two parking lots provide a total of 80 parking spaces to serve the 18,000 + square feet of total commercial floor space proposed. Three landscaped passageways provide pedestrian access between the commercial and residential "sides" of the project, whereas vehicular access and parking is exclusive to each component. Open space consists of an 80-100 square foot private patio for each dwelling unit, plus lawn areas along the residential loop road, and visual focal points featuring trellis structures and seating at several locations. Landscaping is provided along the frontage of the shops, within the parking lots and pedestrian passageways, as well as at three locations along the rear property line. A 4-5 foot high masonry wall is proposed to be retained and supplemented where necessary to separate the project from the residences to the west. The Business Homes proposal includes several requested precise plan deviations from typical development standards. These include a reduction in usable open space by approximately 25%, a reduction in the setback along Broadway from 25 feet to 4 feet, a reduction in total parking by 10 spaces under a shared parking arrangement, the use of 28 compact-commercial and 28 tandem-residential parking spaces, and a modest reduction in vehicle back-up and maneuvering areas from 24 feet to 21 feet along the residential loop road. 4-'{- Page 5, Item 44-, b I (" J. Meeting Date 07/11/95 Some of these requested deviations are at least partially based on the constraints of the site in relation to the unique qualities of the project, but many are also based on the proposition that the Business Homes will be owned, occupied and operated by the same individual or family. The commercial and residential spaces of each unit are internally connected and are intended to function as a combined living and working space for the owner. Development Criteria Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.58.205 provides the following development criteria for mixed-use projects: 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to review and approval of the City Council following the recommendations of the Planning Commission; 2. The commercial and residential components shall be planned and implemented together; 3. The maximum allowable residential density will be governed by the provisions of the R-3 zone based on the total project area, less any area devoted exclusively to commercial use, including commercial parking and circulation areas. The approved density may be significantly less than the maximum allowable density depending on site specific factors, including the density and relationship of surrounding residential areas, if any; 4. Parking, access and circulation shall be largely independent for the commercial and residential components of the projects. Each use component shall provide off-street parking in accordance with City standards. 5. The residential component shall meet the private and common open space requirements of the R-3 zone; 6. The Conditional Use Permit may include a restriction on commercial uses and/or business hours in order to avoid conflicts with residential units. In redevelopment project areas, the Special Use Permit replaces the CUP. The Special Use Permit is reviewed by the Project Area Committee (PAC) which makes a recommendation to the Agency for final action. The PAC thus takes the role of the Planning Commission in approving CUP within project areas. Public Input On June 1, 1995, the Planning Department sponsored a public forum to familiarize surrounding residents and property owners with the request and the planning process. Those in attendance (approximately 10) generally appeared receptive to the proposal and welcomed the improvements to the site, but concerns were expressed with the following: 1. Loss of privacy for the residents to the west and the desire for a higher wall along the westerly property line; 2. Increased traffic if the commercial and residential components of each unit were rented separately; 3. Adequate provisions for trash since both the residential and commercial components will be served by trash cans rather than trash dumpsters; and, 1- s Page 6, Item ~c., L Meeting Date 07/11/95 4. The approval of tandem parking could set a precedent for other multiple family projects. In addition to the input received at the public forum, correspondence was received from an area resident expressing concerns about the additional traffic, noise, and pollution, and also questioning the need for additional retail commercial shops along Broadway. In other correspondence, the residents of the three most southerly adjacent lots have requested that the existing 20 foot high building wall located on the southwest property line be retained to reduce the noise and impacts associated with commercial operations. Analvsis and Recommendation The existing Retail Commercial General Plan designation for the site allows for typical retail and service commercial uses found in neighborhood and community shopping centers and on traditional downtown shopping streets. It also allows for limited thoroughfare commercial retail and automobile-oriented uses provided they constitute only a small portion of a planned commercial development. The C-C Central Commercial zone is the City's basic retail and shopping center zone, and thus the rezoning is considered consistent with the General Plan. A mixed-use project can only be implemented in the C-C-P Central Commercial zone. This is due to the fact that the uses allowed in the C-C zone are considered more compatible in conjunction with residential use than the "heavier" automobile-oriented uses allowed in the CoT Thoroughfare Commercial zone. The establishment of this C-C zone mixed-use development on what is otherwise a thoroughfare commercial frontage is also not inconsistent with the historical use of the C-C zone as a site specific shopping center or planned development district at other isolated locations on Broadway as well as E Street and Third Avenue. With regard to the mixed-use development criteria listed above, the Business Homes proposal meets all of the criteria with the exception of total parking and open space. In relation to parking, the proposed deficiency of 10 required spaces is more than compensated for by the reduction in parking demand by 36 spaces under the shared parking concept, whereby the residential occupant is also the commercial proprietor and thus does not require an additional parking space. A deed restriction or other mechanism will be required to ensure continued single operator/occupancy. The open space provided is approximately 25 % less than what is typically required for a multiple family project (400 square feet/unit). However, the project includes enhanced pedestrian walks and attractive trellis structures with seating and decorative planting. Although the common space is not up to parity with more traditional multi-family developments, the open space and amenities provided are, in the opinion of the Design Review Committee, suitable for the intended urban character of the project. The development criteria also provide the ability to restrict commercial uses and/or business hours in order to avoid conflict with the residential component. The proposed hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. These hours have been incorporated into the conditions of approval as deed restrictions, as has a list of prohibited uses which are allowed in the C-C zone but which are believed to represent a potential conflict with directly adjoining residential. In addition to total parking and open space, a noted above the proposal includes requested precise plan deviations for the Broadway setback, the use of compact and tandem parking spaces, and a reduction in vehicle back-up and maneuvering area. With the exception ofthe Broadway setback reduction, which involves approximately 30% of the project frontage and which is not inconsistent with established setbacks along the entire length of Broadway, these deviations are somewhat tf-to Page 7, Item ~4, b, t.,J..- Meeting Date 07/11/95 exceptional, but in the DRC's opinion considered supportable in terms of providing the opportunity for a unique development concept which would otherwise likely not occur. Also, the single occupant/operator concept, coupled with the proposal for an exclusive single- loaded loop road will tend to ameliorate the potential for conflicts. For example, the tandem parking and reduced back-up/maneuvering issues only affect the residential units situated along the loop road. Since this road is intended for the owner-residents only, any inconvenience presented by utilizing tandem parking or by less generous maneuvering areas can be anticipated and adjusted to by these owners and will not conflict with public parking or general circulation. With respect to the issues raised by the public and not already discussed: 1. Traffic: The proposed project will generate approximately 1800 (ADT), or about 1,056 ADT over the previous land use. According to the City Traffic Engineer, the additional traffic is expected to be lessened by having the shop operators living and working within the site. Broadway is anticipated to continue to operate at level of service (LOS) "C", which is consistent with the City's threshold standard. 2. Noise: An acoustical study analyzed two on-site concerns: the noise generated by the commercial activities impacting the westerly adjacent neighborhood, and the exposure of the proposed residential units to the noise generated by traffic along Broadway. The study recommends the following items to reduce the noise impact and these have been incorporated into the Negative Declaration as required mitigation measures: · Maintain a minimum 5 foot high masonry wall along the west property line. . All windows facing east on the four frontage units shall incorporate dual pane windows rated a minimum of STC-25. · A mechanical ventilation system capable of 2 air exchanges per hour shall be incorporated into all of the living units. By incorporating this recommendation into the conditions of approval, the noise levels will be well within the City's standard. 3. Privacv: The Chula Vista Municipal Code requires a 6 foot high masonry zoning wall along the property line abutting residential districts. The intent of the wall is to screen and buffer residential uses from the noise and activities associated with commercial zones. Several of the residents at the public forum expressed a desire for a higher 9-10 foot wall to further ensure their protection ad privacy, even to the extent that three of the residents desired to retain the 20 foot high wall of a vacant building at the southwesterly corner of the site. Although the 20 foot high building wall cannot be retained, a higher wall up to 8-10 feet could provide more protection and a greater sense of privacy. A wall of that height, however, can be imposing, and may not be acceptable to all of adjoining residents. As a result, we have included a condition which requires that the applicant meet with the westerly adjacent residents to determine the desired wall height. 4. Trash: The proposal is to use trash cans rather than trash dumpsters to serve the entire project. Normally trash cans are only acceptable in the case of smaller residential projects of four units or less. This issue has been addressed by the DRC in an attempt to incorporate one or more dumpster enclosures into the project. ~-7 Page 8, Item ~IL, ~, e., cl- Meeting Date 07/11/95 For the reasons outlined above, staff is recommending approval of the proposal based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the City Council Ordinance for the zone change and resolution of the Agency granting the Special Permit. APPROVAL OF SALE OF AGENCY PROPERTY: SECTION 33433 PUBLIC HEARING The sale of Agency property acquired with tax increment funds requires a noticed public hearing and approval by the Legislative body and the preparation of a report describing the terms and costs of sale including, if appropriate, a description and justification of any subsidy given to the project. The report must be made available to the public at the time of publication of public notice of the meeting. A public hearing has been advertised for tonight's joint council/Agency meeting. The report has been prepared and is incorporated in the following section: SALE WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING: SECTION 33431 PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN AND A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Under Community Redevelopment Law, lease or sale of Agency property may be made without public bidding, but only after a public hearing properly noticed and advertised. The project is proposed to be sold to the Developers without public bidding because of the unique nature of the project and its impact upon the removal of blight in the area. Therefore, the Agency is requested to hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 33431 of the Community Redevelopment Law. The public hearing has been advertised in the Star News. The Developer's offer on the property was unsolicited. The Agency has received three additional unsolicited offers to purchase property. One from Jim Courtney preceding the Citron's offer for a portion of the site; a second offer from Courtney to purchase the entire site (buildings in place), for $700,000 after designation of the Citrons; and an offer from Mario Estalano on June 6, 1995 to purchase the entire site, buildings in place, for $800,000. Precise Plan Staff has been working with the developer and their architect to resolve problems and work out details of the plans for the project since late in 1994. The project has improved considerably from early designs to the plans which were submitted to the DRC on June 26, 1995. The plans, as recommended for approval by the DRC with Conditions, constitute the Precise Plan which, when approved by the Agency, will be a part of the DDA and govern the development of the project. The plans are attached (see Exhibit E) and the Conditions of Approval as recommended by the DRC appear under Exhibit B. Terms of Sale The Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) attached as Exhibit G, contains all of the terms of sale of the property located at 760 Broadway. Adoption of Resolution "D" will also approve the DDA in substantially the form presented. The major terms of the DDA are described below. ,-/-R Page 9, Item 4",~, e,L Meeting Date 07/11/95 1. Purchase Price The purchase price for the 2.5 acre site will be no less than $550,000 ($5/square foot). The Developer will also pay up to $20,000 in soil testing and remediation costs. The project will be developed incrementally and in phases. The purchase price will be paid proportionately to the amount of property purchased in each phase. There shall be no more than three phases. In addition, the Agency will be entitled to recoup demolition and soils testing costs up to $124,000 from a share of any excess profits from the project. Excess profits are described as funds accruing from the sales of the units in excess of funds necessary to retire debt, and return investors equity plus a maximum 20 percent return per annum. The Agency will be entitled to receive up to 30 percent of excess profits until the demolition costs up to $124,000 are received. 2. Right of Reverter If the developer fails to develop the project as contemplated under certain terms and conditions, the Agency has the right to take back any parcels transferred subject to any approved financing secured by the parcel. 3. The Project The Developer will be obligated to develop the site into 36 "business homes" which the Developer will offer for sale as separate legal parcels. The average selling price per business home is currently estimated at $231,000 but will ultimately be determined by market forces and is not governed by the DDA. 4. Joint Commercial/Residential Occupancy Requirements The properties will be transferred subject to deed restrictions which mandate that businesses in the commercial portions of the units can only be operated by the legal occupants of the residential portions of the units. Residences and businesses cannot be separately leased out. 5. Alley Dedication The Developer will dedicate the alley servicing the residential side of the business homes to the City as a public alley. 6. Dedication of public parking areas and open space The Developer will dedicate public parking areas for commercial units and open space including sidewalks, landscaping, benches, play equipment, etc. to the City as part of the Parcel Map process. An assessment district will be formed by the City for the purpose of assessing homeowners the full costs of maintaining these areas including the funding of public liability insurance. While the DDA cannot bind the City to form such a district, it does bind Agency staff to present such a district for City consideration and approval. 7. Proof of Financing The Developer must present satisfactory proof of financing for the construction and purchase of the Business Homes before transfer to the Developer of the site by the Agency. 1~9 Page 10, Item 4.., ~, t.,tL- Meeting Date 07/11/95 8. Marketing Study The Developer must submit evidence of marketability of the business homes to the Agency before transfer of the site by the Agency. 9. Payment of City Fees The Developer will pay full City fees for plan review and permits. Because of the unique nature of the mixed-use project, the City will, where necessary, develop specific formulas for the determination of fees so that the Developer will not be "double charged" for the residential and commercial components of the project. 10. Restrictive Covenants (CC&Rs) The Developer will prepare restrictions on the use and occupancy of the business homes in the form of CC&Rs and/or deed restrictions which will be recorded. The restrictions will indicate the types of businesses which will be allowed and disallowed, require joint ownership and/or occupancy of the residential and commercial portions of each unit and establish other use and maintenance standards. 11. Staging of Development The Developer plans to construct six contiguous business home units (one complete building) in the first stage of development. Depending upon market response, the Developer plan to construct the remainder of the project in one or two phases. The Project will not be developed in more than three phases. Cost of the Aoreement to the Aaencv/Citv The following are costs associated with the acquisition, maintenance and clearance of the property which is required to be disclosed under Community Redevelopment Law. 1. Acquisition Cost The Agency acquired the property located at 760 Broadway as part of the Auto Park Project. The cost of acquisition was $1,900,000. 2. Demolition The cost of demolition of the existing buildings on the site is estimated as follows: Contract Amount Staff (design and inspection) Contingency (Approx. 10%) Total $89,417 8,683 8,900 $107,000 3. Soils Testing/Remediation Because of the former use of the site as an auto dealership (auto sales and repair), it was considered prudent to test the soils to determine if any contamination has occurred. The cost of testing and remediation of contaminated soils is estimated to be up to $57,000. This cost is to be paid as follows: the Agency will pay for pre-demolition testing which will cost $17,000; the Developer will pay the next $10,000; the Agency will pay the next $10,000; the Agency and +_/0 Page 11, Item 4A.'~1 c,c:l Meeting Date 07/11/95 Developer will equally split the next $20,000 of costs (if any). If testing and remediation costs exceed $57,000, the parties will meet to determine if they are to proceed with the project and, if so, who will bear these additional costs. Therefore, it is possible that the Agency could bear some share of costs in excess of the $37,000 share already agreed and be forced to pursue legal action against previous property owners to recover these costs. 4. Property Maintenance Costs The costs of boarding up and maintaining the property since the vacation by the previous owner/occupant, Fuller Ford, is estimated at $3,000. 5. Escrow Costs The Agency will pay normal and customary costs associated with escrow and closing in excess of $3,000. 6. Total Cost of Sale (Total of items 1-6 above). The total cost of sale is estimated at $2,037,000 plus the seller's usual and customary escrow costs. Estimated Fair Market Value of Interest to be Conveved Estimated fair market value of the property is between $750,000 and $800,000. The highest and best use of the property permitted under the redevelopment plan is for commercial reuse. The property is currently zoned Thoroughfare Commercial (CT) which allows a wide range of general commercial uses including auto sales and repair. Staff's estimate of the value of the land being conveyed is based upon the two backup offers for the property which have been received with existing buildings in place. These offers are $700,000 and $800,000. The offerors each propose use of the site as an auto service after the rehabilitation and remodeling of the existing buildings. Estimated Reuse Value of Interest Conveyed The estimated reuse value of the property is $570,000. The proposed Business Homes Project requires the clearance of buildings and rezoning the site to Central Commercial (CC). This zone allows mixed-use projects such as the one proposed, whereas the CT zone does not. The CC zone also allows a wide variety of commercial uses including minor auto maintenance and repair as a conditional use. The Developer has offered to pay $550,000, or $5/square foot, plus an additional $20,000 for soils testing for the property for the purpose of developing the Business Homes Project. Staff estimates that the site, cleared and rezoned CC, would be valued as high as $600,000 to $650,000 for commercial development. However, the business homes development is a mixed- use project with only a total of approximately 21,600 square feet of business use and approximately 66,000 square feet of residential use. Property values for residential uses are generally lower than those for commercial uses. Since the proposed project is unique and without precedence, there is no comparable market information on land values. Furthermore, there will be a number of restrictions on the project which impact the reuse value. These include use and occupancy restrictions, assessment district costs for maintenance of common areas, and an untested market demand. This project is, consequently, very risky. The reuse value of land for q- /1 Page 12, Item~,tl. Meeting Date 07/11/95 this project is thus estimated to be less than the fair market value of $600,000 - $650,000 for the vacant land for straight commercial use. Based upon the restrictions on this project, the high degree of risk and untested market demand, a fair reuse value for this project is estimated at $550,000-$600,000. The Developer has offered to pay $550,000 for the property and an additional $20,000 in site testing costs for a total consideration of $570,000. This figure is considered within the range of fair reuse value. The Developer's pro forma indicates a return on investment of 40% over a two year period. This return is not considered excessive in light of the risks associated with the project. However, the pro forma is based upon the Developer's cost estimates and contingency of $444,000. If costs are inflated, the contingency is unused and/or the Developer is able to increase sales prices for the units, profit margins may increase considerably. Consequently, under agreement with the Developer, the Agency will receive 30% of the aggregate sales amount for all of the units above 40 percent return on investment equity over two years. In this manner, the Agency may recoup demolition and initial soils testing costs. Elimination of Bliaht The project will eliminate blight in the redevelopment area as described below. . The Business Homes project represents the total redevelopment of the site which will remove unattractive, economically obsolete structures which are poorly situated on the site and replace them with a modern, planned, attractive mixed-use development which will greatly enhance the appearance of the area. · The project represents a change in the historic land use along this section of Broadway which has largely been auto sales and service related. While many of these businesses have been successful in the past, their age, proliferation, lack of proper planning and under-utilization of property presents a visual and economic blight in the area. These land uses need to be replanned and/or redeveloped to provide a modern, attractive, and economically viable urban environment. . The proposed Business Homes Project will stimulate further redevelopment of economically obsolete land uses along this section of Broadway. . The Business Homes Project satisfies the needs of a growing niche housing market by providing a unique, new, mixed-use housing product not presently available in the marketplace. · The project will also add an estimated $50,000 in annual property tax increment and an additional $30,000 to $40,000 in sales tax revenue. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-95-03, with Addendum of possible environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on the attached Initial Study, Addendum and comments thereon, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and, therefore, recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-03, attached hereto as Exhibit F. FISCAL IMPACT: The Agency paid $1.9 million for this portion of the Fuller Ford site proposed for the business homes project. The Developers are proposing to pay the Agency approximately $500,000 ($5.00/square foot) for this 2.5 acre site. In addition, the Developers will pay up to ;/-I?- Page 13, Item Meeting Date 07/11/95 $20,000 towards soil testing and remediation. Demolition of the Ford dealership structures is estimated at $107,000. The Agency will also be eligible to recoup demolition and soils testing costs up to $124,000 from excess profits accruing from the project. Total costs of sale, including demolition, property maintenance and soil testing, have been estimated earlier in this report as $2,037,000. Assuming the project is built out and 36 business homes are sold, the Agency will receive approximately $47,000 in tax increments from the project which will increase by approximately 2%/ year. In addition, some of the businesses will generate sales tax revenues, although the amount is difficult to estimate at this time. Based upon half of the units used for commercial sales, $30,000-40,000 in sales tax revenues to the City is estimated. Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Resolutions: Item 4.A Item 4.B Item 4.C Item 4.D Item 4E: Planning Commission Minutes, June 14, 1995 DRC Minutes, May 22, 1995, June 26, 1995 and Conditions of Approval RCC Minutes, June 26, 1995 Locator Map Project Plans Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum IS-95-03 Disposition and Development Agreement City Council Resolution 17964/Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1460 City Council Ordinance 2636 Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1461 City Council Resolution 17965/Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1462 Staff Report starts on Paae 4-157 M:\HOME\COMMDEV\KASSMAN\BUSHOMES.113 Paae # 4-15 4-21 4-33 4-35 4-39 4-45 4-161 4-137 4-141 4-145 4-141 This page Blank 1- F-! f)RAFT Excerot from Draft Planning Commission Minutes of 6/14/95 c( I- ~ '" ~ ::c >< "-' ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR THE "BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES" PROPOSAL, FILED BY JOSEF AND LENORE CITRON FOR 2.53 ACRES LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A) PCZ-95-A; REZONE FROM CoT THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL TO C-C-P CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN B) PCC-95-23; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 36 UNIT MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH SHARED PARKING Commissioner Tuchscher asked to be excused because of potential conflict of interest. Associate Planner Hernandez presented the staff report. He noted that the applicant was requesting to rezone the 2.53 acre site from C- T to C-C-P to allow the construction of a 36-unit commercial/residential mixed use project, and that mixed use projects are permitted only in the C-C zone with approval of a conditional use permit. He went on to explain that the development proposal called for 36 individually owned home/business units featuring a 500 sq. ft. retail floor space at the lower level with a 1,500 sq. ft. dwelling unit directly above. The 36 individual commercial shops amount to approximately 18,000 sq. ft. of retail space for which 80 parking spaces had been provided. Mr. Hernandez stated that the mixed-use project development criteria prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance requires that the project be in compliance with parking and common open space. It also requires that the access of the two components be independent from each other and allows the restriction of some land uses to ensure a high level of compatibility. The project was in compliance with the development criteria prescribed in the Municipal Code, except for parking and open space. With regard to parking, the 18,000 sq. ft. retail commercial floor space required 90 parking spaces (10 less than what was being provided). However, because the residential occupant would be the commercial component operator and parking for the residence provided separately, the parking demand would be reduced by the number of units. With regard to open space, Mr. Hernandez stated that typically multi-family residential projects included a central usable open space. This project did not provide a central recreation facility and, therefore, was deficient approximately 25% of the open space required. However, enhanced pedestrian paving and decorative trellis structures had been incorporated throughout the project to compensate for the open space deficiency. 1-15 To ensure a high level of compatibility between the two components of the project, Mr. Hernandez suggested that some uses shown in an exhibit in the Planning Commission packet not be permitted. In addition to the total parking and open space deficiencies, Mr. Hernandez indicated that the other deviations such as front building setbacks, use of compact and tandem spaces, and a reduction in vehicle back-up and maneuvering area, which had been conceptually endorsed by the Design Review Committee, were necessary to achieve the unique live and work environment area. With regard to the rezoning, since Broadway is a heavy commercial area, and features traditional shopping centers and multi-family zones, staff was of the opinion that the proposed zone change was consistent with the General Plan and that the zone change would not change the character of Broadway, but would improve the existing conditions of the site and provide an alternative way to conduct business and live at the same location. He reported that at a public forum held on June I, residents to the west were concerned about lack of privacy. The applicant and staff agreed that a higher fence would somewhat mitigate concerns regarding privacy. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit would allow the applicant to raise the wall from 6 to 10 feet, subject to approval by the Design Review Committee and with input from residents. The residents and staff were also concerned that the units would be rented separately, since they were not linked exclusively from the inside. Staff suggested that each title of the property have restriction on the CC&Rs indicating that only the resident could be the operator of the business. Commissioner Fuller asked about the loss of privacy to the residents of the west. She questioned the location of the wall in reference to the loop road, and if the wall would be immediately behind the residences. Mr. Hernandez indicated where the zoning wall would be located. Commissioner Fuller asked if the lO-foot wall would restrict the view. Mr. Hernandez answered negatively and stated there was a 6-foot easement between the wall and the fence of the property owner. Commissioner Fuller asked if there was a security problem in the easement of 6 feet between the wall and the fence. Mr. Hernandez replied that there was not. Commissioner Fuller noted that Sweetwater Authority had some concerns regarding the availability of water. Mr. Hernandez stated that water would be available. The water main would be upgraded as part of the Broadway improvement. Senior Civil Engineer Thomas reported that was a part of the upgrade. He did not have the timetable. Commissioner Salas stated there would not be enough water pressure in order to adequately provide sufficient fire protection. J-/ -/~ Mr. Hernandez stated that the problem had been resolved. The requirement had been reduced to a lower GPM. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. R. D. Frederick, 752 Riverlawn Avenue, had submitted a speaker's slip, but had left the meeting. Russell Gillis, 741 Riverlawn Avenue, speaking for himself, Bill Bond of 745 Riverlawn, and William Hannai of 740 Riverlawn, said that this development was the best thing going on in this area of Chula Vista. Regarding the wall issue, the residents agreed that the 10-foot wall would insulate the noise, shield them from view, and also keep people out. No permanent structure could be placed on the easement. He was using the easement for a garden. The residents wanted the wall, and the Citrons had agreed to work with them. Gary Cooper, 767 Riverlawn Avenue, said it had not been good having an auto dealership in their back yard. He felt this project was a good step in the right direction and a good utilization of the land. He said he spoke for other members of his family and his tenant. The people in his block were in favor of the proposal. The Citrons had listened and responded to their concerns. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Salas asked if the restroom facilities on the first floor addressed the requirements for handicapped. Mr. Hernandez replied that the business would be required to be handicapped accessible. Commissioner Willett suggested the Code needed to be looked at to come up with this new concept. He did not think anything in the Code should hold up the project. He asked if the City could enforce the conditions even though there were CC&Rs. Ms. Moore stated that the City could be considered a third party to the CC&R process and could enforce. Commissioner Willett stated that the easement concerned him. He asked if the easement could be used for planting trees. Mr. Hernandez stated that the utility easement was used for telephone lines and that trees could obstruct access to the telephone poles. Commissioner Willett asked if the utilities could be undergrounded and trees planted. Mr. Hernandez answered affirmatively, but stated that since the utilities do not serve the proposed project, there could not be a condition to require that they be undergrounded now.. Commissioner Salas said the CC&Rs stated that the resident of the building must be the operator of the business. An individual or company could buy a unit and rent that unit out but the operator of the business would have to be also the resident of the unit directly above. tf -/1 Mr. Hernandez replied that the whole concept was that the business operator and be the resident of the unit above but not necessarily the owner. Commissioner Ray asked if the business operator would be precluded from subleasing the units. Assistant Cjty Attorney Moore stated that staff was working on a development agreement, and a number of those issues would be raised. She was comfortable with the conditions in the resolution and would be uncomfortable in expanding them. Commissioner Willett stated that he supported the concept. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the parking was based on 18,000 sq. ft. commercial space. Some of these units would not be used as retail, but could be an office, etc. He noted that the parking could overflow to the street. Commissioner Salas stated that she was in support of the project. The City had to get away from the idea of providing a certain amount of parking lots per unit. She was not concerned with less parking. Commissioner Ray asked if they were all four-bedroom units. Associate Planner Hernandez answered that there were 30 four-bedroom units and six one-bedroom. Commissioner Ray noted that they would need at least four parking spaces each for the four- bedroom units. Mr. Hernandez replied that the Zoning Ordinance requires only two spaces, based on the number of bedrooms. Commissioner Ray noted that the applicants would not use parking during business hours. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that parking lots would be used by residents during off hours. He stated that it may have to be revisited later. If the parking worked and there was some excess parking, staff may want to revisit. If business fails, staff did not want to leave it vacant. Commissioner Ray asked what happened if a business failed and they still wanted to live in the unit. Are they prohibited in doing anything other than leaving the business vacant. Ms. Moore answered affirmatively. Commissioner Fuller questioned whether there could be some way to preclude that from happening. If a business failed, could they be penalized in some way. Could there be some way to protect the City, other than forcing the sale of the whole thing? Commissioner Ray asked if there could be an inter-project condition that other residents and business owners be required to report to the group as a whole. Assistant City Attorney Moore stated that it be possible to incorporate something in the CC&Rs. tf - If MSC (Willett/Fuller) 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Tarantino and Thomas excused) (Commissioner Tuchscher abstained) to adopt the amended resolution PCZ-95-A/PCC-95-23 recommending that the City Council approve the rezoning and conditional use permit in accordance with the draft City Council Ordinance and Resolution and the findings and conditions contained therein. 1-/1 This page Blank 1-2D MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Mondav. Mav 22. 1995 4:30 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 and 3 A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Members Way, and Duncanson co >- ~ co ~ :c x LU MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Kelly, without notification STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Steve Griffin Associate Planner Luis Hernandez B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Spethman made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for the tape when speaking. C. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS 1. DRC-95-35 Palomar Trolley Center SWC Palomar & Broadway Commercial Center & Four Freestanding Buildimrs Staff Presentation Associate Planner Luis Hernandez presented the project, which consists of the second phase of construction for the Palomar Trolley Center located on the south side of Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Blvd. The proposal includes a 24,000 sq.ft. commercial center addition, associated parking, landscaping, and other on-site and off-site improvements, and the construction of four of the five freestanding buildings featured in the commercial center master plan. Mr. Hernandez stated that the project meets all applicable zoning requjrements, and noted that staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Project Architect Dave Reinker of SGP A asked for clarification of the landscaping requirement, questioning the necessity of parking screening solutions. He stated that the intent of the current landscaping plan was to maintain consistency with the existing landscaping program. Mr. Hernandez responded that the prjority would be to blend the new landscaping with the existing. Mr. Reinker further questioned a memo from the Engineering Department regarding Broadway improvements; Principal Planner Steve Griffin pointed out that this memo was informational only, and that the comments questioned were not conditions of the Design Review Committee's approval. '-/--)./ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE -2- MAY 22. 1995 Committee Comments Member Rodriguez asked if pedestrian access would be provided from the corner of Palomar and Broadway, pointing out that people might cross the landscaping at that location to gain direct access, and that any access points for pedestrians should be differentiated from the asphalt of the parking lot. Mr. Reinker stated that access was provided closer to the drive entrances, and would probably utilize concrete. Member Way questioned the proposed signage, noting that some of the existing signs appear to have letters that are quite large. Mr. Griffin stated that there is an existing sign program for the commercial center. He acknowledged that some of the signage does appear large, but added that all of the signage was previously approved by this committee. MSUC (Spethman/Way) (4-0) to approve DRC-95-35 subject to the conditions in the staff report, modifying condition "b" to add language indicating that the new landscaping shall tie in with Phase I landscaping desjgn, utilizing like-size plants and materials. 2. DRC-94-38 Broadwav Plaza SEC Broadway and SR-54 New Freestanding Sign Staff Presentation Associate Planner Hernandez introduced the proposal, noting that the commercial center to be located at the southeast corner of Broadway and SR-54 had been previously approved by the committee in July 1994. At that time, the committee had also approved an associated planned sign program which included a freestanding sign along SR-54. Mr. Hernandez noted that the currently proposed freestanding sign is the same hejght (50') as that previously considered, and is architecturally compatjble wjth the commercial center. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the freestanding sign, subject to the conditions that the bottom sign panel be modified to a single undivided panel and the sign shall be of a solid background with internally lit routed letters. Project Architect James Leary representing Gatlin Development requested that the bottom panel be divided either horizontally or vertically (but not both) to allow two tenants to be identified. He stated that although the identjfication of center, Broadway Plaza, did not constjtute identification of a tenant, it could be deleted if necessary to allow the namjng of tenants as requested. Committee Discussion Chair Spethman stated that he was concerned with the existing Walmart sign at 1-805 and Palm Avenue, noting that the sign is very large and sits right on the freeway; he indicated that he would not wish to see something similar here. Member Way acknowledged the developer's desire to identify the center and tenants, but stated that he was concerned about the sign at its proposed location and the vjsual appearance of these types of sjgns could from the freeway. He 1- - :2- ?-- DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE -3- MAY 22.1995 noted that the view from the freeway is currently very clean and natural, and voiced concerns about setting a precedent for future similar sign. Mr. Hernandez pointed out that the Dixieline site, which is within Natjonal City's jurisdiction, will have such a sjgn and is beyond Chula Vista's control; Mr. Leary added that the sign will enable motorists on the freeway to see the site in time to move over and reach their freeway exits. Chair Spethman noted that the committee had indicated sjmilar concerns at its previous review of the overall project, but djd endorse the sign conceptually. Member Duncanson stated that accordjng to the mjnutes from the previous project consideration, the applicant had stated that the identification of three major tenants on the freeway-oriented sign would be acceptable. Members discussed the height as well as the design of the sign. Mr. Hernandez informed them that the applicant had submitted flag test indjcating that 80' was needed to clear the bridges, but had not pursued this. Member Rodriguez stated that he would prefer to see only the two anchor tenants identjfied; other members agreed. Mr. Leary responded that it would look strange architecturally to have only two horizontal panels, adding that such a limitation would be problematic, although a limitation to three tenants would probably not be. After further discussion, members agreed that the identifjcation of three tenants was an acceptable compromise. MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (4-0) to approve DRC-94-38 subject to the conditions in the staff memorandum. 3. DRC-95-19 Broadway Business Homes 760 Broadway Mixed Use Proiect (Preliminary Presentation) Staff Presentation Associate Planner Luis Hernandez introduced the project, advising the committee that the presentation was intended to introduce the Broadway Business Homes project and obtain prelimjnary comments from DRC members. He stated that the project is within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, and will ultimately be considered by the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Hernandez noted that the project is consists of twenty-six units, each of which will include retajl commercial space below and a dwelling unit above. He added that the City does not have standards to address many unique aspects of this type of project, and that numerous functional and aesthetic details will have to be worked out during the review process. Mr. Hernandez then introduced project architects C.W. Kim and Alan Turner to present the proposal to the committee. 4-;l.3 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE -4- MAY 22. 1995 Aoolicant Presentation Mr. Alan Turner stated that the intent of thjs presentation was to familiarize the Design Review Committee with the project and obtain feedback prior to the formal project presentation. Mr. C.W. Kim reviewed the modifications that had been made since the first submittal, noting changes to the site plan and other aspects of the proposal that had been made in response to staff comments. He noted that this project was unique, and was targeted at a very specific market, namely those who wished to live and work within the single unit. Mr. Kim stated that the developers had conducted numerous focus group interviews to determine the specific space and accommodation needs of potential buyers. Addjtionally, he stated that there were no similar projects to be found within the United States. Mr. Hernandez advised the committee that the project site is being rezoned to Central Commercial with a Precise Plan which is the only zone district that allows mixed use projects. The Precise Plan modifier provides for deviations from certain code requirements. He stated that, as indicated by Mr. Kim, several code requirements are not being met by this project; these include parking, common open space, and building setbacks. Mr. Kim proceeded to review the landscape plan, noting the various trees and other materials to be used within the project. He then reviewed the building elevatjons, and further reviewed the site plan. Committee Comments Chair Spethman stated that he was excited about the project but was concerned about the lack of open space for residents, customers, and employees. He asked about outside seating areas, and stated that he felt that outsjde open spaces were needed, perhaps in the form of small, intimate spots or a central open space area or focal point. He stated that the landscaping shown was good but noted that he would like to see more detailed information, adding that the triple- trunk sycamores suggested are messy and have invasive root systems. Mr. Kim stated that he expected to provide sitting areas under tall trees. Mr. Turner noted that in order to provide more open space areas, the pedestrian walkway would have to be modified, adding that the sjte plan is already extremely tight with little room for deviation. Member Duncanson asked where the residents' trash enclosures would be located; Mr. Kim stated that individual trash pick-up would be provided, adding that the loop road around the perimeter of the project will be a public right-of-way and that parkjng areas will be kept up through a maintenance district. Member Rodriguez noted that mixed-use projects are different from typical commercial or residential projects. He stated that the parking lots along the street frontage detract from the urban feel of the project and make it appear more like a strip center; he noted that the invertjng of the "E" shape of the units would provide a more urban frontage. In response to member Rodriguez's questions regarding colors and materials, a sample board was provided which displayed a number of color options along with material samples. Mr. Kim stated that he intended to mix stucco textures and colors in the building elevations. 1-2 'f DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE -5- MAY 22. 1995 Member Way stated that he was concerned about Broadway, noting the high turnover. Additionally, he noted that the site lays out similar to a condominium project. Member Way then asked what would happen if the businesses failed, or what would prevent a buyer from sub- leasing the commercial space. Mr. Hernandez responded that a condition of approval would require that the units owners must live in the residential unit and operate the commercial business, and that this would be assured through deed restrictions as well. Mr. Kim added that these spaces would typically not be retail, but would more likely be operated by single practitioners such as accountants, travel agents, single hairdressers, and real estate professionals, for example. Mr. Kim further noted that the project would be built in two phases, with checks on the market conducted throughout. He stated that financing had been secured for the first phase which will include six units, with the balance to be constructed in the second phase. He indicated that any changes that should occur would not include a change in unit size, which is pre-determined. - Members Way and Duncanson left the meeting at 6:38 p.m. - Chair Spethman asked what will happen if phase I is not successful; Mr. Turner responded that the property will revert to the City. Mr. Hernandez then outlined possible scenarios that could take place if this happened. D. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Hernandez stated that he would be mailing the Design Review Committee's proposed budget to members, and would contact each individually for any comments they might have. E. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. Patty Nevins, Recorder t/ -:J.. 6 This page Blank 1-2&, EXCERPT FROM THE DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Monday. June 26. 1995 4:30 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 and 3 A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Member Kelly Members Duncanson and Way, with notification STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Steve Griffin Associate Planner Luis Hernandez B, INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Spethman made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for the tape when speaking. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the May 22, 1995 minutes was contjnued due to insufficient members of that meeting present. D. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS 2. DRC-94-19 Broadway Business/Homes 760 Broadwav Construction of a 36-unit Commercial/Residential Mixed-Use Proiect Staff Presentation Associate Planner Luis Hernandez presented the project, which consists of the removal of all existing structures and the construction of a 36-unit commercial/residential mixed-use project. He noted that the project had been introduced to the committee at a preliminary presentation on May 22, 1995, and stated that a public forum had also been held on June 1, 1995 to familiarize surrounding residents and property owners with the project and planning process as well as to obtain input on the project. Mr. Hernandez next reviewed the proposed site and building plans, stating that each unit contains approximately 500 sq.ft. of commercial space with approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of living area above each space. He noted that the proposal includes several requested deviations from typical development standards. These include: a reduction in usable open space; a reductjon jn the front bujlding setback from 25 ft. to 4 ft.; the use of 28 compact and 28 tandem-resjdential parking spaces; and a reduction in vehicle back-up areas from 24 ft. to 21 ft. Staff supported most aspects of the project, but was uncomfortable with signage depicted and was recommending that a sign program be returned separately for review. Mr. Hernandez advised that final approval authority 1- -j 7 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE -2- JUNE 26. 1995 for the project rests with the Redevelopment Agency, and noted that staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions stated in the staff report. Committee Ouestions/Discussion Chair Spethman questioned cutting back the area of the site's corner landscape nodes in order to create parking spaces, citing concerns with eliminating any landscaping or open space areas. Member Kelly agreed, stating that it was preferable to maintain the residential parking as depicted rather than lose landscape areas to accommodate the parking. Member Kelly asked what types of businesses would be locating within the project. Applicant Mrs. Lenore Citron stated that retail businesses would be outlined in a list of acceptable land uses within the project. She stated that although office uses had been considered, focus group participants had indicated that they would prefer a completely retail center as office-type uses present a somewhat boring setting. She added that there were more than sufficient variety in the types of retail businesses that could locate here, adding that the intent was to limit the businesses to just one of any given product-type category. Mr. Josef Citron stated that the time is right for this type of project, as one of the fastest growing business segments is the home-based business. He stated that this building product will allow people to operate a business from thejr homes conveniently and legally. Mr. Citron added that this project cannot be accomplished according to established regulations; it is intended to be market-driven, and will therefore provide what potential buyers need, with a price range starting at under $200,000.00. Member Kelly asked if buyers are willing to buy this product at thjs particular location; Mr. Citron responded that they would not only because of the price, but also because this is the only product of this nature available. He added that this is intended to be a pilot project which will lead to other similar developments. Public Comments Mr. R.D. Frederick of 752 Riverlawn Avenue stated that he was concerned about parking and storage issues. He stated that the commercial spaces are too small to provide for storage; therefore, garages will become storage spaces and parking problems will develop. Mrs. Citron stated that the CC&R's will include a provision that garages must be utilized for vehicle parking. Project Architect C.W. Kjm pointed out that addjtional storage areas are provided on the floor plan in areas designated for optional usage. He added that areas such as spaces under stairs also provide natural storage opportunities. Mr. Frederick stated that no one will enforce the CC&R's and resident parking will end up in the commercial parking area. Mr. Hernandez advised that this committee's purview included project design, but not land use issues within the project. He reviewed the approval process and the opportunities for public input at the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency hearings. Mr. Gary Cooper of 767 Riverlawn Avenue stated that he represents eight families on his block who support the proposed project. He noted that the only initial item of concern had been that of noise and privacy, but added that the developers had been very cooperative and were providjng a wall to buffer the project. He stated that the project would be an asset to the Broadway area, and reiterated his support of the project. 1- -:2.? DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE -3- JUNE 26. 1995 Committee Discussion Member Rodriguez asked if the loop road would be asphalt; Mr. Citron stated that it would be concrete, per City standards. Member Rodriguez stated that there should be a connection from the landscaped site corners to the project itself. Mr. Kim stated that the concrete could be scored, but added that this would a public street and that public works generally djscouraged textured paving for such areas. Member Rodriguez pointed out discrepancies between the colored renderings of the site plan and landscaping and the landscape plans submitted. He stated that the project was exceptional, but that the lack of landscaping in the central parking areas made them appear as any strip center and was inconsjstent with the rest of the project. Chair Spethman asked what other members thought about the trellis elements depicted along the Broadway frontage of the site. Members Kelly and Rodrjguez felt that they were desirable, and all members agreed that the encroachments into the setback area required for the structures were justified. It was also agreed that signage should not be incorporated into the trellis structures, and that a separate sign program should be presented for the project. Member Rodriguez stated that wall signage especially should be more unique than that depicted on the elevations. MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (3-0) to adopt Negative Declaration and Addendum IS-95-03. MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (3-0) to approve DRC-95-19 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the following modifications: delete condition "f"; add condition "q" - "Directory signage to be of a transparent material, located at center islands rather than on the trellis structures. "; add condition "r" - "Trellises to be retained as presented, with the Design Review Committee finding the proposed encroachments into setback areas to be justified. " E. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7;20 p.m. Patty Nevins, Recorder If -).1 This page Blank 1-5 tJ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Approval of this project shall be contingent upon approval of Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-23 and Rezone PCZ-95-A. B. All mitigation measures of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-95-03 and Addendum shall be adhered to and shall become conditions of approval. C. Landscape and irrigation plans addressing a parking screening solution shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to or in conjunction with the building permit submittal package. D. The parallel tandem parking featured on all two story corner units shall be replaced with a standard size stall within each of the planters featured at the northwest and southwest corners of the parcel. E. A parking screening solution consisting of a screening wall, closely arranged groups of planting material or a combination of these two shall be provided along the street frontage wherever parking is exposed to the public right of way. F. Deleted. G. An 18" concrete curb/step out strip shall be installed on all planting strips adjacent to parking stalls. H. A 5 foot high masonry wall shall be maintained along the west property line. However, the wall height may be increased up to 10 feet subject to staff approval of final design and materials. I. All windows facing east on the four frontage units shall incorporate dual pane windows rated a minimum of STC-25. J. All units shall feature a mechanical ventilation system capable of 2 air exchanges per hour. K. All pedestrian walks within the commercial components and connections to the residential area shall be decorative type. Paving pattern, design and color shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. L. A comprehensive planned sign program shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for consideration and approval. M. Trash enclosures for two 30 gallon cans shall be provided for each unit. N. All garage doors shall be equipped with automatic garage door openers. 1-3/ O. Additional trees shall be incorporated within the parking lots subject to staff review and approval. P. A detailed construction phasing plan showing adequate emergency vehicle access, sufficient parking to support the commercial retail operations, internal circulation landscaping and all the amenities for that portion of the project shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of any building permit. O. Freestanding signs shall be of a transparent material and relocated to the landscape area between the two driveways of each of the commercial parking lots. R. Trellis structures shall be retained as shown in the conceptual design drawings. 1M,IHOMEICOMMDEVIKASSMANIEXHIBIT.A] 1-3")-- MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 P.M. Monday, June 26, 1995 Conference Room # 1 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. by Chair Burrascano. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Present: Commissioners Hall, Marquez, Thornburg, Clark. It was MSUC (Hal1IMarquez) to excuse Commissioner Fisher, who had to work late; vote 5-0, motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved and seconded (Burrascano/Hall) to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 12, 1995, with corrections: On the first column of the list on page 1, the reference note after Hemizonia conjugens should be removed; the NOTE at the bottom of the first column should correctly read: "... the MSCP is attempting to solve will not be solved (streamlining development projects by not requiring Section 7 consultations of the Endangered Species Act)." Vote 4-0-1, Thornburg abstained because he was absent from that meeting; motion carried. U I- ..... co ..... :c >< LW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Scavaging Grant Approval-Michael Meacham was not present to discuss this item. 2. Review of Negative Declaration IS-95-03, Broadway Business Homes: After a brief discussion, it was MSUC (Burrascanorrhornburg) to approve the negative declaration; vote 5-0, motion carried. A recommendation was made to consider the unreasonable safety hazard to the residential units (i. e., potential fire hazard, electrical safety concerns) due to the type of business adjoining the residential units. It is suggested the prohibitive types of businesses be listed in the CC&R. Concern was also expressed that a play area be set aside on the ground level for children living within the units. A motion was made (ThornburgIHalI) to accept these recommendations; vote 5-0, motion carried. STAFF REPORT: Doug Reid reported on the Council's recommendations for the MSCP. The City of Chula Vista is preparing a letter to the City of San Diego for further revisions to the plan. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Burrascano noted there is still a vacancy on the RCC. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Marquez and Clark still have not been contacted by the City Clerk regarding their terms of office which expires June 30, 1995. The RCC should be added to the list of Commissions in need of members. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 7:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES '~~ ~-33 This page Blank 1-Ee{ I:J A~S[y ~ ~~ . ~CJ i-- I-- 1---: z .. - 1---2 ;,.-- f-- - - ~ -.. .. I- PROJECT - . cl-- ~ ~*~ ~ LOCATION i I- :x - - - -- . . . I 1 I I I I I I , , : ....: . l__ -- = I I .- ...... - - - .- f-- .- f- 1- ';1- ~; y cl ..J -" - a:: > ~ w ..,." .--- " . ~ -- rl-t'- ! I l . 101 ::l Z 101 > cl E z ~ cl ..J o o o ~ , ....... > - . ~ o cl 2 z ~ % r I -rOo ., .; I I . . : . . , . . I ~-.. ;'''",--~.-r-.r. I . . , l. I : : : I . . . . J . I i I': I --... . . I I --, , '1'1 · _L ... l -r 'T- ~....-. - I .',', 'I'~ I .., I I l.~. , I ~ .....~ . . .. . . ..- t- - . ::l 51 .---~. '. . lWt Ii& cl - - - -- - . --1-- i'- -- - ~ I--b: ..., !;; it I ...- ...- C> f- - co - :J: >< l.LI K . : I 1 I I -;- . . . I ....... _~..___ ...... J..._ ~ u.. ~ ~ , i ,..1 r .... , . . . , ' "--- , CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PlOJECf Broa~ Business CONDmONAL USE PERMIT & ZONE CHANGE C9 APPUCANT: Homes .lIage I PROJECT 760 Broadway ~Uuh Ruone 2.53 lICI'elI at 760 Broadway I ADDRESS: to a low the construclion of a 36 unit commercial FLI! NUMBea, pce - 95 . 23 residential mixed ~. use project. 4-35 sc:Alf, NORTH 400' pez.95.A ~~ This page Blank 4 - 3fc, J I I I I I I J l I J l I I I L r I "J" STREET " , I . I I I I I I I I I I , L __.J I I ------ I I I L__:" I I ..l. I I L -r I --l I i: , I L I I I > 1 - I 0 I ~ I I ~ I I I ------ . i z I ~- ---' ,.. I ::u t--- <: I - '" ' I . ::u "'-.---+-- > al r- I en '" - ,> , % '" ~ ..--- (") Z 1-----"1 % - ST. I b . - CCP ~ ~ --- - ~ '" . . '" ---- - ~ I 210'-0" I I ~ -- - ---- CD I I 0 > ~ -. , I ~ < I ' '" . ~r-;;--- . - I I ~ ., .I - I I I I I I - "K" STREET r I I nTl r I I rEXHIBIT - A- CASE NUMBER: CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT PCZ - 95 - A ACREAOE: 2.53 I HEREBY CERTIFY ltfAT THIS ZONING MAP WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE SCAl.E: 1" = 400' BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON D.'.TE: JUNE 5, 1995 C1YQfRJ( o.\TE DRAWN BY: C9 ~!~ C. J. FERNANDEZ ZONING MAP ~ CHECKED BY: O&~ NORTH ~ 1--37 This page Blank ~-3f , ., :..: .' . ;! ~ i . , ,. ~ . , ~ i " " , i - ... ,. I~ i ,I i . -0 " i... ,. i I ~. : , I ~ ~. ~ . ' i"'.'--' .; It.~-~ :....e-.: ! , .... '. .... i to -.+..... .... .... . , i ,... , ... , .... " ... , .... " .< Ii t! ~ d .. . . . . .. :"; 1~31 ~ ! ~ z .- i ~ :3 i lL a:l ; . III ~ lL < l- I 0 Vl - Q a:l i z - i :3 X ... ~ < >< I ~ W . " III 0 Z 0 0 I w.J I- ~ '" ~ ::c >< w.J .\,.. '1' I I I - L~l [] . .;., . I. . . .:-' Ii . ~... ~ ~ ~ .~ '. D: '. 'Pi,J J'\'- !I! .r.L- I 1: :Jl:~-~ rf'__!~11 I __ . -:. ~~51 . ~"1.:.=: L ill-:,' .~~ III ~ . , '.. ~IIIJI -(i) LT',,: ;~:' ,1111 ~~~,i~ I " !I) ,_r~~,'- ... I - ! II 11 -' , .._ ... ;;;-)s ~ 1<;> .~bD~JJ,U.JL'_, ,m " . \ ,~tlnw ' , ..... S U.. ....... ~ S . . ..... L~ [ D . . . . - I I I .1 1- -1D ' ~ . C) N I ~ CD . . a l- ii ~ - I U) CD t - t :t:: I t , >< . i . W I . " ~' t= I .- I EBJ \EEJ t; I '- ~ I I 0 DO I 11JEdb!! z Q '< > ~ 0\ 5 if> Vl'o? W'\ ~ Z~ iZ!= i!:; i. il '11 83 ~ ,r--l ~ L-.--J "' ~ 3... V>,:" ::. 11\ 1... ~ ~ : ::: ~ 1~t/-/ ~ ('I) m. I-~ ~ail "'-5 ~n::c I 1.1.- t ~ ~:>< ~ "'~W ! " z < ~ 0. '" O. o. ~" ~ o Z N z S 0. '" O. 0' ~. I.I..~ ~l 1\ < I- Z :l 6 ::J ~: , I B3 i I i E3' L ! I: ~ , IDO 0 ~ II':::! 1;;; EE I, 2 < !~> EB : c::::::::J z " < > '" v:b ~c ~~ ~; =...". ;r.c , ' s: :: 11:_ = :.; nn I;;;! ,:!'. ~ 'f-Lf).--- z <, 0: '" g~ ~~ ~ ~~ z < ~ a. ~~ 0" r:~ ~a -. I II 'lit ! III , a:I , t: z . ::l I- ~ - i z a:I < 0: - ~ a. X I 0, 0" >< '. i::t ~ . 0_ W I ~~ . u DO II z ,I Q &I) . u ~ , In i ~ C ~ . Z "' ... => co ~ v. ;:, - ! ~! ~ In "- ~. z '~ '" - i iJ',- g~:I: E ~ . "" ~" ~ . ' ~ ~>< 0- z; . N'W , I . u z g < > ~ ~ ~ "' ~... ;:;, ~ 1 ) / , ~ ~ = . - , / / / / / / / / / , / / / / ~ tf-tf3 z :5 "- '" 8~ ~, loL~ ~ C^ " ~: ~ tf-lfLf CD ... - m - X >< w I f/) ! . z , 10 , ~ . j < ~ ..J W ~ I i ! < . I . " ( /' ~;h.... ~ \..:, 7 - - T ;.:> _ S - f? -- 0,1- _ .---- 110 r'1 .- ..M:Y__M f~:-L ~ PfI/~ ~o I 4 /1 ., ,I p( "II I.,. <.{.- /-<1- ,~ _ ~~#l.o - ~/rw- ..I~4 ~ ;;bd j , , .~ .' A 1 ,~ ,-- ~'" ~.:-:i -) -fJt1f..(... ~/ . J- / 2 --,v -VA"-'./..<' J ~./L L1-1~/~. ;. ~_.r j~ . fr- --,..0 / t/.~ ~ ,v ?,J/ .....---:0: 'I!~ ---~ ( 'I .~ /j'At,;'.:r ~- -4 ~.........~--U~../~ r ;Jv.I~f r/ 1<--'->'-'-'/ ~~ ~r.u:/ ' jt)~4 tA~~(;".--/i::;,~/;u~~ M '"J/- W _A<P F~ 1-- ~. ..1.//--41 a/~f ~(J-!..-/ /~ V~..w ~~,< ~ c.. V. 4/..;~..I.J'~~ 1'~2 , &4~-~ 71tJ /).;i' ~ -ctJ~ JI~,1~ ~A,{ --00 "5/ ~1/ d '2 '"3 - IJ liS ""r/ ~~ 7--7 LL. I- ~ co ~ ::c >< w J.auar7 13. 1995 . Doudu Hell! EftT1roftmeat81 ReT1ew Coord1..tor JAN) a 7."9r/ ., P'-,Lj" I" I '~ "~I..; Ca..' 18 - 9~ - 0) We. the ro11ow1a~ res1l!eats or the 700 block of B1Terlawa ATe. reqaest that the ou.rreat approx1_tely 20 toot h1gh 11&11 raaala~ a10as 763 _ad 767 B1Ter1awa ATe be retal-,d, aad. It Posslb1e.a1oa~ the eatlre property llae to protect the ou.rreat R-l resldeats fro. the adTerse aolse _ad traffic cau.sed by the 3 1/2 story C~erolal deTelopaeat pu.rposfd bT Cltroa Reality 4 Ianst.eat Corporatloa (r11e I I8-95-0)>. . " \ ~ ( 11~/Oa~ 'O'U'ri _ita' Mary Cooper~ 767 BITer1awa ATe 1hllla V1;:- Sa \~1910 ~'h aJ7 Ja~~s / 74~ B1Ter1awa ATe . Chait V1sta C4 91910 ~----1- J- ~r"'- Gary t:ooper 724 R1Terl_wa ATe Chill' Vista. CA 91910 tf-'I6 ~ q ..f/7 ~ " ATrACHMENT 5 NOISE ANALYSIS This page Blank tf;, Lfi Giroux & Associates Eovironmcntal Con ~ta.Qu i ,; ~. .". -. . M.4.C( 1 '? 1995 ~ .... . ~ ,.. . """-. .',. ". . .. \, Ct. ,,,.:;; March 14, 1995 Citron Realty & Development Corp. C/O Coronado Bay Hotel Venture Attn: Ms. Lenore s. citron: GP/OWner 4000 Coronado Bay Road Coronado, California 92118 Re: Businesshome Village Acoustical Study Dear Ms. Citron: We have conducted an acoustical study for the former Fuller Ford si te at 760 Broadway in the City of Chula Vista. Ms. Susan Vandrew from the Planning Department staff had identified two noise concerns relative to development of the site as proposed. These concerns were: 1. EXposure of the rear yards of existing residents on Riverlawn to excessive site activity noise, or, 2. Excessi ve on-site residential exposure to vehicular noise from Broadway traffic. r Given the previous use of the site for automotive and truck repair and a body shop in close proximity to the Riverlawn homes, the question of site suitability for residential use is perhaps acre pertinent than limited Wnew" site access/egress noise. 'tasks that were performed to evaluate changes in the noise environment due to project implementation inclUded: 3. Measurement of parking lot activity noise at a similar .ixed use development in Orange County ~~ ~ 4 --1q 11144 Sky IINl ail*. Suite 21D. IrriDe. ClllifOl'lJill 92714 . PlIDiIe (114) 8SloM(>> . Fu (114) IJIo86I2 -2- 4. Evaluation of noise impact potential and identification of any recommended mitigation The following discussion summarizes the results of the efforts in each task. Project Description The preliminary site plan for 36 units envisioned two .pads" of 18 live/work businesses and residences separated by a common parking area. In the revised site plan, the two clusters have been drawn together with only a small separation and two separate parking areas have been created. In the current site plan, the intervening 3-story structures between Riverlawn residences and the parking areas will preclude any audibility of site visitor vehicular activity. Use of the perimeter roadway by site residents and by small delivery vehicles such as package delivery services will be the potential source of impact. Through the more contiguous building mass screening out Broadway traffic noise, any small impact from site-related vehicles may be offset by equal or greater attenuation of existing noise. Proposed uses for the site are a mixed use concept with owner- occupied businesses on part of the ground floor of each townhouse with parking in the rear of the ground floor and two floors of living space above. Business uses are expected to be small specialty retail, professional or service-oriented offices and special ty restaurants such as gourmet coffee, deli sandwiches, yogurt, etc. No audible noise generation from business use is expected at the rear of any unit in proximity to adjacent residences. on-site Ifoise lIeasur_ents Noise measurements were made at three locations on the project site. Two sites were along the rear separation wall between the former dealership and the adjacent residences (one near the former body shop on the southern one-half of the site, one near the taller truck repair building on the northern one-half). One monitor was located 90 feet from the Broadway centerl.ine in a former auto display area with an unobstructed view of 'Broadway. Results of these measurements made on February 23~ 1995 near 1 p.m. are summarized as follows: . . ~ )oj-SO -3- Hoise Level (dB[A]) 1.E!L Lux 1.IIin Front Display Area 65.3 75 55 Body Shop Area Truck Repair Area 59.7 66 55 58.9 65 52' These readings were 15-minute energy equivalent averages (LEQ) and l-second maxima and minima (Lmax, Lmin). city of Chula Vista standards are expressed in terms of a weighted 24-hour standard called the COlDlDunity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Our monitoring experience in a number of Chula Vista noise monitoring programs has been that mid-day LEQs and 24-hour CNELa are often very similar. For example, a comparison of CNEL and the lIid-day noise level at three sites around Chula Vista are as follows: Site 1 LEQ (Noon-2 pII) 64.3 dB 62.7 dB 52.2 dB CHEL 63.6 dB Site 2 64.9 dB 51.9 dB Site 3 . The difference between CNEL and mid-day LEQ is often near zero, and generally fairly small. The baseline readings above are therefore a reasonable representation of existing noise levels relative to the City's exterior standard of 65 dB(A) CNEL. The above comparison suggests that mid-day LEQ noise levels are from 0-2 dB lower than daily CNELa. At the locations lIeasured, the former front display area with a CNEL of 65-67 dB(A) thus currently slightly exceeds the City standard, while the former rear repair areas with CNELs of 59-62 dB(A) are well within the City's guidelines. Residences on Riverlawn backing up to the site protected by the existing wall clearly have a large margin of safety between the standard and their curre~t noise exposure. -~ '-1- s ( -4- Parking Lot Activity Hoise Noise levels at: the edge of a parking lot serving a mixed use development in Huntington Beach were monitored as a prototype for the off-site levels that could be expected for the former site plan that had a direct line of sight from the parking area to the rear yards of Riverlawn homes. The Huntington Beach facility has ground floor shops and offices with upstairs residences in an "Old World" atmosphere. Businesses include restaurants, a deli, retail shops (especially ethnic wares), travel agencies, CPAs, a tanning salon, etc. Tenant and/or owner parking is in a separate garage area, but otherwise the design concept is similar to the proposed facility in Chula Vista. One-hour measurements at the edge of the parking lot from 12:30 _ 1:30 p.m. when there is an active lunch traffic were as follows: LEQ .. 59.7 dB LMAX.. 81.0 dB Lmin.. 51.5 dB Because the traffic peaks during the day with little nocturnal activity, CNEL is likely several dB lower than mid-day LEQ. If the property line CNEL were 57 dB(A), and this noise level were superimposed upon the 59-62 dB(A) CNEL currently experienced at the fenceline of the Riverlawn homes, the combined level would be 61-63 dB(A) CNEL. The former plot plan with the parking area exposed to view by the residences, even without any noise reduction credit for a rear property wall, would not cause City of Chula Vista standards to be exceeded. With the revised plot plan, the parking lot activity noise exposure to off-site residents is a moot point. Its only issue would be as to how much on-site vehicular activity will be audible to project site upper story residents. Access Road Noise As a worst-case assumption, each unit was assumed to generate 10 daily trips (five outbound and five inbound) along the perimeter access. At 25 mph, with 10\ of traffic at ni'ght, the traffic noise in the absence of any barrier is 50 dB(A) CNEL in the rear yards of the adjacent residences assuming that the proposed homes are perfect reflectors. A level of 50 dB is not perceptible within an ~ 1-52- -5- ,. existing background of around 60 dB. By creating a more contiguous 3-story barrier to screen out existing traffic noise from Broadway, the noise reduction achieved by the project will far more than compensate any small noise increment created by resident and minor delivery vehicle traffic on the townhome perimeter road. The above calculations are for no separation wall between the project and existing Riverlawn residences. No wall is needed to meet noise standards. A wall may be desirable for privacy, security, aesthetics or other reasons, but it is not a necessary project component to meet noise standards. Because inclusion of a wall is not noise-driven, the height is somewhat immaterial. Any height above 5 feet will reduce the perception at adjacent homes of individual vehicles passing through the rear "alley", but only creates an additional margin of safety relative to meeting City of Chula Vista standards. On-Site Hoise Exposure Si ting of residential uses on a commercial corridor does have possible noise implications. Existing measured noise levels (estimated from Short-term, daytime readings) at 90 feet from the Broadway centerline are 65-67 dB(A) eifEL. Projected increases in traffic volumes on Broadway are small such that noise "growth" is forecast to be only an additional 0.5 dB(A) CNEL. With the facade of the closest project buildings somewhat closer than the 90-foot measurement distance, a maximum future exterior noise level of 69 dB(A) CNEL is forecast for the units closest to Broadway. The sides of the closest buildings to Broadway will exceed the City standard by 4 dB. The front and back of the closest unit will only be exposed to one-half of the traffic. Limits in the field of view to 50' of the traffic flow will create a 66 dB(A) CNEL exposure at the corner of the nearest unit. Wi thin the width of one unit, noise levels decrease by 1+ dB to create a sub-65 dB(A) ClfEL at the exterior of all units except the four closest to Broadway. The 65 dB(A) ClfEL contour approximately bisects the closest unit. City standards for noise at any usable exterior recreational space is 65 dB(A) ClfEL. State standards for interiors of multiple family units is 45 dB(A) eifEL. Exterior to interior noise attenuation wi th standard construction practice is 20 dB as long as windows are closed. All units except the four closest to Broadway will have exteriors of less than 65 dB(A) ClfEL. Their -decks and porches will meet City exterior standards without any supplementary noise protection. Their interior levels will be below 45 dB(A) eifEL as long as residents can close their windows to shut out the noise. ~ ~-Sj -6- The ability to close the window requires an auxiliary source of ventilation. Although this requirement is met in the UBC with only a whole-house fan (normally in the furnace in central heating), refrigerated air conditioning is the preferred option. While the need for air conditioning in Chula Vista is very limited, its inclusion provides an expanded range of options to the business and residential component of each unit to control comfort and noise. At the four end units abutting on Broadway, a somewhat enhanced level of noise control is required. Exterior exposure for the front balconies of these units is 65 dB(A) CHEL. The rear deck is shielded by the protrusion of the second floor family room such that the deck outside the kitchen door will also have a noise level within City of Chula Vista standards. No exterior noise mitigation is required. The front balcony at 65 dB(A) CNEL may not be conducive to relaxing conversation at these units, but does not require any supplementary noise control. The interior of the four units closest to Broadway is thus the only possible location where standard design practice may not be able to achieve a reduction from 69 dB(A) CNEL on the facade to a 45 dB(A) CNEL in the interior. With planned windows facing Broadway, the noise leakage for a standard window may be slightly inadequate. Based on preliminary room geometries, we have run the Interior Noise Analysis (INA) model. Use of slightly upgraded windows (dual-paned sliders or a thicker glass) with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 25 or higher will allow the interior standard of 45 dB(A) CHEL to be readily met. ." 8'--...,. jRecoa.endations OUr findings are as follows: 1. A rear property wall is not necessary for noise protection. It is anticipated, however, that the existing rear wall, with 80me cosmetic improvement, will be retained. Maintaining a minimum wall height of 5 feet above project grade is recommended. 2. Air conditioning is recommended as a standard feature on all units. 3. Bast facing windows in the four end units that face Broadway are recommended to be rated at STe - 25 or higher. This rating is typically achieved by use of a thicker glass or by a dual- paned Sliding window. ~ /f-sf " ATI'ACHMENT 6 INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~ 1-S5 This page Blank tf - 50 ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION rs 95-03 PROJECT NAME: Broadway Business Homes Village PROJECT LOCATION: 760 Broadway PROJECT APPLICANT: Josef & Lenore Citron PROJECT AGENT: C.W. Clark CASE NUMBER: IS-95-03A DATE: May 30, 1995 r. rNTRODUCTrON The environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista allow the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) to prepare an addendum to a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , if one of the following conditions is present: 1. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion of the Final EIR or Negative Declaration have not created any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration; 2. Additional or refined information available since completion of the Pinal EIR or Negative Declaration regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or regarding the measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects of the project, does not show that the project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration. IS-95-03 analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with a proposal of a rezone from the CT to Central Commercial modified by a Precise Plan (CCP) zone, in order to allow for the construction of 36 mixed use units. Subsequent to the completion of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, minor changes have been incorporated in the project description. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed rezone to ~3:)- ~-S7 This addendum supersedes the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-95-03. An Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but instead becomes an attachment to the previously issued Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-95-03. II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project site, located at 760 Broadway, is a 2.52 acre site, which was previously used as a Fuller Ford auto dealership and is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Project area, The site is zoned Thoroughfare Commercial (CT) and designated as Commercial Retail in the General Plan. There are several existing structures and carports previously used in the auto dealership for customer service, parts storage and auto repairs. The City of Chula Vista currently owns the property and will issue a contract for the demolition of all structures and carports and the clean up of the site prior to the transfer of the property to the project applicant for construction of an approved project proposal. The properties to the north and south, as well as across Broadway to the east, are zoned Commercial Thoroughfare. To the west is zoned R1 and there are existing single-family residences. A tire sales and repair land use is located to the north and a hotel is located to the south. The average graded slope of the site is 2%. III. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND HISTORY On May 2, 1995 the proposed project was reviewed by the Redevelopment Agency to provide direction as to how project issues are to be addressed by staff. The issues which are of major concern to staff include setting precedents which have City staffing and budgetary implications, public access and liability, and open space and parking proposals. Issues which were discussed and were not evaluated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration were the following: the creation of an ,assessment district to establish ownership and maintenance for the common areas, the establishment of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and a Parcel Map proposal. IV. PROPOSED PROJECT The project entails a residential subdivision comprising 36 units. There will be common areas including access alleys, open space and public parking areas. The City with form a "one of a kind" Assessment District to establish ownership and maintenance for the common areas. Project area residents have indicated concern about the potential of having two separate areas. that could be rented ~L.I~ ~__-r'" ~-sY separately. The applicant has indicated that owners of the units are to occupy both the residential and commercial areas of the units. Prior to issuance of any building permits for said development, the applicant/owner (or their successors in interest) shall enter into an agreement with the City establishing Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the ownership of the "business homes." Any costs incurred by the administration of the CC&R's will be born by the applicant. The project entails a subdivision of 36 units, as described above and the map process may take from 12 to 18 months. The process is governed by State Law (the Subdivision Map Act) . State law does provide for exemptions from the process for public agencies, under certain circumstances. The City currently owns the property and may be able to process a Parcel Map, as opposed to a Subdivision Map, for the project. The applicant has requested that this be done and staff believes that a Parcel Map would be a cleaner process, and would provide monumented lot corners for a more precise legal lot definition. V. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Assessment District The formation of an Assessment District does not in any way change or alter the conclusions regarding the environmental impacts described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project, CC&R's The City establishing of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the ownership of the "business homes" will address residential concerns as to the ownership of the home/business units and will support conclusions as to project impacts as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which assume that the owner and occupant of the business homes will be one in the same. Parcel Man The processing of a parcel map will not exempt the development from CEQA or other land use approval processes and will not change the project impacts as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. / VI. CONCLUSION The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project revision, as reflected in this Addendum (IS-95-03A), does not raise important new issues about the proj ect' s significant effects on the environment. No significant _.~ S r- ~-s~ impacts would result from these modifications to the project as previously proposed. This addendum supplements the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and concludes that the project proposal is subject to mitigation measures, En Coordinator " -- 3 " ~ ~--0D Mitigated Negative Declaratio PROJECT NAME: Broadway Business Homes Village PROJECT LOCATION: 760 Broadway, Chula Vista CA 91910 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 571-200-13 through 17 PROJECT APPLICANf: Citron Realty & Investment Corp., Josef & Lenore Citron CASE NO: IS-95-03 DATE: May 12, 1995 A. Proiect Setting The project site, located at 760 Broadway, is a 2.52 acre site, which was previously used as a Fuller Ford auto dealership and is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Project area. The site is zoned Thoroughfare Commercial (CT) and designated as Commercial Retail in the General Plan. There are several existing structures and carports located on the project site which were previously used in the auto dealerShip for customer service, parts storage and auto repairs. The City of Chula Vista currently.owns the property and will issue a contract for the demolition of all structures and carports and the clean up of the site prior to the transfer of the property to the project applicant for construction of the an approved project proposal. The properties to the north and south, as well as across Broadway to the east, are zoned CT. To the west is zoned R I and there are existing single-family residences. A tire sales and repair land use is located to the north and a hotel is located to the south. The average graded slope of the site is 2 %. B. Proiect DescriDtion The project proposes a rezone from the CT to Central Commercial subject to a Precise Plan modifier (CCP), in order to allow for the construction of 36 mixed use units; commercial use on the first floor level and residential use on the second and third floors and it is expected that the owner of the business and home are one in the same household. Nine two bedroom units, nineteen three bedroom and eight four bedroom units are proposed. The proposed lot coverage is 39,188 sq. ft. of the total 109,771 sq. ft. project site, or 36 %. There are 82 commercial and 72 residential parking spaces provided. There will be 36 single car garages, 8 open stalls and 28 lO'x 12' tandem spaces. There will be 7,072 sq. ft. of open space provided for project residents.. The estimated project population is 123. The project is expected to generate 26 light commercial and office jobs. .. 7~ - city of chula vista planning department environmental review section J-/ - 0/ ~Vt- -.- ...............,..;... - 01Y Of . CHUlA VISTA The applicant will be required to pay Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees and comply with State California Title 24 Disabled. Regulations. Discretionary actions include Precise Plan approval and a Conditional Use Permit. The project will also require approval by the Redevelopment Agency. A soils study will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. c. Comoatibilitv with Zonin2 and Plans The proposed mixed-use project is proposed on five parcels which are currently designated on the General Plan land use diagram as Commercial Retail and zoned CT, The project proposes a zone change to CCP, which would be compan"ble with Commercial Retail land use designation. Approval of a zone change will permit the proposed use, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (per Chapter 19.36, Section .030, Zoning Ordinance) and approval of a Precise Plan. Nearby resident's have raised concern about parking overflow to the their streets. There are 82 commercial parking spaces and 72 residential spaces and III commercial and 72 residential spaces are required. The justification for the parking space deficiency is founded in the urban character and uniqueness of the proposed mixed-use project and will be addressed in the project precise plan or a variance. D. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project could have one or more significant environmental effects. Specific mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce these effects to a level below significant. With 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 have been determined to be less than significant. Noise: A acoustical study prepared by Giroux & Associates analyzed two noise concerns on of the project proposal: exposure of noise from the proposed project to single-family residences to the west and excessive on-site residential exposure to vehicular noise from Broadway traffic. Tasks that were performed to evalnate changes in the noise environment due to project implementation included; 1. Site familiarization and obtaining plans and other input data, 2. On-site noise measurements,' 3. Measurement of parking lot activity noise at a similar mixed use development in Orange County, and 4. Evaluation of noise impact potential and identification of recommended mitigation. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\J020.9~Ref. 1021.93.1022.93) ~ 38 - tf-6~ .....~fJ;... , The fmdings and recommendations of the study are as follows: 1. A rear property wall is not necessary for noise protection. It is anticipated, however, that the existing rear wall, with some cosmetic improvement, will be retained. The maintaining of a minimum wall height of 5 feet above project grade is recommended. 2. A mechanical ventilation system which will comply with UBC Sect. 1205 (c) is required as a standard feature on all units. 3. East facing windows in the four end units that face Broadway are recommended to be rated at STC = 25 or higher. This rating is typically achieved by use ofa thicker glass or by a dual paned sliding window. School Impacts The proposed project involves a rezone from CT to CCP. This rezone will allow for the development of 36 residential units with commercial space, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Precise Plan. The present CT zone does not permit residential uses. Therefore, it has been determined that the rezone to CCP could generate significant school impacts since it allows residential units by Use Permit. As a resu1t, the City recognizes that school impacts generated by the approval of a rezone for the project site must be fully mitigated. The proposed 36 residential units will generate an impact of up to 22 new students in the enrolIment area for Chula Vista Junior High School, Chula Vista High School and Mueller Elementary School.' Due to the uniqueness of the project's "business homes" concept, the commercial component of the project is not considered to be an additional impact, as it is expected that the owner of the business and home are one in the same household. The Chull!, Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District (the Districts) have indicated that state mandated fees will not be suffIcient to fully mitigate impacts. Therefore, they have requested that this project be conditioned to fully mitigate impacts through possible participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District or other fInancing mechanism, mutually acceptable to the Districts and the project proponent, which will achieve full mitigation. In order to fully mitigate identified impacts, the applicant shall be required to enter into an agreement with the Districts in which measures to fully mitigate impacts are outlined and mutually agreed upon, and evidence of said agreement shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City prior to the time of building permit issuance. 1 The factors used to calculate etudent generation are .30x36-10.8 or 11 for elementary schools and .29x36-10.44 or 11 for junior high/high schools (11+11_22). The factors were provided by the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9~R<:r. 1021.93.1022.93) ~ ~~!o3 ""1\18' 1 Fire Services Based on the fire flow requirements, the Fire Department will require the following: the project to be fully sprinklered; fire extinguishers; a fire alarm system (centrally monitored), standpipes and a fire access with a minimum of 20' . Water Availability The Sweetwater Authority has indicated that if a fire sprinkler system is added to this development (note that required by the Fire Department), the required fire flow can be reduced from 7500 GPM to 3750 GPM. This flow can be met if the developer installs 600 Lineal feet of 12-inch main in Broadway, from "K" St. to the mid-point of the proposed development. This is in a section of Broadway that is currently being reconstructed by the City of Chula Vista. Any required water services will probably result in the excavation of the newly constructed street. The applicant will also be required to provide information regarding domestic, irrigation and fire sprinkler water demands that would expedite these installations prior to the street reconstruction. , Land-Use The project proposes a zone change to Central Commercial subject to a Precise Plan modifier (CCP). Approval of a zone change will permit the proposed use with a Conditional Use permit (per Chapter 19.36, Section .030 of the Zoning Ordinance). The proposed project allows for a mixed-use project along Broadway, which is specifically called for along sections of the Broadway Commercial strip. The proposed project lends credence to Ordinance 2295, which allows for mixed-use developments in the CCP zone. This project supports the intent of the Ordinance to facilitate the development/redevelopment of otherwise under utilized commercial sites and foster mutually supportive projects, such as the proposed project which allows residents to live and work at the same site. The project also supports the intention to provide an oppornmity to ease the transition between commercial properties and abutting residential areas. Traffic/Parking The proposed project will generate approximately 1816 ADT, approximately 1056 ADT over the previous land use. Potential additional traffic impacts are expected to be lessened by having a high percentage of employees living and working on the project site. The project is not anticipated to significantly impact traffic on Broadway and with the implementation of a scheduled Capital Improvement Project (Fall, 1995), this segment of Broadway is expected to operate at a Level-of-Service 'C' or better, There are 82 commercial and 72 residential parkin~ spaces proposed, however III commercial and 72 residential spaces are required. According to the applicant, the parking provided for the commercial shops is adequate because the shops, which are about 600 sq. ft. each and connected to the living space, are intended to be used by the resident living directly above, and because the resident/shop operator parking is provided along with the residence, the typical commercial parking demand is reduced by the number of WPC F:\HOMElPLANNINGISTORED\1020.9XRef. 1021.93.1022.93) - I(l~ ~ ~... Ct, f rnl . residentiallbusiness units (36). The justification for the parking space"deficiency is founded in the urban character and uniqueness of the proposed mixed-use project and will be addressed in the project precise plan or a variance process. Findings to justify the deviations from the Chula Vista Municipal Code will have to be made by the approving body. Conclusion The proposed project does not have any unmitigatable significant environmental effects as defmed by CEQA. The project has been found to have less than a significant impact on land use, fire services, water availability and traffic. The project will generate impacts to noise, schools and parking which require mitigation to ensure that impacts are less than significant. E. Mitil!ation necessarv to avoid sil!nificant effects Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts identified in ~e initial sttldy for this project to a level below significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project. These measures must be incorporated into the project proposal prior to issuance of a building permit. I. Recommendations and fmdings of the noise sttldy (please refer to Section E above). 2. Evidence of an agreement between the applicant and school districts which fully mitigate school impacts generated by the proposed project shall be provided to the City, 3. The applicant shall obtain approval of the proposed parking in the Precise Plan. F. Mandatorv Findinl!s of Sil!nificance 1. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fISh or wildlife species, cause fISh or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten levels, threaten to eliminate a pIant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered pIant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project site is in an urban area and was previously used for a major automobile dealership and maintenance facility. There are no sensitive species or habitat in the area. 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? The 2.52 acre project site was previously used for a major dealership and maintenance facility and is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area. The proposed mixed-use project will implement project goals of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan; provision for the enhancement and renovation of businesses within the Project Area to promote their economic viability and encourage the WPC F,\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\l020.9~Ref. 1021.93.1022.93) .,,-- ~ " ~-6S Pata f establishment and maintenance of "balanced neighborhoods" and subareas, characterized by a planned diversity in building sites, density, housing and land use. The project will provide for a revitalization of the site and serve as an opportunity for Chula Vista residents to purchase housing, while also obtaining a small business opportunity. Therefore, the proposed project does not disadvantage long-tenn environmental goals. 3. Does the project have possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the Incremental effects of an individual 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? The proposed project will generate approximately 1816 ADT, approximately 1056 ADT over the previous land use. Potential additional traffic impacts are expected to be lessened by having a high percentage of employees living and working on the project site. The projectis not anticipated to significantly impact traffic on Broadway and with the implementation of a scheduled Capital Improvement Project (Fall, 1995), this segment of Broadway is expected to operate at a Level-of-Service 'C' or better. The proposed rezone to allow for residential units as a component of the mixed use project will generate school impacts which are considered to be significant and require full mitigation. In addition, noise levels are expected to impact future residents of the units. These impacts are to be mitigated as outlined in said document (please refer to Section E). The applicant's compliance with the mitigation measures as outlined in this Mitigated Negative Declaration will ensure that project impacts are less than significant. Therefore, all impacts, both individual and cumulative have been found to be less than significant. 4. Will the environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed project is in compliance with City Growth Management threshold standards for fire, police, and other City services. Therefore, the proposed mixed- use project will not create substantial adverse impacts to human beings, either directly or indirectly, G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orl!anizations / City of Chula Vista: Susan Vandrew, Planning Barbara Reid, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\l020.9XRcf. 1021.93.1022.93) ~)~ ~-(,b ~ Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney Ed Batchelder, PIanning Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant: Josef & Lenore Citron 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (I989) and EIR (I 989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Acoustical Study, Hans Giroux, 3/14/95 Southwest Redevelopment Plan, Dec. 1990 Ordinance 2295, 2/7/89 Uniform Building Code, 1991 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 information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the ChuIa Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. WPC F:\HOMEIPLANNING\STOREDII020.9l:Ref. 1021.93,1022.93) - 4{3 d r-b7 q... T Case No.IS-95-03 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1, Name of Proponent: Citron Realty & Investment Corp., Josef & Lenore Citron 2, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 5000 Coronado Bay Rd., Coronado 92118, 424-4474 4. Name of Proposal: Broadway Business Homes Village 5. Date of Checklist: May 12, 1995 ., -C- .~ '~-~f I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed mixed-use project is proposed on five parcels which are currently designated on the General Plan land use diagram as Commercial Retail and zoned CT. The project proposes a zone change to CCP, which would be compatible with Commercial Retail land use designation. Approval of a zone change will permit the proposed use, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (per Chapter 19.36, Section .030, Zoning Ordinance) and approval of a Precise Plan. a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Comments: The proposed mixed-use project will provide for commercial and residential use on a site. currently vacant, which was previously a Fuller Ford car dealership. The intent of the proposed project is to enhance all adjacent business properties and the project will provide an opportunity for affordable housing and a small business within the same unit The proposed project will not induce substantial growth, but rather will redevelop a vacant area located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project area. ll. POPULATION AND HOUSING. m. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in Or expose people to potential impocts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 overcovering of the soil? - I' 3 ..,,; ...M""'" .....lk.u, .."", o o o o o o o / o Pvc_tiafly _lk.u. v..... Midpted o o o o o o o o o ~-b9 ......... Sipifka.t 1__ 181 o o o o 181 o o o N. ",.c:1 o 181 181 181 181 o 181 181 181 Page 2 wPC F:\HO~GISTOR.ED\l'II_94 Pol__ Pocotlally Sipir-.f '-.... filpllkut v..... _lku. N. I_pact ......... ..- ..- C) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181 features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 181 any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of seils, 0 0 D 181 either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181 sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The project will not require covering or modification of any unique or physical features. The applicant will be required to submit a soils study for building construction prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit to ensure that impacts are at a level below significant. 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 related 0 0 0 181 hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 181 of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181 water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181 of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? 1) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of D 0 D 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 0 181 0 otherwise available for public water supplies? 7'--~ - <'t~ . WPC F:\HOME\PLANNlNG\STORED\1711.94 - , ~ .........'" SlplrKU1 .."". PoteIItially -...... U..... .......'" '- .... IIpIrlCUl ..- N. I.pllel Comments: If fire sprinkler systems are provided to the units, the City of Chula Vista Fire Department has indicated that fire flow can be reduced to 3750 GPM. The Sweetwater Authority has indicated that thjs flow can be met if the developer installs 600 L.F. of 12-inch main in Broadway, from "K" St. to the mid-point of the proposed development. This is the section of Broadway that is currently being reconstructed by the City of Chula Vista. In addition, any required water services. will probably result in the excavation of the newly constructed street. The Authority request that information regarding domestic, irrigation and fire sprinkler water demands that would expedite these installations prior to the street reconstruction. Project compliance with the requirements of the Authority will ensure that impacts are less than significant. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 I!lI 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 I!lI 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 I!lI or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 I!lI e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 I!lI non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The project does not require an APeD permit and projected increase in traffic volumes on Broadway are small such that air quality will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? o b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? o o o e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? o () f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? o .,~ . o o I!lI o o I!lI o o I!lI o o I!lI o o I!lI o o I!lI o o I!lI ~-7/ r g I WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING'STORED\1711.904 h) A "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) .........dalIy hte.dally &Ipinc..1 '-.... SipUle...t v.... SplRe..t I.,.e. M1dpled "pod 0 0 0 N. ...... 181 Comments: The project will generate 1816 ADT, which is 1056 over the existing use. The increase in traffic volumes is small. The segment of Broadway which fronts the proposed project currently operates below Level-of-service (LOS) 'C", however C.I.P. project ST-130, 'Street Reconstruction- Broadway, I to L, will improve the LOS to "C" or above. Completion of ST-130 is anticipated in the Fall of 1995. Nearby resident's have raised concern about parking overflow to the their streets. There are 82 commercial parking spaces and 72 residential spaces and III commercial and 72 residential spaces are required. The justification for the parking space deficiency is founded in the urban character and uniqueness of the proposed mixed-use project and will be addressed in the project precise plan or a variance. vn BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impocts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 181 c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 I!lI oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 I!lI pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 I!lI f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 I!lI efforts? Comments: The proposed project area is an older urbanized area of the City on a previously developed site. The proposed project will not impact sensitive species or habitat in the area. vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 I!lI plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 I!lI inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 I!lI protection, will this project impact this protection? ~ ~-? J- wPC F:IJfOME\PLANNING'STORED\17JI.94 n-BT f ......lialI)' &iplflca.t "p.", ....ntWI)' SlpJfiC&llt v..... .......... No "I'"" .... .... .......... ..- Comments: The proposed mixed-use project is not designated for mineral resources protection and City standards. Current city recycling programs for the residential and commercial sectors of the City will provide the opportunity for the mixed-use project to use resources in a reusable fashions, thus preventing the use of resources in a wasteful manner. As the project is a mixed-use project, the commercial use will have the opportunity to be involved in commercial programs, while the residential component can utilize programs such as curb side recycling pick-up. d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed mixed-use project is intended to provide the opportunity to purchase a home and a business in one. The types of tenants expected in the commercial use component of the site are travel agencies, CPA's, retail shops, etc. These types of tenants are not expected to expose people to health hazards or create a risk of accidental explosion. The site is listed on the County of San Diego County Hazardous Materials Division Environmental Assessment listing as case closed. This indicates that no further action, by the County, will occur at this time. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? --~ - ~ o o o 181 o o o Il.lI o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 o 181 o o ~-/3 - ~ WPC F:\HOME\Pl.ANNING\STORED\11J8.94 PM_dally fiipir.eul ..- Pocu;tlaIly IiipUkaat U..... Mkipted ..... .... SlpIr_t ..- No ..- Comments: A acoustical study from Giroux & Associates analyzed two noise concerns on site: exposure of noise from the proposed project to single-family residences to the west and excessive on- site residential exposure to vehicular noise from Broadway traffic. Tasks that were performed to evaluate changes in the noise environment due to project implementation included: 1. Site familiarization and obtaining plans and other input data 2. On-site noise measurements 3. Measurement of parking lot activity noise at a similar mixed use development in Orange County 4. Evaluation of noise impact potential and identification of and recommended mitigation. The rmdings and recommendations of the study were the following: I. A rear property wall is not necessary for noise protection. It is anticipated, however, that the existing rear wall, with some cosmetic improvement, will be retained. Maintain a minimum wall height of 5 feet above project grade is recommend. 2. A mechanical ventilation system which will comply with UBC Sect 1205 (c) is required as a standard features on all units 3. East facing windows in the four end units that face Broadway are recommended to be rated at STC=25 or higher. This rating is typically achieved by use of a thicker glass or by a dual pained sliding window. XL 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 IllI b) Police protection? 0 0 0 l!lI c) Schools? 0 IllI 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 l!lI roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 l!lI 5 l -= ~-?f WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1111.94 "" - hte.-tia1tr &ipmea.. 1.- ....e.-daUy SlpiRea.' V..... Mldpted ......... _lkaa' I....CI N. bI...c. Comments: The fire department will require fire protection measures as outlined in the threshold section of this checklist. The police department has indicated that the project could not significantly impact police services or calls for services. School mitigation will be required of the applicant prior to issuance of a building permjt (please refer to Section E of the Mitigated Negative Declaration). Project impacts to drainage and roads are not an issue, as the City drainage and street improvements, scheduled for Fall of 1995, from I to L on Broadway, will mitigate any possible impacts. No other governmental services will be impacted by the proposed project. xn Thresholds, Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? o o o 181 As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) FirelEMS The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to resppnd 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 2 miles away and would be associated with a 4 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The fire department will require the following fire prevention measures: based on fire flow requirements, the project will be required to be fully sprinkJered; flTe extinguishers required- 2AIOBC; a fire alarm system is required (centrally monitored), standpipes required and a 20' wide minimum fire access is required. b) Police The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% 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: The proposed project will not significantly impact police services or calls for service. The police crime prevention unit has requested that the applicant obtain a crime prevention review from the police department. c) Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "0" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Inte'rsections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The project segment of Broadway currently operates below Level-of-Service (LOS) "C." However, completion of City of Chula Vista C.I.P. project ST-130, "Street reconstruction-Broadway, I to L", will improve the LOS to "C" or above. Completion of C.I.P. project ST-130 is anticipated in the Fall of 1995. -:-c ! -: ~-?-5 WPC F:\HOME\PLANNJNOISTORED\I'18.~ ~ r.._tiaJl)' Sipllkul 1_1*( ....._tially Sic-mUllt" V..... Mldpled t-..... Splrac.ut I_..c:t No ..- d) ParkslRecreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acresll,ooO population. The proposed project will not comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees will be required to be paid as per the current park land dedication ordinance fee schedule. This will ensure that impacts to Park & Recreation are less than significant. e) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that stann water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The project site is in a 500 flood plain, however, no special building measures with be required of the applicant. On-site drainage facilities consist of surface flow to Broadway, also a 30" RCP which conveys upstream runoff through the site to downstream drainage facilities. The 30" RCP flows from east to west. The site to downstream drainage facilities. The 30" RCP flows from east to west. The facilities are adequate to service the project, however, City of Chula Vista, CIP project ST-130, "Street Reconstruction-Broadway, "I to L" will abandon the 30" RCP and will reroute upstream flows northward in Broadway in order to relieve flooding problems to the west of the project site and the 30" RCP. Off-site drainage facilities consist of a 33" RCP in Broadway which flows to the north. Also, a 30" RCP downstream and west of the 30" RCP described above. These facilities are adequate to serve the project, however the aforementioned C.I.P. project ST-130 will re-route flows from sources upstream of the project site that currently flow through the site via a 30" RCP to downstream drainage facilities located immediately west of the project site. This rerouting of flows will relieve flooding problems further west of and downstream from the project site. f) Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The existing sewer lines consist of a 8" VCP in Broadway that begins at the northern end of the proposed project and flows northward. Also, an 8" VCP which starts near the westerly property line and which flows westward. " --c .A ~-?~ WPC F:\HOME\PLANNrNGISTQRED\1718.94 .~ r r.tn.tblly Splnua1 l_pIIc1 .....1ially Iiplftcu1 U..... Mitlpled ..... .... Slpificaal l_pIICI N. JaplC1 g) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also. be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: An NPDES permit is not required for the proposed project and water quality will not be jeopardized. The Sweetwater Authority has indicated that if a fire sprinkler system is added to this development (note that required by the Fire Department), the required fire flow can be reduced from 7500 GPM to 3750 GPM. This flow can be met if the developer installs 600 L.F. of 12-inch main in Broadway, from "K" St. to the mid-point of the proposed development. This is in a section of Broadway that is currently being reconstructed by the City of Chula Vista. In addition, any required water services will probably result in the excavation of the newly constructed street. The applicant will also be required to provide information regarding domestic. irrigation and fITe sprinkler water demands that would expedite these installations prior to the street reconstruction. XIR 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 I!!I b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 I!!I c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 I!!I facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 I!!I e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 I!!I f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 I!!I Comments: The proposed project will not require new systems for gas, communication systems, water treatment, sewer tanks, stonn water drainage or solid waste disposal. However, the project will be required to install 600 L.F. of 12-inch main in Broadway, from "K" St. to the mid-point of the proposed development for water to be available to the site. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? o o o I!!I b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic route? o o o I!!I -.~_:- ~-/:J 11.--....::. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING'STORED\1718.94 P.._daDy Ne.daJly .......... '- .... fiipir-.. v..... ......... N. I-.-e' Midpled ..- ..- c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181 d) Create added light or glare sources tbat could 0 0 0 181 increase tbe level of sky glow in an area or cause tbis project to fail to comply witb Section 19.66.100 oftbe Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The project will provide for a revitalization of tbe site and project compliance witb City design and landscape standards will ensure that tbe site is aesthetically pleasing from tbe roadway. .....daIly _lku. ...." ...n...." &iplracut v_ Ml....... '- .... _lku' ...." No ..pKl Comments: The project will not interfere with recreation parks and plans, however since the project proposes the addition of 36 unit with residential and commercial components, fees will be required to . be paid as per the current park land dedication ordinance fee schedule. This will ensure that impacts to Park & Recreation are less than significant. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 181 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: Please refer to Section E of tbe Negative Declaration, b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: Please refer to Section E of tbe Negative Declaration, c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 181 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: Please refer to Section E of tbe Negative Declaration. d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 181 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Please refer to SeCtiOD E of tbe Negative Declaration. ~s - rj-/r WPC F:\HOME\PLANNlNG\STORED\1111.94 ,v Ii ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact tbat is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by tbe checklist on tbe following pages. . Land Use and Planning D Population and Housing DGeophysical D Water D Air Quality DETERMINATION: On tbe basis of this initial evaluation: D Transportation/Circulation D Biological Resources D Energy and Mineral Resources D Hazards . Noise D Mandatory Findings of Significance . Public Services D Utilities and Service Systems D Aesthetics D Cultural Resources D Recreation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and D 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 mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least D 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. o.}1-IJ5 Date ' :."';-- ~-t'lJ wPC F:\HOME\PLANNING'SrORED\1718.<J.4 I APPENDIX ill CITY DATA SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT I. Current Zoninl< on site: CT North CT Soutb CT East CT West RI Does tbe project conform to tbe current zoning? The aooroval of a rezone to CCP will allow for oroiect conformance to tbe current zoninl!. n. General Plan land use designation on site: Commercial Retail Nortb Commercial Retail Soutb Commercial Retail East Commercial Retail West Low-Medium Residential Is tbe project compatible witb tbe General Plan Land Use Diagram? Yes. Is tbe project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to ap area so designated? No. Is tbe project located adjacent to any scenic routes? No. (If yes, describe tbe design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route). No. ill. Schools If tbe proposed project is residential, please complete tbe following: Students Units Generating Generated School Capacity Enrollment ProDosed Factors From Proiect Elementary Mueller 619 551* 36 .30 11 Junior High Chula Vista 1070 1430 36 .19 7 Jr. High Senior High Chula Vista 1356 1836 36 .10 4 High School *-in session, 130 students are out (year round school) IV. Remarks: Project imoacts to schools are to be fullv mjtil!ated as outlined in the Mjtil!ated Nel!ative Declaration. 5//0/95 Date/ / -~ ~-... q-c?/ ~Y-15-1995 16:59 GIROUX & ASSOC. ~ "'''''''''''W c.';',;;::;, P.02 May 15, 1995 citron Realty , Development COrp. C/O COronado Bay Botel Venture Attn: Ms. Lenore S. Citron: GP /owner 4000 Coronado Bay Road Coronado, california ~2118 Re: Businessnome Village Acoustical Study Dear Ms. Cl tron z We have conducted an acoustical study for the former Puller Ford site at 760 Broadway in t.he city of Cbula Vista. lis. Susan Vandrew from the Planning DepartJllent staff bad identified two noise concerns relative to development of t.he site as propo.ed. The.e concern. were: 1. Exposure of t.he rear yards of existing residents on Riverlawn to excessive site activity noise, or, 2. Excessive on-site residential exposure to vehicular noise from , 8roadway traffic. Given t.he previous use of t.he site for automotive' and ~Qk repair end a. body sbop in close proxbdty to the R1verlawn bolles, the question of site suitability for re.idential use is perhaps ~re pertinent than lill1ited "ne"," site acce../egress noise. 'l'a8lcs that were perforaed to evaluate changes 1n the noi.e .nvironaent due to project iapleaentation included: 1. Site familiarhation and obtaining plana and other input data 2. on-site nois. .easureaents 3. .easurement of parkinCJ lot activity noise at . .ialler aixed use development in orange COunty -~ /j-rfv /~ sq hit a., $uJt# 1/4 Irtitle. ~ 92114 . PbtM>> (1/4) ISloID . Fa (114) 111-1612 MAY-1S-199S 17:00 GIROUX & ASSOC, P.03 -2- ... Evaluation of noise i.pact potential and identification of any recommended .itiqation Tbe following discussion summarizes the results of the .ffort. in .ach task. Project: Description ~e prelilainary site plan for 36 units envi.ioned two .pads- of 18 live/work buSinesses and residences separated ~ a common parking area. In the revi.ed aite plan, dated 05/08/95 and included in this report, only a small separation between the northern and southern building exists and two separate parkin; areas have been createeS that are shielded from Riverlawn residence view. In the current site plan, the intervening 3-story structures between Riverlawn resieSences and the parking areas w11l preclude any audibility of site visitor. vehicular activity. Use of the perimeter roadway by site residents and by small delivery vehicles auch as package delivery servioes will be the potential source of impact. 'l'hrough the JIOre contiguous bI111dinq .... screening out Broadway traffic noi.e, any ..all i.pact; t'rolll site-related vehicles ..y be offset by equal or qreater attenuation of existinq noise. Proposed uses for the site are a lIixed use concept with OImer- occupied businesses on part of the qround floor of each townhouse with parking in the rear of the ground floor and two floors of li vinq space abOve. Business uses are expected to be small specialty retail, prOfessional or service-oriented offices and specialty restaurants such as CjJourmet coffee, deli sandwiches, yogurt, etc. Ko audible noise CjJeneration from business u.e is expected at the rear of any unit in proximity to adjacent residence.. On-Site Moi.. ...~ I(oi.e measur_ents wera _de at three locations on tha project site. Two sites were along the rear .eparation wall between the fO%1ll8r dealership and the adjacent residences (one naar 1:I1e foner l:locSy shop on the southern one-half of the aita, one near 1:I1e bller truck repair building on 1:11. northern one-half). on. aoD1tor was located to feet froa the Broadway cent.erline in a fanaer auto di.play area with an unobstructed view of Broadway. Result. of these lIeasurements ..de on February 23, 11195 near 1 p... are summarized as follows: .....d1 -::= ~-cf3 . MAY-15-1995 17:01 G I RCl.JX 8. ASSDC, P.04 -3- .01_ LBv8l (dB [A] ) I.Ia..- T__V' ...-tn Front Display Area 65.3 75 55 Body Shop Area 59.7 66 55 'rrUclc aepair Area 58.9 65 52 These readings "ere lIS-minute enerqy equivalent average. (LBQ) and l-.econd maxima and mini_ (Llllax, LIIIin). City of Chula Vista .tandards are expressed in terms of a weighted 24-hour standard callec1 the CoJIIIIIunity )lolse Equivalent Level (orEL). Our monitoring experience in a nWllber of Chula vista noise monitoring progrlUllS has been that mid-daY LEQs and 24-hour CHELa are often very similar. For example, a comparison of CNEL and the mid-day noi.e level at thre. sites around Chula vista are as follows: site 1 Site 2 Site 3 LBQ (Kocm-2 S-) 64.3 dB 62.7 cUI 152.2 cUI CIIBL 63.6 dB 64.11 cUI 151. 9 dB The difference bet"een CHEL and Jllid-c:iay LEQ is often near &ero, and generally fairly amall. The baseline readings aboVe are therefore a reasonable repre.entation of exi.ting noise levels relative to the city's exterior atandard of 65 dB(A) CNEL. The above comparison suggests that mid-day LBQ noi.. level. are rrom. 0-2 dB lower than daily CNELs. At the locations .ea.ured, ~e former front diaplay area with a CNEL of 65-67 dB(A) thus currently .lightly exceeda the City standard, wbile 'the toraer rear repair areas with CNEL8 of 59-62 48(10) are _11 within 'the city'S CJUidelines. Residences on Itiverlawn backing up to the site protected by the existing w.ll clearly bave a la1"ge 1II&r9in of safety between the atandard and their curre~t noise exposure. .J~ rf - crt/- . m(-1S-1995 17:01 GIROUX & ASSOC. P.0S -4- Parking Lot Activity .oise Moise levels at the edge of a parking lot serving a ~xed use development in Huntington Beach were aonitored as a prototype for the off-site levels that could be expected for the fOrlller sit. plan that had a direct line of sight from the parking area to the rear yards of Riverlawn bomes. '1'he Huntinqton Beach facility bas ground floor shops and offices with upstairs residences in an .Old World" at31osphere. BW!linesses include restaurants, a deli, retail shops e especially ethnic wares), travel agencies, CPAs, a tanning salon, etc. Tenant and/or owner parking is in a separate varag-e area, bUt otherwise the design concept is .bailar to the proposed facility in Chula Vista. A'sketch of the Huntington Beach site plan is attached. No18e .e.surements included a distant bum of fre.way traffic plus some arterial roadw.y contribution. These sources vere Sufficiently removed or 8h1elded., however, such that parking lot turn-over for shops and professional offices vas the primary noise contribut:or. one-hour _asur_ents at the edg-e of the parking lot from 12:30 - 1:30 p.m. when there i. an active lunch traffic wre as follows: LEO .. 59 .7 dB IJW[.. 81.0 dB lain" 51.5 dB Because the traffic peaks during- the day with little nocturnal activity, CNEL is likely several dB lower than .id-day LEQ. If the property line CHEL were 57 dB(A), and thi. nois. level vere superimposed upon the 59-62 dB(A) CNEL currently experienced. at the fenceline of the Riverlawn hoaes, the CClIIIbined level would be 61-63 dB(A) CNEL. '1'he former plot plan with the parking area expo.ed to view by the residence., even without any noise reduction credit for a rear property wall, would not caUBe City of Chula Vista etandards to be exceeded. With the revieed plot plan, the parking lot activity noise exposure to Off-site residents ls . aoot polnt. %t11 only 1..u. would be .. to how auch on-s1te vehlcular activIty w111 be audible 1:0 project s1te upper .tory resid.ents. , .J-r-- ~-t5 'MAY-15-1995 17:02 G lRCXJX & FlSSOC, P.06 . -5- Access Road lIoise As a worst-case assumption, .ach unit was .ssaaed ~ venerate 10 daily trips (rive outbound and rive inbound) alonq the perimeter access. At 25 mph, vith 10' of traffic at niqht~ the trafUc noise in the absence of any barrier is so dB(A) CNEL in the rear yards of the adjacent residences assUJlin9 'that 'the proposed bo.e. are perfect reflectors. A level of 50 dB 115 not perceptible within an exilltinq backqround of around 60 dB. By creatin9 a more contiquous 3-story barrier ~ screen out exhting traffic nobe fro. Broadway, the noi.e reduction achieved by the project will far .ore than COllpensate any lIIIall noise increment created by resident and minor delivery vehicle traffic on the townhome perimeter road. The above calculation. are for no .eparation _11 betWeen the project and existinq Riverlawn re.idence.. Mo vall is needed to meet noise standards. A vall aay be desirable for privacy, security, aesthetics or other reasons, but it is not a nece..ary proj.ct component to meet noise standards. Because inclusion of a vall 1s not noise-driven, theheiqht i. sOIIewhat i_terial. Any height above 5 fe.t will reduce 'the perception at. .4jacent bo_s of individual vehicles passing through the rear -alley", but only creates an addit.ional marqin of safety relative ~ alr.ady aeetinq City of Chula Vista standards. on-Site Moise bpoIIure sitinq of residential uses on a co_rcial corridor does bav. po.sibl. noi.e implications. Bxistinq _asured noise levels (esti..t.d from short-t.el"lll, daytime readinqs) at 90 feet frOll 'the Broadway c.nt.rlin. ar. 65-67 dB(A) CNEL. Projected increas.s in traffic volum.s on Broadway are s..ll such that noise "qrowth" is forecast to be only an additional 0.5 dB(A) CHEL. With the facade of the closest project buildinqs somewhat closer than the eO-foot ....ur...nt distanc., a maxi.um future exterior noise level of 69 dB(A) CNE!. is forecast for the unita clo...t to Broadway. !'he sides of the olosest bulldinqa to Broadway will exceed the City st.andard by 4 dB. The front and back of the oleaest unit will only be exposed to one-half of the traffic. Limit. in the fi.ld of view to 50' of the traffic flow vill create a 66 dB(A) c:NEL exposure at the corner of the nearest unit. within the.width of one unit, noise levels decrease by 1+ dB 'to create a sub-65 dB(A) eifEL at the exterior of all units except the four closest to Broadway. !'be 65 dB(A) CHIL contour approximatelY bi.ecte the clos.st unit. ei ty stanlSards for noise at any usable exterior recreational epace is 65 c1B(A) CNm.. State standards for interio1"ll of multiple family 10:14-; ,;f- t 6 . r1=IY-15-1995 17:03 GIRClJX & ASSOC. P.07 -6- units is 45 dB(A) CHEL. Exterior to interior noise attenuation with standard construction prac*ice is 20 dB as long as windows are closed. All units except the four closest to Broadway will have exterior. of Ie.. than 65 dB(A) CHEL. Their decks and porche. will .eet city exterior standarcSs without any supplementary noise protection. Their interior level. will be below 4S dBeA) CNEL a. lonq as resieSentll can clotle their windows to ahut out the noise. The ability to close the window require. an auxiliary source of ventilation. This requirement is etateeS in the tJBC in Section 1205(c) which requires sufficient aechanical ventilation to create wo air changes per hour (ACPH). one-fifth of this air supply has to be fresh outsieSe sake-up air. A whole-house fan in a central heating unit generally far exceeds this requirement if the system has a .Fan only. option. At the four eneS units abuttinq on IlroaeSway, a eOllewhat enhanceeS level of noise control is requh"ed. Exterior exposure for the front balconies of these units is 65 dB(A) CNEL. The rear deck is shielded by the protrusion of the second floor family room such that the deck outside the kitchen door will also bll'Ve a noise level within City of Chula Vista stanc1arcSs. No exterior noise Ilitigation 1. required.. '!'he front balcony at 65 <<!B(A) CH1CL ..y not be coneSucive to relaxinq conversation at these units, but does not require any supplementary noise control. '!'he Interior of the four units closest to IlroaeSway is thus the only posdble location where stanc1areS deslqn practice may not be able to achieve a reduction from 69 dBeA) CHEL on the facaeSe to a 45 <<!B(A) CNU in the interior. With plannec1 windows facinq Broadway, the noise leakage for . standard window ..y be slightly inadequate. . Based on preliminary room veOll.trlcs, we have run the Interior Nobe Analysis (INA) aodel. Use of el1qhtly upqraeSeeS windows (dual-paneeS slieSers or a thicker glass) with a Sound Transmi.sion Class (STC) of 25 or higher will allow the interior standard of 45 <<!B(A) CHEL to be readily aet. SUaary /ReQ -'ldatione our findinqs are as follows: 1. A rear property vall Is not nece.sary for noi.e pro~ectlon. xt ia an~lcipateeS, bowever, that the existin.q rear wall, with SOlUl cosllletic iaprov...nt, will be retaineeS. llaintain1nq a ainillulll vall heiqht of 5 feet above project grade is recOlllllended. 4~ 4-t7 MAY-15-1995 17:133 GI ROUX 8. ASSOC. P.0B . -7- 2. A lIecbanlcal ventilation system which will comply with ODe section 120!5(C) is required as a standard r_t.ure on all unita. 3. East facing windows in the four end units that faoe Broadway are recOlll]llended to be rated at STC .. 25 or higher. ':his rating is typically achieved by use of . thicker 91ass or by . dual- paned sliding window. Sincerely, ~~.~ Hans D. Giroux Senior Scientist Giroux , Associates HDG:ai ../ cc: lis. Susan Vandrew, city "of Chula Vista ~ ..~-?r . MAY-15-1995 17:04 GlRO.lX & ASSOC. AP'PENO:J:X P.e9 A. Project Site P~an (05/08/95) B. _alee ~nltodng location uetch for .ildlar l1ve/VOrk aixec1 use development - 1r-<-. - ------- . - r/~t9 I1'lY-15-1995 17:04 GIROUX 8. FlSSOC, P.10 . . ~ 1 ~ ! I .1 I I .,' I A. I ". J .. I .. I ~ I ... .. , I I I ~ . . , I I I , . , t . ~. :,: , ?-i ; -{; .. ':. ". . .. ; ~ ; r.......... :.......... i '." ...... . I , I . S ,.. i....,: t i , ++"i..~....i . ij. . .. j I ! I l "'f i i "" . II "': ," II '. t i: t ,---. I ,. I -ll'-T 1 !I , ,-..- , . . 1 , 'T"' .~.-;.- i i . I , I I ~~. :..J .'1 I I I I , ---t-.-.----~---~-.+---+..-;.,- . . , . . '. it .-, '~I I , "J .1. !... I .., .. I . :- , I i i i .:!..-i.- .. ~] eJ" .. ~- ";;'-; ~ ;'0" . . i , .' , t 10 ." :'i"~: ~~ : ~ '. "" :: ;: . . _. .. .~. ~:-n --. ..,~ , ... ::.: :f~ r- o CL (]) -+---1 .- Ul z CS .- . MA'(-15-1995 17:05 GIROUX & ASSOC. ---.- -- ._- .---..-.- -. P.11 ~. . . ,.. cz: i It LL In o ;r \ M - - ~ ~ l~ l~ ~~ QlIII l~ ~'" 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ; ~ c8 ~ ~ VI I )<- &~ III .. ~~ f:l · _ Cl ~ct VI O'l~ .Ol>{)" l:lCl~.OO ~ 0 0 0 O~ 0 o 0'Cl <) OC'ot> 0 G 0 ~ 0 0 D o 0 P 0 Q .. t;> o 0 ~ ~ lI.I Q ~~~ c:> '0 a .. fi) ()~ooo . . . D~- -I-~ 9/ ~. I tJ . TnTAI p" 11 ),S-6o~ ~ Case No,TS....qS -03 INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS ENGINEERING DIVISION L prainal!e A. Is the project site within a flood plain? YE'!So. If so, state which FEMA Aoodway FJequency Boundary. .z".,. .TTulAlF-....~g.J ~,,.,.,! ~-ru,; c::,.,.,;. I.t; W~fl.l ~ ~-~~ ~ ""1:>kJ4.Y Br.,tJAl't:1tAP:/_ B. What is the location and desaiption of existing on-site drainage facilities? SuI2.r."~ J:1 "..; -n>'8~A". A&..So.A ~"1ZJ:P Wl+lc-1+ ~~"/s UPS?JlEAM 9,....'...~~~ THE. !;.1T1l!!!.. 1'7:. ~or.........~ .......,. ....,.~ J:;A.r-.IL,nIf=C ~~. D'.. ~ JCDo......... -... BWe!W': Are they adequate to serve the project? )156. Ho"~.eA.. e;,rY eI t:NucA "'(~ C.I P. -~"rEclIr" 'If not, please explain briefly.",/"" ~-/Jq~~~'" .....,~--.-....""'-----'< X:TE>L · "',...... ""&.L. A&lIolDOU ~ ~.. tJGP ~4.rE.AL}juTl!!. u~ Are they adequate to serve the project? YE~. Im_~ C fr/ 6'" Co.......... "',-.:- c:.. '.'P. . If not, please explain briefly. Ara.~r $,--/20 WILL fUi-~T'E .:. ~~ ...~ e,..."kE.< tJPt.,~ ~~4.ttLW:"'7'UI!!..~^~I:~pTl(,;r CvJl!l&.,." y. =~ ~ or.u ~ <;rn:= VAA- A 30" tf!t;P n ~"'~ 1JM/~ ""'e.lt./TTE!!> t..<OI.TIi:l Transoortation 'MMec'IA:rtfr...'I WesrCF 7Hl! ~-S:tTC.. "THIS ~-I26ur'rIlG e>F RDWS WIU. ~Eve: ~I",& . flIb8L.EMS F5l~" ~9T" OF NJr:> ~~ . What roads provide primary access to the project? ~DIVA'I ~ -ruE Z:W>^'lJ;i::r t::rrE . c. D. E. Wn. ~?llq1 F~ ~ '101 &IZM-..y '~~ 'fff-'~ . . . . . ,.. TJf&' w. .. "FE ~T ITa I\Ilb What IS the locallon and descnpl10n ~g off,slte ~age fac~s? ~ ,tGP,#J ~ T1#. 10" BP-~...y WHI<-.,,....~ ,""TH~I.JDIt:rH. .6'''''<; A !l<J"IZe.P tlow"'''''''-''' <4u1> w~c~...-'tGP. DF-rHE. .;o"I2.GP ~!'cp.'"I!'~ '#oJ '~.ur.B. .A&~. . A. B. What is the estimated number of one-way auto ttips to be generated by the project (per day)? JP.I h At:rr(iD5'=> AT::1'r ~vr:J!J f!EJ((cr,;'" I J~~ . C. What arc the A vcrage Daily TraffIC (A.D.T.) volumes on the primary acceas roads before and after project completion? Street Name ~1ZoAt>WAV Before .:2y~':;-D Aftt:r ..2A ~ . Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Lcvc1-of.Service (1..0.5.) 'wC" design. ADT volume? If yes, please specify. yp-s. "nf/~ 0&",. '~-<<.tr lJF ~1:>WI, Y t:.l..",,~.r.I"rLV .. " ra:.D~ Ge, -t~,.1 L.O.S~ G . ~an::~ f'J1'\AAP~-ntJN L':& CITY bF t:1lul.A. ~"., . " C./.-P. ~-- -:r-/~ "~~ l2..r~t:A!-8p~.!*I..t/ '1: ~ L M&..... ~ If " ' 1~f'1/l6VffJ. f,.1iYIEl-~- ~~ on:> &. ClIL...tJov.. ~~/." elF C..I .". ~,... ,..~_~o Ie;, A~/e-I"'.A~ ,J~c... -...",-~/QqI;". . WI'C-~Cl\!TClIlEIN022.93lJ,1l. 1021-'3) lJ,Il. 102ll9.1) e~ ~ rf~9y .D. E. F. YS-6D?; \, Case No.:J:"'S...qS-o-::, If the A.D.T. or LO.S, "C" design volume is unknown or not applicable, explain briefly. bI ~. I Are the primary ICQCSS roads adequate to serve the project? y~; IJPN..( thMPI..~NJ OF If not, please explain briefly. NIA , c.,','P. F'lfb"TF/..'T" ST-I5n. . Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) It intenections adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site? tJo. If so, identify: Location II{ 4 . Cumulative LO.S. ^)/A. ' Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-bour vehicle trips). If yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (1lA) will be required. In this case the TIA will have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-signifICance. Yes 'I.. No The following questions apply if a TraffIC Impact Analysis is not required. G. Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts that will resuh from implementation of the proposed project? Yes ')( No If yes, please describe, folIA, , H. Is the project consistent with the criteria established in the City's Transportation Phasing Plan, - . General Plan Traffic Element, and all other pertinent traffic ItUdies? Please ldUaace any other traffic impact ItUdies for roadway ICpents that may be imp~ed by the poposed project. YF-< . . L J. Is a traffIC ItUdy required? Is there any dedication required? 1./0. If so, please specify. ~tA . Yes x No q~9.3 1 - - WPC-~022.93IJ<f.IGll.J3) (l.r.1020.J3) ~- -- Y5~3 Case No. rs4<:::;~3 K. Is there any street widening required? All>. om/S SE.eMEJr eF" Rh.lIbw..&-V WII..L BE If so, please specify. ~L4 . WIt::>8J"'-t::> "'''1 RI./i!:r.~ C./ P. Arr."TY-'.T" ST-ISO . I ., $;Tl2Epr- 61'1:,--.'''''''''' -=-r7DA1- ~~.." T Tb L 'I , L. Are there any other street improvements required? y~~. If so, please specify the general nature of the necessary improvements. T1.~ ,~"",,1jJIt..f J!'.Jt::'" "'hJ')"I:I...,A\A:: A-tJ: A'PAI2D~ R'Y"~ ~r-r-'i' r;.VIAlJll!~JI! . M. Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for existing conditions and future buildout General Plan conditions? (please provide a ~f explanation). ~'tt;;rnJt:..o. YE~. F'TV~t=" 21,,, hAI., .. VE~. Ill. Soils A. B, C. Are there any anticipated advelSe gCotCchnical conditions on the project site? ufJ 141", wlJ If yes, specify these conditions.IJ/A " . Is a Soils Report necessary? YE"=o AtI"R, "l'bT'UE. I~"'GE: 6F QICA't>loJ"- ~12- , Buu.l:>lfJG Pe~In:;. IV. )..and Form A. What is the average ~lope of the site? :2.1% B. What is the maxiJ:nua:2 slope of the site? .:It>h, V. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that lire significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the app1icant? YE~ f'0":fhc""", =c!?:~ AIl..FE.. GF~""",VE. lZeG:. ~S IfJD ~AY ti'6 ~-'-Y VL Waste Generation H ~U ~f'FIC. VDLUMes., . How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste wiD be senuated by Ibe PJoposed project per day? ~u:w ~~:::~~~~ (Lh>._ ~nuy. What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from the lite? p'''v~p tAl JilI&ArJWAY TJ.IJ4'- BEJ:,'-'t&. AT- -ruE- ~ ~~ 1'51:= -rNE: ~~C;;f#h ~~~,~.,... ~ ~ _&UC:. AJ,...~''''''',eJ~. A~ MJ ~ If v~~If,J~~ IA~~~ '-'I PttlDI'ftll:rY LA1~ AND hJU/~ &:1 ~ WF..~A2b. Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? (If no, please explain) ye;, , Cl....o- -~ ~-9~ r_ - ~,__0'0ST0IlElN022.93 ~. IcnU3) (W. 1020.93) )S-~'3> ~ Will the applicant be required to file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board for coverage under an NPDES Stonnwater Pmnit? J:)n . . If )'CS. specify which NPDES permit(s) and explain why an NPDES permit is required, t)t4 . Will a Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for Ibe proposed project? Yes X No Additional comments #J it. . . .:- VD, . Remarks Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts. mitigation meas~. or other issues. , :-~ -- t/2-hl Date /f- 95 n.,f' WJlC.F~022.93 ~.1021.f3)(Rd.lm93) ( Case No..:r5~0:3 .. FIRE DEPARTMENT A. What is the distance to 1he nearest fire station? ~ what is the File Depanment'. estimated KaClion time? c:J,.ob~ - 4.."",,~ B. Wil1the File Depanment be able to provide 11\ adequate level of fire plotloction for the proposed facility without III incnase in equipment or peuonnel? ) / ~ S . C. Remarks.!it tft-- c..A/Uc.~^" ~J: r .. .. , ,- . \'. ~ ~ ~arsh~ Ie:?" /~ - 'if- Date ~ -~ ~~90 ~02a3~.ICI1I.t3)(Iof.ID2O.I3) r r. . { CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address 7t~ ~"'&"AY Plan File NO.~;3 Checker~~f Date j.)-/t-94 Type Constr. J/-~ OccupancyB'0.2 /R ~ No. Stories 3 Bldg. Area 77,4n dJ The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: '. /. hAt ~42.. R~~"f...~n 7dnn'- kFD O/oJ V-.;V ~S:r;Cc;-c.rA> /~ 'l S7() VM'. . A,;/77./ 77. 4D7 tIJ ~./l- ~~ /1/ . 4. ~S? JP- .. /J /.,)." 7n dJ 4.fn fff~ c... - oJs- 4~ ,.., ~- I:) I 74 Iil ~d 2?rl ,t;< l . li} tJ,AJ ~r w;u bt ~~ /A~O ~- h"'<, N~' ...~~S 4- /?t~ s~_ . ~,I/J"~a Io'tf """':) S". ~~"0.s ~/4lQ , . ~#" t. hAt ~CfSS - H;,""';,;-;~_ ~/L)F FPB-29 ~..2J; ~'-91 Case No. I~ .1.5-a.3 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT A. Is project subject to Parks and Recreation Threshold requirements? "r,z" 'S. If not, please explain, . B. How many aaes of parkland are .....-~.'Y to sene the proposed project? C. Are existing neighborhood and community parts near the project 8deq1We to lerVe the population increase rcsuhing from this project? Neighborhood fJo Conununity Parks t>o D. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed IS pan of the project ldequatC to serve the population increase? Neighborhood )'~ Community Parks ~~ E. To meet City requirements, will-aPPlicant be required to: Provide land? Pay a fee? ~'S- F. Remarks: F~s 1:0 ~~ ~Cl /:IF.:" ~ ~ c.,^~"ZJI ~: l t' I '0 ~\Ui1~ ~~~ "~ ~ I\~~. . - . - t-t=. ~"'*'~ Parks and Recreation Director or RepnlSentative t; :~ ~'\.}- Date ~-- ~ - 9t! MC:F:~=n ,..,.IIlZI.JJIU.I_PJI ~ ROUTING FORM D~E: ,Au9ust 22, 1994 ~: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Clirr SWanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolr, Asst City Attorney (Drart Neg Dec & EIR} , Carol Gove, Fire Department Harty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (H.J. Diosdado) Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only CUrrent Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, city Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista Elementary.School District, Kate Shurson SWeetwater Union H.S. District, ~om Silva (IS & EIR) Haureen Roeber, Lib,rary (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Drart EIR - Ir annexation is involved) Hatin Hiller, Project ~racking Log (route rorm only) Other FROM: . Joe Monaco Environmental Section SUBJEC'1': Application ror Initial Study (IS- 95-03/FA- 657 IDO III J Checkprint Drart EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB- IDO J Review or a Drart EIR (EIR- IFB- _IDP J Review or Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR- J Review or Drart ,Neg Dec (IS- /FA- IDQ- J ~he Project consists or: 36 attached residential units with comnercial space on the 1st floor. Location: 760 Broadway (Fuller Ford Auto DealerShip site) " Please review the document and rorward to me any comments you have by September I, 1994 . -:)r- ij-91 ~ ~ /,A-Ubt7t ~ (.'1 S/II/9S- -f"~ 7't.v.~'. ~~~ ~ ~.?u,! '. ~d- ~ ~~ IJt ~ fin ~l/ULJ.1v' Comments: CHULA VISTA POLICE DE!. .~TMENT CRIME PREVENTION UNIT PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS ~., , DATE: iO-l{ -qu ~ mff1LlJ U, tf"l VI ren WlUJ-".1 (h ~ I) ~O-s cL1. cLo I ~ c..P S (1.?rOD"~ en,W.t.-;lUS 1~ V&P~e... I. ( . TO: VIA: FROM: PROJECT: ..:r:-S Cjc;--O ~ n The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any comments regardina this project at this time. Information on the project, or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to permit crime prevention analysis. p Please forward the following information to the Crime Prevention Unit when available. ~ Elevations /<J Roor Plans ~ Landscape and Lighting Plans -.2:? Site Development Plans Comments: (),n d J) il-~NJ 'it-t' ~!" rhv:J{.r,~tLd~ u / . t:... cc: Brookover, SCA -~.. ~-ltrO CPT1lD Routifta Form PO/cpo 06193 . ~ I Case No. /.s~-a3 LANDSCAPE PLANNING A. Does the project affect native plant communities? If 10, please identify which c:ommunities. Will the project require native planting? (Please desaibe) B. Please identify any important or highly visible hi11tl~s 011 ClI' afjlCalllO the project. What landscaping conditions -(if any) will be required for these hillsides? C. Of the IOtal area 10 be developed, how much, and which IJUS ~ expeaed 10 be Rplanted and require lupplemental watering? (please desaibe). E. M there any otlJer landscape requirements onmitigati9P for die project? '7~~~ ~i:2,-~~~-/- r~ .L-~:~ . . . . c-L~~ CitY Landscape Architect or Repreaenwive ~'? y- ~--/!Ji '7C:F~m93 ~.llI2U3)(Ior.ID20.93) - - I SOARD OF EDIlCATlON .J:lSEPH O. CUIIMI<<lS, PIl.Il. 6HARON GlES PAlHCKA. .lJOO PAlIElA B. SMllH III<E A.lIl'EYIEl SUPERINTENDENT UIllA S. Gl., PIl.Il. 1 CIIULA- VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST"J" STREET · CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 · 619 ~5-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDMDUAL OF GREAT WORTH January 6, 1995 Ms. Susan Vandrew City of Chura Vista Environmental Section 276 Fourth Avenue Chufa Vista, CA 91910 RE: 36 Attached Residential Units with Commercial Space on the 1st Floor 18-95-3/ FA-657/ DQ-111 Dear Ms. Vandrew: Thank you for providing information on the above-referenced project for our review and comment. This project is located in the Mueller School attendance area. This school is a five track year-round school, operating substantially above capacity. In order to accommodate children resulting from this project, the District requests that this project annex to Community Facilities District (CFD) No.5. Attached is a copy of a previous rasponse to IS-95-03 on September 1, 1994. If you have any questions, please contact my office. Sincerely, M~ Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp " cc: Tom Silva Josef A. Citron L:78Obwoy ._~ - q-/o")/ BOARD OF EDUCATION JOSEPH D. ClM.llNGS. PIl.Il. LAMY CUMlWGHAM 8HAAON OLES PATRIClC A...,oo GREGR.lWIOOVAL -ElllNTENDENT LIllAS.'Gl,PIl.Il. -~- CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY srqOOL DIS'lRICT l . I 84 EAST "J- STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425.9600 '\ . ~ [4 ..~j"' ~ I" ( ? Ji~ ./' ' ~I' q.l ~ EACH CHILD IS AN INDMDUAL OF GREAT WORTIi September 1, 1994 Mr. Joe Monaco Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: 18-95-03/ FA-657 / DQ-111 Project: 36 Attached Residential Units With Commercial Space Location: 760 Broadway Dear Mr. Monaco: . ." , . . .. - . . I This is to advise you that "the above mentioned proposed project located at 760 Broadway, is within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 2-1/2 - 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 $1.72 per square foot of assessable area to assist in financing facilities needed to serve growth. The fee is split between the two school districts with our district receiving $.76/sq. ft. and Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) receiving $.96/sq. ft. This fee Is assessed for new construction and additions/remodels of over 500 square feet. The State law also provides for a developer fee of $.28 for non-residential (any new commercial space proposed for the first floor) to be charged. The fee split Is $.13 for our district with SUHSD receiving the balance of $.15 per sq. ft. / . .,1' .r Since developer fees currently alloweCt'" tll'\der State law provide approximately twenty-five percent of the facilities costs to house new students, the District encourages developer participation in alternative ~~- rI~ /2G 4 - 7~'" . . ~ . Septerr"<;)r 1,1994 / Mr. JOl.__iOnaco Page 2 . . financing mechanisms to help assure that facilities will be available to serve children generated by new construction. We are currently utilizing Community Facilities Districts (CFD's) as one method to help fund this shortfall. Participation in a CFD is in lieu of developer fees, with school mitigation paid by the homeowner in the form of a special tax. The subject project is located in the Mueller School attendance area. This school is presently operating over capacity, end an alternative financing mechanism, such as participation in or annexation to a CFD is recommended. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, '. ' ~~'J. Kate Shurson T Director of Planning & Facilities KS:dp _......:c:NIbom c. c: : -r ~ .J..:I-ofI"-a- . "1';;"( ~ ".\ ~ 4 -IZJf Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Rflh AVlnul Chula Villa, California 81811.2B86 (1l18) lllI1-5500 J. \-/AIVa D ~;:.~._ .....,... Dlvlllon of Planning Ind Flcllltlea PL ;"\,.... ,.,. I, 1\'-' t ~~ January 4, 1995 Ms. Susan Vandrew City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91911 Dear Ms. Vandrew: Re: IS-95-3/BroadwBY Business Homes Village Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Initial Study prepared for the above subject project. It is loCated in the Chula Vista Junior and Chula Vista High School attendance areas. According to the CBEDS enrollment taken on October 12, 1994, Chula Vista High is operating at 112 percent capacity and Chula Vista Junior High School is at 99 percent. Any increase in enrollment at these schools will impact the facilities. The proposed mixed use project has the potential to add approximately twenty- one new students to the District (fourteen high school and seven junior high school students).' The District's student yield rates are 0.19 students per household for high school and 0.10 students per household for middle school. The project's impact can be shown as follows: USE UNITS/AREA CHULA VISTAJR. CHULA VISTA HIGH TOTAL Residential 36 Units 3.6 6.84 10.44 Commercial 34,620 sa. It. 3.6 6.84 10.44 Total 7.2 13.68 21 ~. J-j-/!J5 ( '- Ms. Susan Vandrew January 4, 1995 Page Two The commercial impact has been derived using a SourcePoint Study prepared in 1990 which specifically analyzes non-residential development's impact to schools. Enclosed for your reference is the worksheet used to estimate the impact the commercial portion of the project may have on the District. The District has traditionally responded to such projects by urging the City not to approve them unless they're conditioned such that they are annexed into a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. However, the District and the City has reached an understanding that the projects within the redevelopment areas would not be placed in a Mello-Roos District. Rather, mitigation will be consistent with the recommendations accepted by the District after the completion of the current Source Point Study of non-residential development's impact to schools. This project's impact should be fully mitigated. The District requests that its mitigation be consistent with the recommendations which arise from the new SourcePoint Study undertaken by the City of Chula Vista, Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 691-5553. Sincerely, / " ,,/ -- '':: ......../.,.f-7!;~.r..-' ) kt- ~ I/'''- Thomas Silva Director of Planning ,/ TSlml enclosure c: Kate Shurson -~ -1--/()fo ( , WORKSHEET Propoaed Development Type: Ct....fication Name: Location: Size: Mixed Use Commercial & Residential Commercial Broadway Business Homes Village 760 Broadway 34.620 sq. ft. 1. Estimate number of new jobs created by development 34620 sq. ft. x 0.001807 empl/sQ.ft. ~ 63 new jobs 2. Estimate new workers living In District by development type 63 new jobs x 0.651 ELF. ~ 41 new mldent employ_ 3. estimate new households (hh). 41 employees x 0.873 hh/empl. ~ 36 households 4. Estimate new student enrollment 36 hh 0.29 sTu./hh ~ 10 new student. enroUed . The employment location factor (ELF) for the development type Commercial Shopping was calculated using the trip length cut,off of .647 minuteB defined by the District Geographic Location Factor (GLF). / ~ b---. ~! -! {) 7 SANDAG.XLS Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Fifth Av.nu. Chulo VIII.. Colllo,nl. 01011-2B06 (810) 1101-5500 r Dlvlalon of Pllnnlng Ind Flcllltles ..-..... '-, - ~ I:.UG f'- 'J l.. 10':.1.1: '-. "'; August 24. 1994 ", 0" Mr. Joe Monaco CIty of Chula VIsta PlannIng Deportment 276 Fourth Avenue Chula VIsta. CA 91910 ~.. 4 SIP '. . "'" Dear Mr. Monaco: lie: Btoadway Bwlnea HOlM ~~/MixtK/ U.. ProJect J6 Un", with c:omm.rclallJH . The above subject proposed prOject will Impact the Sweetwater Union High School DIstr/ct. Payment of school fees does not adequately mitigate the anticipated costs to provIde classroom space. The present maximum fee rate Of $1.72 per square foot of residential area and $0.28' per square foot of commercial area account for less than one-thlrd the cost. Because of this. whenever possible: the District requests that the applicant fully mitigate project Impacts. this project's participation In the District's Community facilities DIstrict No.5 would satisfactorily mitigate Its Impacts to schools. I request that the City of Chula Vista condition any approval such that 011 school facility Issues ore resolved to the District's satisfaction. 7L.~ lhomos Sliva AssIstont Director of Planning lS/ml , c: Kate Shurson. Chula VIsta Elementary School DistrIct - -J -, ..~~ IlJl ( SWEETWATER AUTHC-- 'TV 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91912-2328 (619) 420-1413 FAX (619) 425-7469 -< GOVERNING BOARD BUD POCKLlNGTON. CHAIRMAN GEORGE H. WATERS. VICE CH....IRMAN SUE JARRETT EDWIN J. STEE1.E MARGARET A. WELSH JAMES S. WOLNIEWICZ . CAAY F. WRIGHT WANDA AVERY TREASURER ClAN J. REEVES SECAETAAY.AOMINISTRATIVE AIDE ...rAt:" " ,~ ~ \J '-' i::iC:' -. January 3, 1995 F":....; . . . ~; ... 'l.n....,<.] Mr. Douglas Reid city of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY PROPOSED MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL PROJECT 760 BROADWAY CASE NO: IS-95-03 SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1995 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 a-inch water main located on the east side of Broadway adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate that there are four water services to this property. Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 164 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 re.ult iD the Deed for De. vater system. or substantial alteratioD to the ezistiDq vater 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. Also, the Authority is concerned that the timing for this project will be such that the installation of new services and the abandonment of existing services will take place after this portion of Broadway has been reconstructed. The Authority'S main is located on the east side of the street which will require trenching across the entire newly';'constructed street. In addition, the installation of services will be very costly due to the thickness of the new pavement. ~. .-r. ' ~-/tJ c; A Public ~y, . Servi"6 National City, Chula Vista and Surrounding Areas t Mr. Douglas Reid city of Chula vista Planning Department Re: WATER AVAlIABILITY PROPOSED MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL PROJECT 760 BROADWAY CASE NO: IS-95-03 January 3, 1995 page two 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 85 p.s.i. to a minimum of 75 p.s.i. If you have any questions, pl~ase contact Mr. Russell Collins at 420-1413, ext. 639. '~.~. Very truly yours, c ~:TER AUTHOR'" , ~~~ J es L. S~Yttt / r- ief Engineer JLS:RC:ln enclosure: photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 164 map pc: Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority Citron Realty & Investment Corp 5000 Coronado Bay Blvd. Coronado, CA 92118 t:'lorel.I~1'T6Obrood.ltr I ~. ~ - ! /0 Y !--T.,-,:,'"-uj-__. '1.'~a'1,,;;""-' .... ...,.."" ...ol.U........:.:: I "::,':: I-M' .... CJ .:~t .7. i" ~ N ....us. ....: . . 0 ...,.l() ;-or ..... ..fl. "",::0..... i....~ ....-: . " .... ~ ~ ..tzl,7 _ '" .. 5 - ! f .....~... _:;-" ....Ii. ....~.Z... &111"_ .. - "Z? '-; N' "Y~ ~ -i f~..._ f ~ ....~ ."J '-' ... ~,.. _ _ N',a- 'S,1- _.. ::::.: ..~ 01 ~ J IIZ ,m:.. -'"""l...... ~ b !!:!! I ..-J~ '.4! M', N~: S'''' I!;I~.., ,,_ '" p.~'~. ~ _--) 1 I~ '(t~. I ~ "'. ......_ ;-X~f;iP'l~I' _ f-J"; f"-: -' ~ It";;' '"J,'.. eo,;' ... ."_Ui_ ,... .it ..., ~I_ : J ~ ~ "'-'1.. "1-.."'.... ......."~.......... · - , ,z is ~rJ~ ' L:'" _~~ .... lI........ '""''"' 1."'-4. ...~ .~. I I..~,. ._ ..~"H,~~_ ,~ _ ~~. ~ ~ ,...."'! UI.... .."..... ....~ ~..'" - :":1... '. .: ...~.& ~!~ ~ ~tCl~ .. "'4.0", - ....~n ..e.... .., "IU~ .. · i I L<~U .; ..~..."' ,~. .. -~.; ~_J~_ : ..,ul, .j ....". ,..- ~.. ...... ~, . - k'~"_ 'u~ ~!3~ . !,. 1 """1 n ."". &.. 'II;t jIr..,,-:-aa ,~ ,..~ I...I~ I o. ,_~~ &CC! It "tuw. ['"~~ .."trl:"'1C.OM .1 ", u.~ . ,.::;:.;-,- . : .....:~ ;". _':_ ~ "~1. - "''''--' ~ - 1It,..... .~1 - :!- 7 W &J<ll.) , ; I') ""T ..~ "- .,,{;Q J.t- .cioM "',,,., :". ~ ~ 'liiw:ia! f _ _. __!tJ;:,.. .._ 0 "'I~_ ~ ...... I 1- I.d f?18Zo,- - it. '_. <0 L.C ~~'d!,t .. ..". S~ 5.~u ~I....:. ""',." _ OcUo. ....con.. "4fU .. 6. ~Jf..~ i. ':. · <c ~. J'. ~.. ....... ........ .,,:':'; '- .:.. I .. .~~ i I! ...;.. -- -;., .... ~ 10 1- ..... -, ,'.c,"'w,tJ .- .18"'7' ..... ..... .. 'i - " 4.... " ~~ - .. ..- I. I.' .m ~;, II-~ ! ~ ::::-" I m.... .- ....., ~- t..., '. .. ~- .. .. ..... .. . J .~ ..... :- .; ...-: ! ~. - ...... ~... ~ ~, · '. ..i rW ) :;- ~1- ,:,:,'i..i:. ~,e~- ~""'l;jfo (,.; ~~..... ...,...,. ......... ., _...J~ -~.... ~ . ~.~ ; _rU . nl... ' -...-........ ......It''- ~-, ~ . . I'J JZ' .....~d' 0" _...1' -...(:, _ t' w'.",_ ~, ... ,e.., . . 1-4 -~ .. ....'l!.&. 2 ""l.. .........~ >=;a.... :;'" -," it .. ,- ~l - , J .1- "sa." ", Mo.....'" "-&.tOt ""'.'tC. , _" CO ""Sol" ......l:ll ..~.N ..... ~.....- ,," . . ~:f ..:.: .~ .~ .~~ ...... 01 .. --r. L".~ ~ ~~ Iu.;" LJ;.~ "-~-sr ~3'. .~~ ........ .. "'-l.. ~: _~ 1- ....... .:!!. .. ....... _..~ ....... .. !i .-.. -IIIt'i.. ...... ". ..... r . ... ...... J";;'::? .~~ .......- ~~JZ; :!~:~ ~ .......y~ ..w.c..... ~ ~...1'&. 1Ii..-. . III II .. .."'.~ ...- . ....~ . .::- ....... , . .. .,,~ ,- ...... ..~Z .. 3 -,~~~ ....... ~. I~ .......c '_'! . ...:. ....... " ,. .."t. ID ......;. ......, " ..-~ , .. 17$41..-t"dlli ,S&.l.. "R ID.MI$ ----.---~._---..-- - ---------- .:~-;~~ '1- ..2,~, -'-M~ l ..!.', ... M'AP 1?~7~ - ,. '(f);- , · II -':-'fll- .. . Ii~ -.,. II' 'H' ( ,. ~ ,: .. '2 <1 ...s; r:- -... ._, I. ". I' , -~i ~ ~~-~ ~'0~~~ J ~ ~~~~,,~ ,,~~........ ~ I .:':~_:~ . -.. ..,.~.: ~ f... , . - .;: . Z , 1: ".,. !~ r. -' C:.,,::,, ~r-.- _ . .-- ,;. .., .~ .. RI: ET. ...... &:~ '?!i; = e~ t.L.Kal ....~ I - .... ..-~ - ....s "0. s... I - ~ .-'Iot~ ..!RH..... '''''0'''' W.O. IfI I. :: ~ * J 1.___ __... PROJECT SITE """"I .....'1E . ~ -------. ..... ......1I n I .. a."~~ 10 ".~ ~0: --- -~,' -- ... .~ It .::... - # . ; I. ,,, 2 ~. f - w~. - ZO ,_.~.. IL"~ 2~ :\0. ,'A," C' ,.. ..,..... .:1 loo-.:.....,....., ;, .. .M'. ....... S I .......1 . 7 ...,.... .. ...... S .. "''''1.. ..."..."'" . ...... ........ ._!. 10 -----':1'-,.,.,.&- I":' lOa, : - ..F......JD .....&1.... . l t . lrii rm;; ". STREET1~ I 4'_~... , tL___~ .... . ----, I .165 t-f -11/ ~- SCALE IN 'ErT ,.. 00. . 1'- , ~ . . .: " . i . , '1 '. '~.l , ! k ~ :::: ~" J ~~ . w ,1.... ., t ..... -:or. .. ~.. -= . '. .. ~ : " .as ~" :,~ . 1- " i~ ,0 ," '.. ..... .. ..... --+.,.".,; .00 '00 ,. MAR 29 '95 12:21PM SWEr"ATER AUTHORITY ,". I . SWEETWATER AUTHOR Ii .1, P.2/3 . .. B05 GARRETT "'VENUE POST O'FICE BOX WB CHULA VIST.... CIIILIFOI'INIA 81812-2328 (B18) ~2D-1'13 F"'X (B'8) '25.7'69 aOVf"NINO 80..JlI0 avo 'OCtC~IHOTOfrll. CMAIAMA,., OIO~Q." "Afl~' YIe.I>o\....... 'VI ,jA~~lT' IOWw J .'111.1 MNtClAJlIT A. WIU~ . "AIdS I. VrCL.NIKWICZ CAlIv .. MUOMT W~ 'YI~y TlIlfAlUJII,f11 ~N 01. IIlIIIVEI HCAlt."T-ADMWIIT""TIVI"fDI Karch 28, 1995 Jo.et and Lenore Citron Joelen Enterprise. 5000 Coronado Bay Blvd. Coronado, CA '2118 Subject: CHULA VISTA FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY' 760 BROADWAY SWA DEV. PILE: CITRON MIXED-VSE DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr, and Mr.. Citron: The 7500 GPM fire flow at 20 p...i. re.idual pres.ure for a 2-hour duration, .s required by the city of Chula Vi.ta Fire Department, i. l12t available to .erve the above-referenced project. The Authority doe. not teel that thi. requirement can be met without million. ot dollars ot upqrade. to the exi8tinq vater infrastructure, The maximum available tire flow with no upgrade. to the .y.tem i8 approximatelY 2800 aPH. The fire department has indicated that if . fire sprinkler system is added to this development, the required fire flow can be reduced to 3750 GPM. Thi. flow can be met it the developer install. 600 L.P. of 12-inch main in Broadway, from "K" St. to the mid-point of the propo.sd ~V.lopment, Thi. i. in a .ection of Broadway that is eurrently bei q reconstructed by the City of Chula Vista. In addition, any required water .ervice. will probably re.ult in the excavation of the newly con.tructed street. Also, we have no information reqardinq d01llestic, irrigation and tire sprinkler water demanes. that woules expedite the._ installation. prior to the .tr..t recon.truction. ' .. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY ( c.J~ .e. L. Smyth Chi.t Enqineer JLS,aC:l. / kl'l.u~t.'l.tt.r.'cflran.ro ~ ;-f-//y A Pkblit ,v,tI&Y. 5I/l'1Iilll Nt/tioruzl Cit)', Clntia Villa alld SMrrDMndirw An/as MAR 29 '95 12:21PM SWEFT~ATER AUTHORITY , . .' . Jo.ef and Lenore Citron Joelen Enterprie.a Re: CHOLA VISTA FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY, 760 BROADWAY March 28, 1995 page 2 pc: Me. Carol Gove City of Chula Vieta Fire Department 447 "1'" Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 Mr. Roberto Saucedo City of Chula Vista Engineering Department 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 -&:8 ~ ~ J-f- //3 P.3/3 JaauarT 13. 1995 t.. ~ !o. ~ '". ~ -, . i. . . :" JA "- Nl:J 799('/ PLljr'"" .~ ./\ /!,.., , Ir'l.; Doudlls Reld ERvlroRmeatal Review Coordlaator Ca..1 IS - 95 - OJ . i , L We. the followla~ resldeats of the 100 block of Blverl... Ave, request that the ourreat .ppro:l:1_tel1 20 toot hl!h wall raaal~ alDa! ?63 aad ?6? Blverl... Ave be retal~d, .ad. It posslble..loa~ the e.tlre propert1 l1ae to protect the ourreat 2-1 resldeats traa the adverse aolee aad traffic caused ~ the 3 1/2 etorT ooaaerolal 4evelopaeat purpost4 ~ Cltroa BealltT 6 Iavestaeat Corporatloa (fl1e I IS-95-0)). ~ . . .... ~ .(f-7T:) 10. ~ ,j' 6tiff ..a' Mar1 Cooper - ?6? Blverla.. Ave /~hula VM;: CSa ~1910 ~ih ad7 J~~~s V 745 Rlverl... Ave Chait Vista CA 91910 ~;1f;;e~ 124 Rlverla.. Ave Chait Vista, CA 91910 ~ ~- //0 , I APPLlCA nON c.~'IN' \ B .CCEPTED UNLESS SITE PLAN IS FOLDED TO m INTO AN 8-1/2 X II FOLDER "Re.;\sed e:\k'i>Ia.f\ INITIAL STUDY . .l ' " City of Chula Vista Application Form For Office Use Only C:l.se No. IS- '11j -03 Dpsl AmIlfia R~ceipl No. . Date Rcc'd. " Accepled by ~ Proj~t No. FA ~7 DpSI. No. DO. III CIP No. NfA . Rc1aled case No. /of/It 1 A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES VILLJAGE 2. Project Location (Street address or description) 760 Broadwav Assessors Book. Page & Parcel No. 571-200- 13 thru 17 3. Brief Project Description 36 - Unit~ ~nnc;i~tinQ of Ruc:inp"c;pc; prin~;pill"y nn the first level & r~~;id~ncp~ nn thp unnpr , 1/? c;tnripc; 4. Name of Applic:lllt Citron Realty & Investment Corp, ? Josef & Lenore Citron Address 5000 Coronado Bav Road Fax# 423-0884 Phone424-4474 City Coronado State CA Zip 92118 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Jose'f A. Citron, Lenore S, Citron Address Same as above Fax# Phone ~ ~ ~ Relation to Applic:lllt 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required. General Plan Amendment _ Rezone/Prezone _ Grading Pennil _ Tentalive Parcel Map _ Site Plan &. Arch. Review _ Special Use Pennit _ Design Review Application _ Tentative SuM Map _ Redevelopmenl Agency OPA _ Redevelopmenl Agency DDA _ Public Project Annexation _ Specific Plan Conditional Use Pennit Variance _ Coa.~121 Develupment Other Pctmit If project is a General PI:IlI Amendment and/or rezone. please indicate the change in designation from CT to CCP b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator); _ Grading Plan _ Parcel Map Precise Plan = Specific Plan _ Traffic Impact Report .J;.Y. Hazardous W aSle A~SeS'l11Clll X Arch. Elevations X Landscape Plans - pe rare h . _ Tenlative Subd. Map L Impruvement Plans ..ll Suils Report .J;.Y. GCOlcchnical Report E- Hydrological Sludy P 1 aIL..- Biological Study _ Archaeological Study Noise Assessment = OLher Agency Permit OLher "CV" " Ci ty of Chul a Vi lOta Redevelopment Agency has. ~ \liK'.F\Jj()~U;\;'l.,"'!"o'I:.{: :,rf~f(JJlIl~~:j .\ -,. . K'Cl .f'~lI 'j Illkt{ :"~~'j' 1 ~-1/5 J "'.. I'KUI'OSED PRO -::T \ '" 1. 525' X 210' LJJlU A.re:.t: s4uare fOc)[:.tgc or :Jcre~g~ If land are3 to be dedicJlcd. st~le Jcr.eJg~ and pUr;:'vse. a. 2.52 . b. Do~s the prOJ~Cf involve the: ~onsU1Jcr:on oi nC\\,o ~udJings. or will e:H~[ing ')rru~ture be uluil.e,j'! New o:onstruction .., Compkle this section if project is residential or mixed use. a. Type of developmem:-!... Single Family _ T\\'o Family _ Multi Family Townhouse Condominium b. Total number of structures 4 - consistinQ of 36 units total c. Maximum height of Structures 3 1/2 Stories d. Number of UnilS: I bedroom -0- 2 1/_2bedroom 20 3 bedroom _ 16.. 4 bedroom -L Total UnilS ~ e. Gross density (OUltota! acres) 2.52 f. Net density (OUltotal acres minus any dedication) 2.52 "Less. streets~.' si dewa llci, . . . : , , pedstrian promenade (sidewalks) g. Estimated prOject populallon 123 . h. Estimated sale or rental price range $199.900 - S249. 900 I. Square footage of StructUre 1,892 - 2,183 (See Exhibit "e" I , j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or Structures 3 O~ . k. Number of on.site parking spaces to be provided 154 1. Percent of site in road and paved surface ~d Paved Surface <I R'li: . Landscape + Ped. Pavewa.Y 20% . " .. . ~uildi.ng Foo~print 28%' Complete thIS secl1o~ If project IS commercial Qr'uldusmaI or mixed use. Pri v. .j.andscape 13% a, Type(s) of land use Pl ease, see #2 'b. Floor area Height of stru=s(s) c. Type of c~nstruction used in the structUre 3. d. Describe major access POinlS to the Strucrures and the orientanon to adjoining properties and StreclS e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estim<lted number of employees per shift Number of shifts TOlal g. ESlimJICd number of CUSlUmers (per d<lY) and basis of estim<lle .'K-F:"HC.\1E"PL\.'O:-;r~;'7:;7'.~fjj\I('l::..\ oJl ,lit: :'::~"j,:l ;K,: ;~:~:-it, -~ ~- lib I h. Estim..,ed nber of deliveries per day Not ,~ t thi 5 time i. Estimated range of selVice are:! :l1ld basis of estim:lle Not k.nown at thi s time J. Type/extent of oper.llions not in enclosed buildings None k. nown k. Hours of operation Not available at.this time . I. Type of exterior lighting Decorati ve Mall L i qhts 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed stIUClUres d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces, to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces h. Additional project characteristics C. PROJECT CHARACTER]STICS ]. Will the project be required to obtain a pennit through the Air Pollution Control District (APeD)? . No 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the propeny anticipated? Offsite & Utilities ,onlv If yes. complete the following: a. Excluding trenches to be backftlled, how many cubic yards of eatth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of till A verage depth of till -~ ~-//7 WPC.F:\U()A.tr.'oP1...AJr\Sr~r;S7"..k(l).I(l;:..\,,,_, INrI. ;1;'::, 'Ill (Kef :n:2_~'1 .t; 3. Describ.: all ~..erl .onsuming devices which are pan )& ,roposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning. electrical 3ppliance. heating equipment. etc.) Standard residential 'lighting & office & store lighting, probably principally flourescent .4. Indic:lIe the amount of natur3l open sp3Ce that is pan of the project (sq. ft. or acres) None' S. If the project will result in any employment opponunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. 26 liqht commercial & office jobs 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? No 7. How many estimated automobile trips., per day, will be gener.ued by the project? Per SANDAG for commerical & residential 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project. and their points of access or cOMection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas. electric. and sewer lines; cut and fllJ slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle f~ilities. See Plot Pl an the Rede.velopment District 's Preliminary Site Assessment Report dated October 26, 1992. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (~: 1,2,5.& 6 are answered in C~ula Vista City Assessment document) 1. Geolo~ Has a geology study been conducted on the propeny? See note (If yes: please attach) Has a soils repon on the project site been made? (If yes, please attach) 2. HvdroJo~v " Axe any of the following features. present on or adjacent to the site? See Note (If yes, explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No ~,;f-//t ~ \lr'PC.F:'kJME'J"~\.'\SI:.(:.i~'::kf.!1o.l(l:I.,,,.alIRrl W':i: ".1' .ltd I02:.'HI b. { Are th_.e . watercourses or drainage improv(. 11 'n or adjacent to the site? No 1 l c. Does runoff from the project sile drain directly in to or toward a domestic water supply. lake. reservoir or bay? No . d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areaS? No e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. 3. ~ a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site? No b, Will noise from the project impact any sensitive leceptors (hospitals, schools, single. family lesidences)? No 4. BioJo~ a. Does the site. involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation? No b. Is the project site in II natural' or partially natural state? No c. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property? Yes No (Please attach a copy.) d. Describe all trees and vegetation on, the site. Indicate location. height. diameter, and species of tlees. and which (if any) will be lemoved by the projecL No . S. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project site'? See note b. Ale there any known paleontological resources? c. Have thele been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near.the project site? d. What was the land previously used for? ,. --~- ~-111 \1..flC';F:\lkJME\I"I....A..f'Iip.;I;..t7:,7'/kE1,..:tl:I.:\.Il,k~1 :"1'1'11I1J(('1 Ill:: II, 6. I Current Lana se I a. Describe all SO'Uctures and land uses currently existing on the project site. See note b. Describe all sO'Uctures and land uses currently existing on adjacent propeny. Nonh South East West 7. SOCi31 a. Are there any residents on site? No If so. how many? b. Are there any current employment opportUnities on site? If so, how many and what type? 8. PleaSe provide any other infonnanon which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project. t... , -~ .' 1- -1;2-tJ \l,'PC:f:\JtoM1;\Pl.A.""'I~;IiSi')tU~IO~t."""" tKd. :020,"'1 (Kef. In22.41'1 , .. - ...... -4" d~ or ./ - L" :-:-0"--- ~ '::: ... - - , i ,- .'- , .- t ~A 11' ..___- .~ ~..; N.ATIO ~EJi..a.. y I I B4~Y ..k ....J.EJ ~'T::'1 _J- :..--- .. J. -. V l~ MA,IN C ... 1'1 '.~.r~- '" ...,,~ . ":j:~-_.I ......, - ~........,. ~~~ ~.. . - , . ...~ .... !';.~ ..::Ft.-, ~: :;,; ,-t.." 01'1 I .~ .', ~ .! ". I~'''' ~l.J' : .,. =_IICI(.&S~ 4 , tII U o 2P:l:l ::::: S:J":~: "i~! --':UI.~ !=f:S. :;';T:J~. .'S:: ~::~::t.;. ~!=~=:;.::r: v; -. =t::;tI.~SS::.. :;;:'J.'.-t: !. -.jwl.! u':"="S. ';~~~ tol~= l' ::~::;.-t:. e'" "-:"':": 5=:-5 !~='s. 6.Il~="S: A~=R:y.'IJ':'-~ =;::.:.=-_.. ~"'" - ----.-:. '~~:--'- .. -..' . -~ .S' , - Jf -I)! . AUC-le-9~ THU 11 t B. CERTlFICA nON f~"ae99~ 'f I. u ownet/owncr In c.crow" Josef A. Citron Lenore S. Citron Print _ . , or .. COIIIultant or .1\1- PrinlUm8 P.U2 HEUBY AFFIRM. lba1 to !he best of my bellct.1be IWCmenll and tntormatlon IIcIdn ~lIlnecIlRIlII all rapecll tr\Ie and comer and thal all knowll lIItonn8Ilon CtlIlCemlni 1IIc: prujc:cl and Ita ICttInS 'U been . . fDcIudc:d In tills Ippticatton for' an InItial SQld)'1If possible eIIvlronmclsllllmplCt and III)' cncIO$WeS fOt attllChsnc:nu themo. .~ . ,. ~ or Consultant or Aaent SI&nIlUrc: 'f ffrr d.S}Af9/ 'U"", "'........... r.....~............ - ~"'_lII"""'''''''''''''Icu.ltIU1l r/ - / J,'J--- ~o 'd -~ \lJ.SI^ \I1nHO ~ JJIO , . !\.. ~leSSBS6Ie 'ON XV.:! OS:OI nH.L t6-9HIIl\l 4. 5. 6. THE cm' Of Cm.:l..A VISTA DISCLOSl:1U: STATDfE:-', Stalement of disclosure of ce:uJ:: O\lr,'1ershlp interests. ?Jyrne:Hs. or :.:L.'Ilp:U:;:': contributjons. on all manc::s which will require ois;::-::ion:>..:' ~c:ion oc :b. pan of th. City Counc:1. Planning Coc:.....,;ssion. and OIl! otll., officiOll bodi.s. The following !cior:uauon must be c:scJosed: I. List :he :wncs oi Olll pe~sons h~ve 3 fill3llCl3i lnle~eSI in lb. .omr3c!. i.e.. eOnlr.lCIOr, subconlr~elor. matena; suppli.,. J C g:~!~ ~~?i1~1!f~CZ~T Ct~P, 2. If any persOD ide::uifiecj pursuanr 10 (1) .above is a corporation or partnership. wt lbe IWDeS of all individuals owniIlg more :!wl JO~ of lbe shms inlbe corporation or owning any JW'lIIe:ship inleresl in lbe panoe:ship. :z @ s1 :Je~L?:S'A.Rg~,;=~~ryN~k~'I; I;Z;-A:S~ b7j~:1jN .~~.. at> . , r 3. If any person identified pursuant 10 (1) above is Don'profil orgmiz3lion or a trust. list tbc !WIles of any person s~ing as director oi lbe DOD-profil organizatioD or as tnlSte: or beneficiary or trUSlee of lbe trust. Have you had more than 5"-50 wonh of business traDSaCled with :IIIY member of lbe City mfr. Boards. Commissions. COmmille:.s ;md Council within lbe past !Welve months? //0 Plase identify eac!I and every persoD. iDcludiog any agenls. e:::ployees. comulwlls or independenl CODtractors who you have assigned to represent you before lbe Cily in this mallet. A/b Nz.- Have you and/or your officers or agenLS. in lbe aggregate, coot:".buted mon: than SI,OOO to a CoUDeiI member in the CUrreDt or pn::ediog e1eaio~ period? Yes I J ~o ~ If yes, state which ColIDCiI memher(s): ....... is dcflllOd u: 'AIly iDd..ic!uaJ. finn. ._....rship. joinl ........ woc:;auon. IClCial ::vb. 60ttmaJ 0"""""'. COIlIO"..... _Ie, 0UIl. ftCCIVC:. syDdIWf:. mis and any olhc::oulll)'. ciIy UId CO&Im). cil)'. IllUNcapaJi1'y. cliAnc:: :r =acr poiiDc:&J aabdi\<lAOA. or any odlcr 'JVUp or COIDbiDIuon K:ID& as a unit. . fNOtt: ADa adchuoa.al pales as DCCCUlty I Date: 8/1 ').} 1 9 'I , ::JOSEF A .c.i1t?4irV I.St{ O~E:.. 1), c-im ON Pnnl or :yp. =e oi ;ontT:ll::e~ 1;~hcml -'~ ~ ~ /23 ......pC.F HOME',P~."."~:"': :7",,;R!: ;';;.,,, "]h: . ;:'.' ..jl,R('~ 10:: II:, .. : . ~ p A - - ." - - - ~ it .. l... I 1 . .....,. SUt+lY Y!SU ..". ...- . . _.~. 0'-":' .. .........:"~, ",:';~._- .-~~:r w'" L~ ...; ~ ---:- -: ~'it . -~.... . .'- -.:.....--~... ,- .... "".... .. .. "t.:.: eo- .,,:... .. .:;:-..~~~ .. .-.0; ':;,:.... ,- , -~ .-.., 'J'~ ".:--~:silr ~~-:f: - ; _.~., ..1. .... ..r;~ . -_.,.! .c" ~. - ..".~: - ",-'- - - . .~ .. . , .., _. .- "":....'- ..... .. - .". .-. .. .'~,'''::.' - ... -.0 -' .. ., . ,. . . . . '. . I I t ~J..V {~ , J-f ~ / .J-5 SITE PLAN INFORMATION 1. Project Location 760 Br9adway 2. Legal Description * 3. Assessor's Parcel Number * 4. Property Owner's Name and Address Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency 5. Name of Person or Firm who prepared the plans and date of preparation and revisions C,W. Kim, AlA AQency 6. Boundaries of subject property with dimensions 52~' on Broadway - 210' Deep 7. Existing and proposed building and structures with dimensions and heights · , 8. Existing adjacent structures , Motel & Tire Shop 9. Eiisting a~d proposed land use for each building activity area Flour clusters of 9 units each: Business on 1st floor Residential on floors 2 & 3 10. Squre footage of each building activity area 1093 11. Construction type per U.B.C., i,e, Type I-FR, Type V-N, etc, 5N/3 Story 12. Type of occupancy per U.B.C, Mixed use - Residential & Business . ..,j .-A- . ;f ~/}-l SITE PLAN INFORMATION (continued) 13. Existing topography and proposed gra.ding showing all slopes and slope ratios N/A 14. Existing and proposed walls, fences, etc., indicating height 15. Parking layout, pedestrian walks, loading and trash areas . & .. 16, Location, height, diameter, and species of all existing trees which are to remain or to be removed, N/A 17. Public facilities and infrastucture (i.e., roads, drainage, sewer, open space easement, etc,) N\A 18, Existing !3nd proposed electrical transmission line easements with estimated voltage Adequate service is provided on Broadway 19. Number of parking spaces required 100 20. Numbe)- of parkIng spaces provided 105 i 21. Scale no Jess than 1" = 30' Included in description 1 in, to 30 ft. 22. North arrow NOTE: . Please see Exhibit A. .. Please see Exhibit 8. ..,&~. - .... ~-/~7 .....\"lUl' M. BUSINESSHOME VILLAGE ":":':-E. AI..:':; :~. .c;.<;~ .C 'AkS :':NClfE ~::~C''''4 =;.x (~i C) ..::i~~ec.a ;:fC.\II:CW <:.\-1 lOT CI~IENSiCN; 525'X2;0' PRopes:;) eUILDING HEiGHT:.3 SiORY iO' THRU ':5' CONSii<UcnCN IYPE; TYPE 5NI .3 SiORY PROPOS:;:) WAW P.,NC: HEIGHT: 5'-0' HIGH TRASH: HANDLED BY INDNlDUAL DWELUNG UNITS NUM8E!< OF P~KlNG; APPROX. TOTAl IOS LOi COVERAGE~35.72% % OF ROAD PAVED SURFACE: 49% I I BUSINESSHOME VIllAGE lAND SCAPE+PED. PAVEWAY (1.5.3S) . -;:;:~.~i:.;;i;:~;.~ .-' ...,.....,~._~.~... . .~;-: . ;.; .~}; ..L':.-:..~l?:".~r, .-.:'~ .....\..:.:;.:. .:;{>;.:.:.~, - ,.. !~ rcoTR:llNT (3.5.n.) ,', \ ~y- ~-/~f , \, EXHIBIT B old S'1k. ':f'lalj ,,--.. ,,--... ,,--... N €1 , Bldg, C >- < ~ c < C c:: co ,> .....-.. ......;-, . ::.t:',\ . " ,."~. -.... :,.~;:~:;- . ..:.) ':;~.g~. ~ ,;.)'-:, ::t.."., ._,............. ..~;:.~):.. .,~, :;; .~ ~;:;~'$:: ?;j~~~il~ ,.:.::~?;'~~ .>'~;~ ..~ ::j:i}~ ;::'.< :'::~\~~ ...;" ,>,'.< ..':"'.' , ".,:,j; ";.t " ~':;:.:.c ~S:7 . ~ .' ..~ . ;'.~;::t. . "'.:f:~~~ . :.<'~~"~~ . _:"...-:.:,:. '0,-/ '0,-/ ~ . .. . "LOIS A'/U,lQt 16251<:.. MIlCJNQ ..... tAl' Al1FI) ~-/)7 .l.mlI Building. A. Building .B" Building .C" Building .0" \ EXHIBIT .C" SQUARE FOOTAGES OF STRUCTURES <> .' TOTAL BUIOLlNG: ~ -.:-.--> 2.150 S,F. 25,800 S,F. 12.900 S,F, 25.800 S.F, 12.900S.F. 77,400 S,F. ~~ /3& (' / ATTACHMENT 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT -.~. ~~ I~I "< n-IE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA DISO-OSURE STA'rnMENT You arc required to file a Statement of Di~c1osure of ccrtain ownership or financial intercsls, payments, or campaign eontribulions, on all mailers which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The Colluwing inCormation must be disclosed: J. Ust the names of all per.;ons having a financial inlcreM in Ihc property which is the subject of Ihe application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contraelor, subcontractor, material supplier. Josef A. Citron Lenore S. Citron 2. If any person' identified pursuanlto (I) above l< a corporalion or partnership, listlhe names of all Individuals owning more Ihan 10% of the shares in Ihe corporation or owning any partnership Intercsl In the partnership. Citron Realty & Investment CorD. is 100% owned bv Josef & Lenore Citron 3. If any person' identified pUf'uant 10 (I) above i~ non.profil organi1.ation or a Irusl, IiM the names of any person serving 115 director of the non'profil organi1.ation or 115 IrUSlee or bcneftciary or Irustor of Ihe trust. 4. Have you had more Ihan S2S0 worth of busincs~ Iransactcd with any member of the City starr, Board." Commissions, Committees, and Olunci) within the past twelve months? Ycs_ NoL If yes, please indicate person(s): S. Please identify each and every person, Including any agents, employees, consultants, or Independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the Cily in this matter. 6. Have you and/Or your officcrs or agents. In the aggregale, cnntribuled more than $1,000 to. Ciluncilmember in the current or preceding elccllon period? Ycs_ No..,L If yes. stale which Councilmember(s): Date: 10-18-94 ~,-/3V f _ I:.r ;. _ / re or contraClor/appllcant Josef A. Citron Print or type name or conlractor/applicant · · · (Nom A11ad1 addltioDal paIlS , r""". is Ikf&~d tu: . All)' individual. fin.. CO'p""'.mhip. joilll.......,.. tuJOCUui",. _iaI cAd>. fr--.J MplIWuiOft, c"""""'"'" _~ --. _-. 'fItIIictJ#, dais tII.d "",. otNr cowuy, city IJIuI (OWU1)~ dl)' mUllidptJlit)', district.. cw U4h~ poIilicdl ~,;,u,,&, or 4111)' cnMr r'UP Of combUuuion <<tint lit . WIlL. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IS-95-03, AS AMENDED This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is prepared for the Broadway Business Homes project. CEQA requires lead agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored on Mitigated Negative Declarations, such as IS-95-03, as amended. CEQA requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The mitigation monitoring program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potentially significant impacts: noise, school facilities, parking. Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) for the City of Chula Vista. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the ERC. Compliance with the mitigation measures specified in the Mitigation Negative Declaration 18-95-03, as amended shall be provided to the ERC prior to issuance of any permits by the City of Chula Vista. The ERC will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. q-/33 This page Blank ;///34 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: Broadway Business Homes IS NO.: 95-03 Issue Area Noise Mitigation Measures 1. Retain existing wall on western site boundary 2. Mechanical ventilation systems shall comply with UBC Sect. 1205 (c) 3. East facing windows in the four end units that face Broadway shall be rated at STC=25 or higher. Proiect Phase Building permit issuance Responsible Partv City Engineer Issue Area School Facilities Mitigation Measure Full mitigation of school facility impacts via an agreement with the affected school districts Proiect Phase Occupancy Permit Issuance Responsible Partv Director of Planning J-/- ~ /35 Issue Area Parking Mitigation Measure Establishment of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) related to simultaneous occupancy of residential and commercial portions of units as a condition of the Precise Plan. Proiect Phase Precise Plan Approval Responsible Partv Director of Planning ~-/30 RESOLUTION /79 to <f- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM IS-95-03 FOR 36 UNIT BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT AT 760 BROADWAY WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") formed the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area for the purpose of eliminating blight; and WHEREAS, the property located at 760 Broadway, comprising approximately 2.5 acres is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area (the "Site") is vacant and blighted; and WHEREAS. a redevelopment proposal has been received for the Site from Joelen Enterprises comprising the development of 36 Business Homes on the Site (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Agency has determined that the Project is desirable and will assist in the elimination of blight in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Project will require discretionary approvals from the City Council including a zoning change and the approval of the sale of Agency property to the developer for the construction of the mixed use project on the Site; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 1995 a public forum was held on the project providing the opportunity for public input thereon; and WHEREAS. the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study. IS-95-03 with Addendum of possible environmental impacts associated with the Project. Based on the Initial Study, Addendum, and comments thereon. the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that there would be no significant environmental effects and, therefore, recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum issued on IS-05-03 (collectively, the "Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents"). WHEREAS, on June 14, 1995 the Planning Commission voted to recommend adoption of the Mitigate Negative Declaration Documents; and WHEREAS, on June 26. 1995 the Resource Conservation Commission voted to recommend and approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: A. ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DOCUMENTS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, acting as a Responsible Agency. has reviewed. analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents (known as Document No. on file in the Office of the City Clerk), the environmental impacts therein identified for this project prior to approving the Project. Based on the Initial Study and comments thereon, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and thereby approves and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents. 1-/37 Resolution xxxx Page 2 B. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines. and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. C. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The City Council finds that their approval and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents and the related findings and adoptions in connection therewith were the product of their exercise of their independent judgment. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: &S~ ~r: ruce 'YD B gaard. -T City Attorney Chris Salomone Community Development Director IM:ISHAREDIA TTORNEYINEGDECl C.RES] !-f -! 39 RESOLUTION 1t/I.oO RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM IS-95-03 FOR 36 UNIT BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT AT 760 BROADWAY WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") formed the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area for the purpose of eliminating blight; and WHEREAS, the property located at 760 Broadway, comprising approximately 2.5 acres is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area (the "Site") is vacant and blighted; and WHEREAS, a redevelopment proposal has been received for the Site from Joelen Enterprises comprising the development of 36 Business Homes on the Site (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Agency has determined that the Project is desirable and will assist in the elimination of blight in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Project will require discretionary approvals from the Redevelopment Agency including a Special Use Permit for the construction of the mixed use project on the Site, approval of a Precise Plan and approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, On June 1, 1995 a public forum was held On the project providing the opportunity for public input thereon; and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-95-03 with Addendum of possible environmental impacts associated with the Project. Based on the Initial Study, Addendum, and comments thereon, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that there would be no significant environmental effects and, therefore, recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum issued on IS-05-03 (collectively, the "Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents"). WHEREAS, on June 14, 1995 the Planning Commission voted to recommend adoption of the Mitigate Negative Declaration Documents; and WHEREAS, On June 26. 1995 the Resource Conservation Commission voted to recommend and approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents; NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: A. ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DOCUMENTS The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed. analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents (known as Document No. on file in the Office of the City Clerk), the environmental impacts therein identified for this project prior to approving the Project. Based on the Initial Study and comments thereon. the Agency finds that there is nO substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment 1-/31 Resolution xxxx Page 2 and thereby approves and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents. B. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. C. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The Redevelopment Agency finds that their approval and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents and the related findings and adoptions in connection therewith were the product of their exercise of their independent judgment. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: c~- S'~~_ Chris Salomone Community Development Director IM:\SHARED\A TTORNEY\NEG DEC 1 A.RES] t/ - lit; ORDINANCE NO. r:2~ 3~ AN ORDINANCE OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REZONING THE 2.53 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FROM C-T (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE) TO C-C-P, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a rezoning was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on December 16, 1994 by Josef A. and Lenore S. Citron; and WHEREAS said application requested to change the zoning from C-T, Thoroughfare Commercial zone to C-C-P, Central Commercial with Precise Plan for 1.26 acres located at 760 Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and diagrammatically represented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-95- 03 and addendum of potential environmental impacts associated with the project and has concluded that there will be no significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-03. and WHEREAS, on June 26. 1995, the Resource Conservation Commission voted to recommend approval ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum issued on IS-95-03; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 1995 the City Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning in accordance with Resolution PCZ-95-A/PCC-95-23; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said rezoning 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 WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. July 11, 1995 in the Council Chambers. 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council, the City Council considered public testimony, and said hearing was thereafter closed. WHEREAS, based on the findings and recommendations of the Environmental Review Coordinator, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum issued on IS-95-03 and all related findings and mitigation programs (the "Mitigated Negative Declaration"). WHEREAS, this Ordinance was introduced for first reading to the Council on July 11, 1995 and considered by the Council for second reading on , 1995. /-f- /'1/ Ordinance xxxx NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: Section 1: The City does hereby adopt and incorporate herein Resolution No. /19t;'f of the City Council adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 2: The City Council hereby finds that the rezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice support the rezoning to C-C-P, Central Commercial with Precise Plan. Section 3: The parcel located at 760 Broadway. as shown on attached Exhibit A (the "Rezoned Parcel") is hereby rezoned to C-C-P, Central Commercial with Precise Plan. Section 4: The "P" Precise Plan Modifier is appropriate for the Rezoned Parcel because all the circumstances set forth in Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.56.041 exist with respect thereto. Section 5: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the thirtieth day from its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by (!L 5~ Chris Salomone Community Development Director (m:\home\commdev\kassmanlbushomes.ord) 1-/ -/Lf-?- J l J l 1 r "J. STREET . I I I t I I t t I L __.J I I ----- I I I L__ I I r1. I I L -r I -; I ~ . I L I I I ~ 1 I I I I I ~ I _ __.J I I ::D t-- e: I f"I I . ::tl -.---+-- . al r- I en f"I ~ , : f"I '"-- n' z ----'t : ST, I b . [q If) ~ ~ f"I f"I --- . r-;';--- I I -I I I . I I cg o ~ ~ . < f"I . ~ "K" STREET rTl rITl r CASE NUMBER: PCZ - 95 - ^ 2,53 I r .EXHIBIT - A- CHUlA VISTA PlANNING DEPARTMENT ACIlfAClE: 5CA1.E: l' = 400' I HEREBY CERTIFY 1ftAT THIS ZONING MAP WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE BY THE OlY COUNOL ON D!.TE: JUNE 5,1995 C. J. FERNANDEZ an QEItJ( 1>>.11 DRAWN BY: C9 NORTH ZONIN'G MAP tf -It/- 3 ~,~ ~ "".. 0lUA VISrA CHECKED BY: This page Blank Lf- /y-y- RESOLUTION NO. / 1ft, ( . A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT, LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES L.P. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Special Use Permit was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on December 16. 1994 by Josef A. and Lenore S. Citron, now doing business as Broadway Village Business Homes L.P. ("Developer"); and WHEREAS, said application requests permission to establish a 36 unit commercial/residential mixed-use project with shared parking at 760 Broadway within the C- C-P zone; and WHEREAS. a mixed use project can be developed within a C-C-P zone with a Conditional Use Permit or a Special Use Permit if it is within a redevelopment area; and WHEREAS. the project site lies within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 1995, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Resolution PCZ-95- A/PCC-95-23, and WHEREAS. a public forum was noticed and held on June 1, 1995 to inform surrounding residents and property owners of the proposal and to receive their input prior to the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-95- 03 and Addendum of potential environmental impacts associated with the project and has concluded that there will be no significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and related documents issued on IS-95-03; and ~ WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said 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 WHEREAS. the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. July 11, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue. before the Redevelopment Agency/City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. WHEREAS, based on the findings and recommendations of the Environmental Review Coordinator, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and related documents issued on IS-95-03; i-tfS Resolution xxxx Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: I. Incorporation of Adoption of Mitiqated Neqative Declaration and Addendum. The Redevelopment Agency does hereby adopt and incorporate herein Resolution No. / ~6D of the Agency adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and related documents for the project (lS-95-03). II. Soecial Use Permit Findinqs. That the Redevelopment Agency makes the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of the Special Use Permit, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made. 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 establishment of a 36 unit commercial/residential mixed-use project will provide an innovative and unique development concept whereby residents may live and work at the same location. and the project and improvements will enhance what is an otherwise vacant and unused property, and will encourage the redevelopment as well as improvement of surrounding properties. B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case. be detrimental the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal as conditioned includes measures to avoid potential on and off site conflicts to ensure the highest level of compatibility between the commercial and residential components of the project, including the most integral and important component of the proposal which is that the operator of the commercial component of each unit shall also be the occupant of the residential component of that same unit. The site plan and building design will contribute significantly to the improvement of the site and surrounding areas. C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Municipal Code for such use. Compliance with all applicable conditions, codes and regulations shall be required prior to issuance of development permits and on a continuing basis thereafter. D. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The approval of this project as conditioned is consistent with City policies and the Chula Vista General Plan, the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and Implementation Plan. t/ -I Lj-Io Resolution xxxx Page 3 III. Conditional Grant of Permit: Conditions. The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants a Special Use Permit to Josef A. and Lenore S. Citron, doing business as Broadway Village Business Homes L.P. for the Broadway Business Home Project subject to the following conditions, whereby: 1. The operator of the commercial component of each unit shall also be the occupant of the residential component of that same unit. and this requirement shall be reflected in the deed restrictions and/or CC&R's for each of the lots/units. 2. Prior to the issuance of any zoning permit for the property, documentary evidence satisfactory to the City Zoning Administrator shall be submitted demonstrating that the operator of the commercial component is the occupant of the residential component of the same unit. 3. The commercial hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, and these shall be reflected in the deed restrictions and/or CC&R's for each of the lots/units. 4. The land uses listed in attached Exhibit A shall not be permitted, and these shall be reflected in the deed restrictions and/or CC&R's for each of the lots/units. 5. The project shall comply with all the requirements of the Chula Vista Uniform Fire and Building Codes to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Director of Building and Housing respectively. 6. Commercial activities and operations, including storage of merchandise and pick- up and delivery of goods, shall be limited to the area designated for commercial use and shall not occur in the residential units. 7. Garages shall remain open and available for parking and shall not be not be utilized for commercial storage. 8. A minimum 6 ft. high masonry wall shall be established along the west property line. However, the wall height may be increased to a maximum of 10ft. providing the Design Review Committee. after receiving input from the westerly adjacent residents, determines that the additional height is necessary to preserve their privacy and buffer the residences from the activities associated with the proposed project. 9. All windows facing east on the four frontage units shall incorporate dual pane windows rated a minimum of STC-25. 10. A mechanical ventilation system capable of 2 air exchanges per hour shall be incorporated into all of the living units. 11. The operator/occupants of the units shall not park in the commercial parking lots. t-f ~/t{7 Resolution xxxx Page 4 12. If necessary, the project proponent shall provide the City with an easement over the project's parking, pedestrian walks and alley ways for traffic and parking enforcement purposes. 13. A copy of the deed restrictions and/or CC&R's shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Zoning Administrator prior to the recordation of the lots/units and prior to the issuance of building/construction permits. IV. Additional Terms and Provisions of Grant. A. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health. safety or welfare which City/Agency shall impose after advance written notice to the permittee and after the Cit/Agency has given to the permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City/Agency. in exercising this reserved right/condition. may not impose a substantial expense or deprive the Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot. in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. B. This Special Use Permit shall be 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 and property deed restriction shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City/Agency for additional conditions or revocation. V. Findings re Relation of Exaction to Impact of Project The Redevelopment Agency has individually and independently reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the applicant contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate an impact caused by the project and are reasonably related to the project and the extent and degree of exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by said project. VI. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant. Presented by Approved as to form by ~ c;:~ ~- uce- Boog ard .. ~ Agency Counsel Chris Salomone Community Development Director (M:\shered\attorneyIBUSHOM.C.RES) Lf~ lL}f - Broadway HomelBusiness CommerciallResidential Mixed Use Project 760 Broadway PCC-95-23 "",, LAND USES NOT PERMITTED Automobile repairs (major and Minor) Automobile stereo installation Animal hospitals Appliance repair (Major) Automobile rental Tire dealers Towing service Beer bars Drive-in restaurants Seating or take-out restaurants Night clubs Restaurantlbars Trailer rentals / 1-/11 .c"y- ~ This rage Blank tf - ! 50 ~~~/77~5 ~/~~2- RESOLUTION JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT AND A DISPOSITIONAND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH BROADWAY VillAGE BUSINESS HOMES L.P. AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAME WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California, "Agency" herein, is charged with the elimination of blighting influences in the City; and. WHEREAS, in conjunction with its responsibility to eliminate blight, the Agency has formed the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. consisting of various non-contiguous project locations, one of which includes a certain designated area described as follows: A rectangular area of approximately 2.5 acres bounded on the north by the commercial land use known as Courtney Tires, on the east by Broadway, on the south by Moana Court Motel. and on the west by residential development, said parcel commonly known as 760 Broadway which is diagrammatically designated in Exhibit A ("Property"). attached hereto; and WHEREAS, on or about November 15. 1994, the Agency had become seriously concerned about the blighting influences located in and around said Property due to the relocation of Fuller Ford from this site; and WHEREAS, Joelen Enterprises. now doing business as Broadway Village Business Homes L.P. ("Developer") has submitted a proposal for the redevelopment of the Property through the construction of a mixed use development known as the Broadway Business Homes Project ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Agency approved an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Developer by Resolution 1412 on July 19, 1994 to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement embodying the terms of sale of the Property and development for the Project; and WHEREAS, a Precise Plan has been prepared for development of the Project which has been reviewed by the Design Review Committee and conditionally recommended for approval by the Agency; and WHEREAS, a Disposition and Development Agreement has been prepared which proposes the conditioned sale of the Property to the Developer; and WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 33431 permits an Agency to lease or sell property without public bidding after a duly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33433, before any property of the Agency acquired in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, with tax increment monies is sold or leased for development pursuant to the redevelopment plan, the sale or lease ;j-/Sl Resolution XXX X shall first be approved by the City Council after public hearing, duly called noticed and held in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Agency has caused to be prepared, and has made available to the public for public inspection and copy, the report containing the requirements of Section 33433, which report was entitled, "Health and Safety Code Section 33433 Report: Sale of Redevelopment Agency Property at 760 Broadway to Joelen Enterprises for development of the Broadway Business Homes Project". which by reference thereto is incorporated herein and maintained on file in the office of the City Clerk; and; WHEREAS, the 33431 and 33433 hearing was duly noticed in accordance with State law, and at said public hearing, pursuant to the requirements of Health and Safety Code Sections 33431 and 33433, the City and the Agency were called upon to approve the DDA involving the sale of property owned by the Agency; and. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency have considered all of the evidence submitted at the hearing including the staff report which is incorporated by reference, and the report on file in the Office of the Executive Director and the City Clerk prepared and filed pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33433; and WHEREAS, the Agency has made the determination that the Project will eliminate blight in and around the Property and is in the best interest of the public and conforms to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Implementation Plan approved pursuant to Health and Safety Section 33450; and. WHEREAS, the City Council has made the determination that the proposed consideration for the Property is not less than the fair reuse value at the use and with the covenants and conditions and development costs authorized under the sale; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS. 95-03, with Addendum of possible environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on the Initial Study, Addendum and comments thereon, the City Council and Agency concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and, adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and related documents issued on IS-95-03. NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA do hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: 1. City Council Resolution No.lJJ!i/and Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. /t/~O adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and related documents issued on 15-95- 03 are hereby incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The Health and Safety Code Section 33433 Report was duly prepared and made available for public review in accordance with State law. 3. The 33431 and 33433 public hearings at or after which this resolution was adopted were duly noticed as to time and place in a newspaper of general circulation in the community for at least two successive weeks prior to the hearings, such public hearings were duly held, and any and all protests to the proposed sale and project were made and duly considered at J-/-15"2- Resolution XXXX such public hearings. 4. The Agency hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the community and the Agency and for the elimination of blight that the subject Property be sold to Developer without public bid. 5. The City Council hereby determines that the consideration for the Property is not less than fair reuse value at the use and with the covenants and conditions and development costs authorized by the sale; the sale for such consideration is necessary to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan; and the sale is therefore approved. 6. The Agency hereby determines that the proposed redevelopment of the site will assist in the elimination of blight within the Southwest Project Area. 7. The Precise Plan for the Broadway Business Homes Project is hereby approved in substantially the form presented subject to the conditions attached hereto as Attachment A. 8. The Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and Developer dated for the purposes of reference as of July 11. 1995 for the sale and development of the Property into the Project is hereby approved in substantially the form as presented, with such additions and clarifications as may be required by the City Attorney, in the City/Agency's interest. and the Chairman is hereby authorized to execute same. and the Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to implement all of its terms and conditions. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: rL~ Chris Salomone Community Development Director c-? M:ISHAREDlA ITORNEYIBUSHOM. E.RES 1- ! 53 EXHIBIT A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Approval of this project shall be contingent upon approval of Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-23 and Rezone PCZ-95-A. B. All mitigation measures of Mitigated Negative Declaration 18-95-03 and Addendum shall be adhered to and shall become conditions of approval. C. Landscape and irrigation plans addressing a parking screening solution shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to or in conjunction with the building permit submittal package. D. The parallel tandem parking featured on all two story corner units shall be replaced with a standard size stall within each of the planters featured at the northwest and southwest corners of the parcel. E. A parking screening solution consisting of a screening wall, closely arranged groups of planting material or a combination of these two shall be provided along the street frontage wherever parking is exposed to the public right of way. F. Deleted. G. An 18" concrete curb/step out strip shall be installed on all planting strips adjacent to parking stalls. H. A 5 foot high masonry wall shall be maintained along the west property line. However, the wall height may be increased up to 10 feet subject to staff approval of final design and materials. I. All windows facing east on the four frontage units shall incorporate dual pane windows rated a minimum of 8TC-25. J. All units shall feature a mechanical ventilation system capable of 2 air exchanges per hour. K. All pedestrian walks within the commercial components and connections to the residential area shall be decorative type. Paving pattern, design and color shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. L. A comprehensive planned sign program shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for consideration and approval. M. Trash enclosures for two 30 gallon cans shall be provided for each unit. N. All garage doors shall be equipped with automatic garage door openers. 1- 1St O. Additional trees shall be incorporated within the parking lots subject to staff review and approval. P. A detailed construction phasing plan showing adequate emergency vehicle access, sufficient parking to support the commercial retail operations, internal circulation landscaping and all the amenities for that portion of the project shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of any building permit. Q. Freestanding signs shall be of a transparent material and relocated to the landscape area between the two driveways of each of the commercial parking lots. R. Trellis structures shall be retained as shown in the conceptual design drawings. [M:IHOMEICOMMDEVIKASSMANIEXHIBIT.A] 1- - J 55 This page Blank ;f - 150 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item .d..f Meeting Date 7/11/95 ITEM TITLE: REVIEWED BY: Resolution Waiving the consultant selection process and authorizing the Executive Director to execute a two-party agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Woodward-Clyde Consultants for Soil Testing and Remediation Consulting Services at 760 Broadway and appropriating funds therefor Community Development Di(;~tor {, <; , Executive Directo~ bt,1--li;;j!1 U -/ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X) Council Referral Number: SUBMITTED BY: BACKGROUND: At its meeting of June 20, 1995, the Redevelopment Agency approved Resolution 1454 awarding a contract for demolition of the pavement and structures at the Agency-owned property located at 760 Broadway. This approval was based on information from a limited pre-demolition subsurface soils investigation conducted on the site. Demolition of the site will necessitate removal of contaminated soils. The demolition contractor is certified, and has agreed to excavate and stockpile the contaminated soils as a part of their original bid. However, it is necessary to have a qualified hazardous materials consultant present during demolition to identify the soils to be excavated and to test both the excavated soils and the soils remaining in place to ensure that all contaminated soils are removed prior to backfilling and grading of the site. A bid to perform the testing work in the most expeditious and cost efficient manner has been prepared and submitted to the City by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, the same firm that conducted the pre-demolition soil testing. Detail on the scope of work and costs for soil testing services is provided in this report. RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency approve the resolution waiving the consultant selection process and authorizing the Executive Director to execute two-party agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Woodward-Clyde Consultants, and appropriating funds therefor BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable. DISCUSSION: Pre-demolition soil testing for the site revealed soil contamination beneath the pavement in 10 of the 30 locations tested. The materials encountered were non-hazardous petroleum hydrocarbons, and therefore are not regulated as hazardous wastes under the State Health and Safety Code and do not require cleanup oversight by regulatory agencies. However, proper removal and disposal of the materials is necessary to avoid a threat to public health tf;//51 Page 2, Item Meeting Date 07/11/95 and safety. such as exposure of the material to surface or groundwater, which could trigger regulatory enforcement. To ensure proper removal and disposal, the City requires the services of a qualified consultant who is trained to identify and test potentially contaminated soils as demolition of the site occurs. This is especially important since it is possible that more significant contamination may exist on the site than was identified in the pre-demolition testi ng. Woodward-Clyde was selected to submit a bid based on their extensive knowledge of the site obtained through conducting the pre-demolition soil testing and through their previous research, site surveys and formulation of alternative strategies to deal with potential contamination on the site. Based on their experience and on the extreme time constraints associated with the developer's needs making competitive bidding impractical, Woodward- Clyde has been selected without formal or competitive bidding. Woodward-Clyde has demonstrated their qualifications to the City through previous work on this and other projects. FISCAL IMPACT: The value of services to be provided by Woodward-Clyde is a fixed fee of $20,297 for the first phase of the contract which involves testing and assisting in removal of contaminated soils. Costs for subsequent disposal of contaminated soils (estimated to range between $14,000 and $ 21 ,000) have been included in the second phase ofthis scope of work but will not be commenced until the quantities of contaminated soils are known. It is currently proposed that all contaminated soils be stockpiled on the northwest corner of the site until a firm cost estimate can be made based on known quantities and that cost reported to the Agency prior to initiation of that second phase of work. Based on preliminary estimates of soil quantities, total costs to remove all contamination, assuming no significant new areas of contamination are encountered during demolition, are between $34,000 and $41.000 ($20,297 + $14,000 to $21,000). Previous expenditures by the agency for pre-demolition testing total $17,100. Execution of the subject agreement will result in a cumulative expenditure of $38,297 ($20,297 + $17,100) in consulting fees related to site contamination. Ultimate remediation will add between $14,000 and $21,000 to this total. The developer has agreed to pay up to $20,000 in costs to remediate soil contamination as follows: the first $10,000 of remediation costs would be paid by the developer on an ongoing basis as invoices are received from the consultant; the next $10,000 would be paid by the Agency from monies appropriated through the recommended action from the Southwest Project Area Professional Services Account. After that, any additional costs would be equally split between the developer and the Agency up to an additional $20,000. The Agency's share of that amount would also be paid from the professional services account which would be reimbursed for all expenditures related to this site from proceeds from the sale of the property. IBB\C:\WP51 \AGENCY\RA4S\FULLER-W.RA4J IJM\DIS K\FULLER-2. RA4 J q /' 15~ RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS. AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS FOR SOIL TESTING AND REMEDIATION CONSULTING SERVICESA T 760 BROADWAY, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, during the approximately forty years of operation of the Fuller Ford facility at 760 Broadway, hazardous and non-hazardous hydrocarbon compounds and were known to be used on the site; and, WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, being the current owner of the site, approved Resolution 1454 authorizing demolition of existing buildings on the site to accommodate a currently proposed redevelopment project for the site; and, WHEREAS, Pre-demolition soil testing of the site has indicated the presence of contaminants in the soil that require remediation concurrent with demolition of the site; and, WHEREAS, Woodward-Clyde was selected as the Consultant for the demolition monitoring and remediation work without public bidding because of past experience with and special knowledge of the project and the need to complete the work expeditiously to meet the Developer's timeline; and, WHEREAS, the selected Consultant warrants and represents thatthey are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement on file in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency known as Document RACO-95-11. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: 1. The consultant selection process for procurement of services identified in the subject Agreement is waived for the reasons set forth above which are incorporated herein by this reference 2. The Executive Director is authorized to execute the Two-Party Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Woodward-Clyde Consultants for Soil Testing and Remediation Consulting Services at 760 Broadway. 3. Funds in the amount of $20.000 from the Southwest Project Area Professional Services Account #985-9850-5201 are hereby appropriated. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: CL~~ ~<J;< ce 00 rd " Ag,"'y AUom" Chris Salomone Community Development Director ISSIMiscdisk#3IFUL-REMO. RES] t-f--J59 This page Blank Lf ~/bO ~ ~16 Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Woodward-Clyde Consultants for Soil Testing and Remediation Consulting Services at 760 Broadway This agreement ("Agreement"), dated July 11, 1995 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 (" Consul tant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals Whereas, during the approximately forty years of operation of the Fuller Ford facility at 760 Broadway, hazardous and non- hazardous hydrocarbon compounds and were known to be used on the site; and, Whereas, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, being the current owner of the site, approved Resolution 1454 authorizing demolition of existing buildings on the site to accommodate a currently proposed redevelopment project for the site; and, Whereas, pre-demolition soil testing of the site has indicated the presence of contaminants in the soil that require remediation concurrent with demolition of the site; and, Whereas, a single bid to perform the testing has been solicited by the City in accordance with City purchasing procedures as the only practicable method of achieving completion of testing within the timeframe required by the developer; and, Whereas, the selected Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; 2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision) November 2, 1993 Page 1 ~ - I~D A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. 2pty9,wp November 2, Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision) 1993 Page 2 '-t - ItdJl3 E, Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categor- ies, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public (Severability of Interest). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. (1) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. 2pty9.wp November 2, Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision) 1993 Page 3 J-/ - / &0 L (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Severability of Interest Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a certificate of insurance to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager, H. Securitv for Performance, (I) Performance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. 2pty9.wp November 2, Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision) 1993 Page 4 1 - /IoD b I. Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2., Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement, In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. B, Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consult- ant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 2pty9,wp November 2, Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision) 1993 Page 5 tf - IIoDE 4. Term. This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14, It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages 'resulting from delay in per- formance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate") . Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. 2pty9.wp November 2, Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision) 1993 Page 6 Jj- ~ /Ioor B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C, Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement, D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests, Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. 2pty9 . wp November 2, Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision) 1993 Page 7 t-f - lid) &- Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) to the extent arising out of the negligent errors, omissions, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except for those claims arising from the negligence or willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees, Consult- ants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other 2pty9.wp November 2, Standard Form Two Party Agreement 1993 (Fourth Revision) Page 8 4-~6~ materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach, 9, Errors and Omissions In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any reasonable expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property, If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". 2pty9.wp November 2, Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision) 1993 Page 9 4-IIdJT 12, O~TIership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be. subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish,disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement, 13. Independent Contractor City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products, Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 2pty9.wp November 2, Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision) 1993 Page 10 4 -liooJ 15. Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the defense of the claim, including costs and attorney's fees. 16, Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document, 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consult- ant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject 2pty9,wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision) November 2, 1993 Page 11 ;{ - / to6 K matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or.discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought, E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement, F. Governing Law/Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. 2pty9.wp November 2, Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revision) 1993 Page 12 ;-/ _ I&Q L '~';'JUL -10-95 MON 16 :55 6195855612 CITY OF CHULA VISTA FAX NO. 6195855612 P.14 I i:. ~ i:.$.: ,,-,'." Signature Page to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Woodward-Clyde Consultants for Soil Testing Services at 760 Broadway IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: , 1995 City of Chula Vista by: Shirley Horton, Mayor/Chair Approved as to form: '".- h '4 Dated: 7111/,< By: .; ,f';.',::;,.< ~"',~. ,~;~~j:," Exhibit List to Agreement ) Exhibit A, 2pty9.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Fourth Revi~ion) November 2, 1993 Page 13 ;J ~ I(PDM Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1. Effective Date of Agreement: 2. City-Related Entity: () City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California (Xl Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California (l Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a () Other: , a ("City" 1 3. Place of Business for City: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: Woodward-Clyde Consultants 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (X) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: Sunroad Plaza 3, Suite 1000 1615 Murray Canyon Road San Diego, California 92108 Voice Phone (619) 294-9400 Fax Phone (619) 293-7920 2PTY9-A.wp November 2, 1993 Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement Page 14 ;j~/&DN 7. General Duties: Consultant shall perform soil testing and analysis services pursuant to ultimate disposition of all contaminated soils found on the site, as revealed through the demolition of structures and pavement on the site. If City so advises Consultant in writing, Consultant shall take all necessary actions, as prescribed in Item 8. A. to supervise removal and disposal of contaminated soils. 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope of Work: Consultant shall perform the following tasks: Update site-specific health and safety plan in accordance with all OSHA requirements Coordinate and mobilize all personnel and subcontractors for performance of work within the timeframes of site demolition and coordinate with the site demolition contractor to integrate testing and excavation with site demolition activities Consultant shall maintain a field observer on site during removal of hydraulic hoists, floor drains and surface demolition in the vicinities of the above- ground storage tanks and compressor area. During this phase of work, Consultant shall identify all soils to be excavated by the demolition contractor (as identified by staining and odor) and shall collect soil samples after excavation to verify that all contaminated soils have been removed. Consultant shall monitor and report to City on an ongoing basis the likely cost of disposal of contaminated soils on the site. Consultant shall immediately notify the City in writing if at any time during performance of the scope of services, it determines that the cost for disposal of contaminated soils is likely to exceed $20,000. Testing of soil samples shall be performed by Consultant on site using a mobile lab unit. Testing shall occur over a five day period and shall employ EPA method 418.1 to analyze for Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH). For any samples that exceed laboratory detection limits (lOmg/kg), Consultant shall identify all additional excavation required in the area 2PTY9-A.wp November 2, 1993 Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement Page 15 r/ ,- /bD D where the sample was taken. This scope of services covers laboratory analysis for TRPH of a total of one hundred forty (140) soil samples using the mobile lab, and for aromatic volatile organic compounds (VOC) by EPA Methods 8010/8020 of up to ten (10) samples using an offsite lab. Consultant shall conduct additional off site laboratory analyses of three (3) soil samples to characterize stockpiled soils following excavation, These analyses shall include screening for Title 22 metals, total organic halogens (TOX) by EPA method 9020, TRPH and BTEX by EPA method 8020. consultant shall provide a written report of findings at the conclusion of all testing work and shall include an estimate of the quantity of stockpiled contaminated soils and recommendations for ultimate disposal. Consultant shall provide in their report representations as to the accuracy of the data presented and to the conclusion that, upon completion of the scope of work defined in this Agreement, the site will be free of known contamination, with the exception of stockpiled material, based on Consultant's best professional judgement. These representations shall also be made assignable to Broadway Village Business Homes, L.P., the potential purchaser of the property. Upon completion of all testing and stockpiling of contaminated soils, Consultant shall provide a written estimate of contaminated soil volume. If City advises Consultant to do so, upon receiving written direction from the City, Consultant shall dispose of stockpiled contaminated soils from the site to a City approved facility. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that City is under no obligation to engage Consultant for the disposal work and City reserves the right, in its sole discretion: (1) not to have such work completed at all, or (2) to hire an alternate contractor to perform such work at a lesser cost, City shall sign all manifests of contaminated soil. Consultant shall not be considered to be generator or owner of the material and City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant against all claims predicated upon such ownership. 2PTY9-A.wp November 2, 1993 Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement Page 16 1/ -/0Df J B, Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement ( ) Other: C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No.1: Testing and stockpiling of soils from 100% of the suspected areas of contamination and delivery of a written report of findings within 30 days after completion of all testing. Deliverable No, 2: Removal of all stockpiled contaminated soils and transport to an acceptable disposal facility D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: 9. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (X) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. (X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. () Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General Liability coverage) . (X) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage) . 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: Phase I Site Assessment Site demolition bid specifications 11. Compensation: A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set forth below: Single Fixed Fee Amount: 2PTY9-A.wp November 2, 1993 Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement Page 17 H.ltDQ B. (X) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by Consultant as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth . Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase, Each Phase is a distinct severable component of this Agreement Phase Fee for Said Phase 1. Completion of all testing and stockpiling of all contaminated soils on the site $20,297 2. Removal of all stockpiled contaminated soils $63/ton of California- defined non-hazardous contaminated material C. () Hourly Rate Arrangement For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule hereinbelow according to the following terms and conditions: (1) () Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein required of Consultant for $ including all Materials, and other "reimbursables" ("Maximum Compensation") . (2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement 2PTY9-A.wp November 2, 1993 Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement Page 18 4 ~ I (pD R At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense. Rate Schedule Category of Employee of Consultant Name Hourly Rate Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after [month], 19 ,if delay in providing services is caused by City. 11. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: () None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate Reports, not to exceed $ Copies, not to exceed $ Travel, not to exceed $ Printing, not to exceed $ Postage, not to exceed $ Delivery, not to exceed $ Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed $ Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: , not to exceed $ , not to exceed $ 2PTY9-A.wp November 2, 1993 Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement Page 19 q _ { IoD S 12. Contract Administrators: City: Joe Monaco, Environmental Projects Manager Consultant: Mike Snyder, Vice President 13, Liquidated Damages Rate: $ per day, Other: 14. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) FPPC Filer Category No.1. Investments and sources of income. Category No.2. Interests in real property. Category No, property and regulatory, department. 3. Investments, interest in real sources of income subject to the permit or licensing authority of the Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Category NO.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Category NO.7. Business positions. 2PTY9-A.wp November 2, 1993 Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement Page 20 ..-.-- ;1-/ft,()! I ( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within. 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 15. ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 16, Permitted Subconsultants: Analytical Technologies, Inc. 17. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: (X) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( ) Other: B, Billing: Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's (X) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month ( ) End of the Month ( ) Other: C. City's Account Number: 18. Security for Performance Performance Bond, $ Letter of Credit, $ Other Security: Type: Amount: $ Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or 2PTY9-A.wp November 2, 1993 Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement Page 21 H _I(PO ~ "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: ( ) Retention Percentage: % ( ) Retention Amount: $ Retention Release Event: ( ) Completion of All Consultant Services ( ) Other: 2PTY9-A.wp November 2, 1993 Exhibit A to Standard Form Agreement Page 22 4_ILot)V DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT by and between REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA and BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES. L.P. THIS SECOND DRAFT VERSION OF THE DDA IS BEING DELIVERED SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW BY AGENCY COUNSEL. Ater negotiations this week, this document was received early Friday afternoon from the developer's attorney. It is currently contemplated that the final document, with Agency Counsel's summary/analysis, will be presented at the July 11 meeting, or sooner, if possible. J-j-I/t;/ This page Blank q - /10 r DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1f" by and between REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AGENCY, and BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P" DEVELOPER July _, 1995 4 - /~3 This page Blank 4 ~/!of , DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of , 1995, by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (the "Aqency") and BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P., a California limited partnership (the "Developer"). The Agency and the Developer agree as follows: RECITALS A. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("Ci tv") has established the Agency and has approved and adopted a redevelopment plan for a redevelopment project known as the Southwest Redevelopment Project by its adoption of Ordinance No, 2720 on November 27, 1990, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 33000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code ("California Communi tv Redevelopment Law"). B, The Agency is undertaking a program, in the interest of health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City pursuant to its authority under the California Community Redevelopment Law, for the redevelopment, replanning and redesign of blighted areas within the Southwest Redevelopment Project area which are characterized by stagnant, improperly utilized and unproductive land which requires redevelopment. C. The Agency is desirous of carrying out the redevelopment plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project area by providing for the development of certain real property within the project area more particularly described in Section 1.4 of this Agreement ("Site"). The Site is comprised of approximately gross acres of land located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project area and within the City. The Site is currently owned by the Agency. D. In furtherance of the Agency's program to provide for the development of the Site, the Agency entered into a Exclusive Negotiation Agreement pertaining to the Site by and between the Agency and Developer. The Exclusive Negotiation Agreement became effective as of E. The Agency has determined that the provisions of this Agreement will make feasible the redevelopment of the Site by the Developer in accordance with the purposes set forth in the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement and that such development will stimulate development of the remainder of the Southwest Redevelopment Project area and is in the best interests of the taxpayers and residents of the City and will otherwise promote the public health, safety and general welfare of City residents and is in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\OispAgr2. 060 ~ q-/!oS F. This Agreement is being processed concurrently with a Rezone, Special Use Permit, Precise Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration to develop the project proposed by Developer. G. The Agency finds that the implementation of this Agreement will assist in the elimination of blight, is consistent with the implementation of the redevelopment plan, and the consideration is not less than the fair reuse value at the use and with the covenants and conditions and development costs authorized by the sale described in this Agreement. 1. SUBJECT OF AGREEMENT 1.1 Purpose of the Aqreement The purpose of this Agreement is to assist effectuation the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project area in the City of Chula Vista by providing for the disposition and development of the hereinafter defined Site. The development of the Site pursuant to this Agreement, and the fulfillment generally of this Agreement, are in the vital and best interests of the City of Chula Vista and the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable federal, state, and local laws and requirements. 1.2 The Redevelopment Plan This Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project area (which was approved and adopted on November 27, 1990 by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista by Ordinance No, 2720 (the "Redevelopment Plan"). The Redevelopment Plan is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein. Any amendments hereafter to the Redevelopment Plan (as so approved and adopted) which change the uses or development permitted on the Site as proposed in this Agreement, or otherwise change the restrictions or controls that apply to the Site, and which materially and adversely affect Developer's ability to develop the Site as contemplated by this Agreement, shall require the written consent of the Developer. Amendments to the Redevelopment Plan which do not materially or adversely affect Developer's ability to develop the Site as contemplated by this Agreement and/or which apply to other property in the Southwest Redevelopment Project area shall not require the consent of the Developer. 1.3 The Redevelopment proiect Area The Southwest Redevelopment Project area is located in the Ci ty of Chula Vista, California (the lOCi tv"). The exact boundaries p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\OispAgr2.060 ~ L-/- - I ~io of the Redevelopment Project area are specifically and legally described in the Redevelopment Plan for such Redevelopment Project, 1.4 The Site The "Site" includes that portion of the Southwest Redevelopment Project area located at 760 Broadway, illustrated and designated on the "Site Map" which is incorporated herein and attached to this Agreement as Attachment No. 1 and as more precisely described in the "Legal Description" which is incorporated herein and attached hereto as Attachment No. 1.A, 1.5 Parties to the Aqreement (a) The Aqencv. The "Aqencv" is a public bOdy, corporate and politic, exercising governmental functions and powers, and organized and existing under Chapter 2 of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. The principal office of the Agency is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910, IIAqencv" Redevelopment Agency of any assignee of or responsibilities. as used the City successor in this Agreement includes of Chula Vista, California, to its rights, powers the and and (b) Developer. The "Developer" is Broadway Village Business Homes, L,P" a California limited partnership, whose general partner is Citron Realty Management Corporation, a California Corporation. Wherever the term "Developer" is used herein, such term shall include any permitted nominee, assignee or successor in interest as herein provided. 2. ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF THE SITE 2.1 Sale and Purchase In accordance with and subject to all the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement (including without limitation the Developer's right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 6.6.1 of this Agreement), the Agency agrees to sell to the Developer and the Developer agrees to purchase each Parcel as shown on the Site Map (Attachment No.1) and more precisely described in the Legal Description (Attachment No. 1A). The Developer shall pay to the Agency as the purchase price for the Site Five Hundred Fifty Dollars ($550,000.00). Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33433, the Agency has determined that, given the nature of the proposed development of the Site and the terms and conditions imposed by this Agreement, p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2. 060 --y;. i/--/~7 the purchase price is equal to or greater than the "reuse value" of the Site. If the Site is acquired in phases as provided in Section 2,3 of this Agreement, Developer shall pay a pro rata portion of the Purchase Price for each such phase upon close of escrow for each such phase based upon the pro rata share of square feet being acquired relative to the total square footage of the Site. 2,2 Ad;ustment of Purchase Price Agency desires to be reimbursed by Developer for Agency's actual costs of demolition and pre-demolition hazardous materials testing for the Site, not to exceed One Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand Dollars ($124,000.00) ["Reimbursement Amount"]. Developer is willing to agree to a plan of reimbursement of up to, but not to exceed, the Reimbursement Amount, provided Developer achieves the level of profitability described in this paragraph. Both Agency and Developer acknowledge and agree that depending upon the circumstances, which neither party can control or guarantee, there can be no assurance that all or a portion of the Reimbursement Amount will be payable to Agency. In complete payment of the Reimbursement Amount, and with the understanding that the Reimbursement Amount shall not be payable from any other sources whatsoever, Developer shall pay Agency thirty percent (30%) of the difference between the" Adjusted Cost" and the "Net Sales Proceeds" of Phase 2 and Phase 3, as calculated at the completion of sales in Phase 3. "Ad;usted Cost" shall mean the any and all costs incurred incident to the acquisition, development, marketing and sale of Business Home upon the Site, including, without limitation, all costs associated with: (i) the acquisition of the Site; (ii) bank interest and fees, carrying costs, costs of raising all necessary funds, investors' twenty percent (20%) per annum return on capital (including all limited and general partners); (iii) labor; (iv) materials; (v) all on-site costs of labor, including office staff, materials, including site office rental and supplies, services including telephone and utili ties, rentals including machinery and equipment; (vi) all utility, fees; City processing fees, charges, deposits and all school, park impact fees, connection or capacity (vii) developer's fees (ten percent (10%) of construction costs) ; p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.D6D ~ 1- l!Pi (viii) consultants' fees, including appraisers, engineers, architects, system designers, testing and inspections; and (ix) any and all other miscellaneous costs including sales, advertising and promotion costs, models, legal and accounting costs. "Net Sales Proceeds" shall mean the gross sales price of Business Homes units sold in Phase 2 and Phase 3, less closing costs. Upon Developer's receipt of the Certificate of Completion for Phase 3, Agency and Developer shall jointly calculate any amounts owed by Developer to Agency pursuant to this Section 2.2. 2.3 Phasinq of the Acquisition Developer shall have the right but not the obligation to acquire the Site in Phases as set forth herein. Completion of the acquisition of any Phase(s) shall not obligate the Developer to acquire any subsequent phase(s), Upon satisfaction of the conditions to close set forth below, Developer may purchase the Site in a maximum of three (3) phases as follows: (a) The Phase 1 acquisition shall consist of that portion of the Site comprised of approximately 17,300 square feet and generally shown as "Parcel 1" on the "Convevance Map" attached hereto as Attachment 2 and incorporated herein by this reference. Parcel 1 shall be used for the construction of six (6) model Business Homes and other required Phase 1 improvements for purposes of test marketing and modification of the design of the buildings. The Phase 1 acquisition shall be completed within four (4) months after execution of this Agreement. (b) The Phase 2 acquisition shall consist of that portion of the Site generally shown on the Conveyance Map as "Parcel 2." Parcel 2 shall consist of approximately 1.26 acres less Parcel 1. Parcel 2 shall be used for the construction of twelve (12) Business Homes and other required Phase 2 improvements. In the event Developer elects to acquire Parcel 2, the Phase 2 acquisi tion shall be completed wi thin ten (10) months of the execution of this Agreement. (c) The Phase 3 acquisition shall consist of the remainder of the Site comprised of approximately 1.27 acres and shown on the Conveyance Map as "Parcel 3". Parcel 3 shall be used for construction of the remaining eighteen (18) Business Homes and other required Phase 3 improvements. In the event Developer elects to acquire Parcel 3, the Phase 3 acquisition shall be completed within twenty (20) months of the execution of this Agreement, p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2. 060 ~ 4-(10 9 (d) Before the conveyance of title to each Parcel, the Executive Director of Agency and Developer shall meet and develop a schedule for construction for the improvements on such Parcel, The Developer shall begin and complete all construction and development within the times specified in the schedule with such extensions of said dates as may be granted by the Executive Director of the Agency in their sole discretion. The schedule is subject to Section 7.4 of this Agreement and is subject to revision from time to time as mutually agreed upon in writing between the Developer and the Executive Director of Agency, each exercising their sole discretion. 2.4 Conditions to Developer's Riqht to Acquire Site. Developer's right to acquire any portion of the Site shall be contingent upon the following: (a) Approved Financinq. Developer must present to the Agency staff evidence of acceptable financing for the Phase to be acquired. Acceptable financing entails: ( 1) a lender of excellent reputation which is reasonably acceptable to the Agency; (ii) who validly commits in writing on specified objective terms and conditions reasonably approved by Agency to finance the construction of the Phase improvements pursuant to a disbursement schedule which is reasonably acceptable to the Agency; (iii) who agrees that loan proceeds will only be used for costs associated with the Project pursuant to this Agreement; (iv) whose documentation permits the acquisition, without discount or recourse, of the loan by the Agency (or its assignee) in the event this Agreement is terminated as a result of a Developer default and the Agency takes back the property (as described in Section 6,7 below); (v) who agrees to release any designated areas to the assessment district that will own and maintain such areas without consideration upon the conveyance of the first unit; and (vi) who agrees to enter into an agreement with the Agency concerning the Agency's right to reenter the property on the terms and conditions set forth in Section 6.7 of this Agreement; (b) Approved Marketinq Study. Developer shall present to Agency staff in writing a marketing study prepared by Developer demonstrating substantial demand for Business Homes units in the phase to be acquired, including, without limitation, a list, with names and addresses, of interested or pre-committed purchasers, which shall be. subject to reasonable approval by Agency staff; (c) Payment of Purchase Price and Closinq Costs. Developer shall pay the purchase price for such phase and Developer's share of closing costs; and (d) presale Requirement. Agency shall abide by any Phase by Phase or total Project presale requirement that may be imposed, if at all, by Developer's lender. p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2. 060 -~ 1 - / 7D (e) Reauired Enti tlements. Developer shall receive approval of all required governmental approvals governing development and/or use of the Site ("Entitlements"), including Entitlements which must be obtained from the City and other public agencies. The parties hereto expressly acknowledge and agree that the Agency cannot grant any such Entitlements or cause any other governmental agency, including the City, to grant any such Enti tlements, Accordingly, the parties hereto expressly agree that, notwithstanding approval of this Agreement, the obligations of each party hereto shall be contingent upon the receipt of all Entitlements required for the development of the Site in the manner set forth in this Agreement and the obligations of each party hereto shall only arise upon the receipt of such Entitlements. The Developer hereby releases the City and the Agency from any liability based upon the Developer's failure to obtain any such Entitlement and expressly agree that in no event shall any exercise of the City's or Agency's discretion to approve, condition or disapprove any Entitlement or other discretionary item which is a condition to the obligations of the parties of this Agreement be deemed to be a default or an act of bad faith by the City or the Agency. Developer and Agency shall cooperate to initiate and process the required Entitlements. The Entitlements include but may not be limited to the following: (1) Approval and recordation of a parcel map; (2) Formation and effective date of assessment district. In the event that all of the Entitlements are not approved within four (4) months of the effective date of this Agreement, or in the event that the City, the Agency, or any other entity shall deny any of the requested discretionary approvals or disapprove any required Entitlement or other agreement necessary for construction or use of the Site, then upon thirty (30) days written notice from either party to the other, this Agreement shall be of no force and effect and neither of the parties shall have any further obligations to any of the other parties pursuant to this Agreement. The parties understand and acknowledge that the City and Agency reserve the right to exercise their discretion as to all matters which they are, by law, entitled or required to exercise their discretion. (f) No Material Default. in material default of this Agreement, Developer shall not be p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.D60 x ~-/7' 2.5 Escrow The Agency agrees to open an escrow for conveyance of each Parcel of the Site with Chicago Title Insurance Company or such other escrow agent as may be acceptable to both the Agency and the Developer (the "Escrow Aqent") as escrow agent in a timely manner. Sections 1.4-1,5 and 2.1-2.12 inclusive of this Agreement constitute the joint escrow instructions of the Agency and the Developer, and a duplicate original of this Agreement shall be delivered to the Escrow Agent upon the opening of the escrow. The Agency and the Developer shall provide such additional escrow instructions consistent with this Agreement as shall be necessary, The Escrow Agent hereby is empowered to act under such instructions, and upon indicating its acceptance thereof in writing, delivered to the Agency and to the Developer within five (5) days after opening of the escrow, the Escrow Agent shall carry out its duties as Escrow Agent hereunder. Upon delivery of the Grant Deed for the applicable Parcel to the Escrow Agent by the Agency pursuant to Section 2.9 of this Agreement, the Escrow Agent shall record such Deed in accordance with these escrow instructions, provided that the title to the applicable Parcel can be vested in the Developer in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. The Escrow Agent shall buy, affix and cancel any transfer stamps required by law. Any insurance policies governing the applicable Parcel are not to be transferred, The Developer shall pay in escrow to the Escrow Agent the following fees, charges and costs not to exceed Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) promptly after the Escrow Agent has notified the Developer of the amount of such fees, charges and costs, but not earlier than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled date for the conveyance of the applicable Parcel: 1. The entire escrow fee; 2. The premium for the title insurance policy as set forth in Section 2,11 of this Agreement; 3. Cost of drawing the Deed; 4, Recording fees; 5. Notary fees; 6. Any State, County or City documentary stamps or transfer taxes; 7. Fifty percent (50%) of the collective amount of the fees, charges and costs excluding Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00). p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\OispAgr2. 060 r ~-/7~ To tl:1e extent that said fees, changes and costs exceed $3,000,00, then Agency shall pay the same. The Developer shall also deposit the Purchase Price for the applicable Parcel with the Escrow Agent in accordance with the provisions of Section 2,10 of this Agreement. The Agency shall pay in escrow to the Escrow Agent the following fees, charges and costs promptly after the Escrow Agent has notified the Agency of the amount of such fees, charges and costs, but not earlier than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled date for the conveyance of the applicable Parcel: 1. Costs necessary to place the title to the applicable Parcel in the condition for conveyance required by the provisions of this Agreement; 2. Ad valorem taxes, if any, upon the applicable Parcel for any time prior to the conveyance of title, The Agency shall timely and properly execute, acknowledge and deliver a Grant Deed in substantially the form established in Section 2.7 of this Agreement, conveying to the Developer title to the applicable Parcel in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.8 of this Agreement, together with an estoppel certificate certifying that the Developer has completed all acts (except deposit of the Purchase Price), necessary to entitle the Developer to such conveyance, if such be the fact. The Escrow Agent is authorized to: 1 . Pay, and charge the Agency and the Developer, respectively, for any fees, charges and costs payable under this Section 2.5 of this Agreement. Before such payments are made, the Escrow Agent shall notify the Agency and the Developer of the fees, charges and costs necessary to clear title and close the escrow, 2. Disburse funds and deliver the Deed and other documents to the parties entitled thereto when the conditions of this escrow have been fulfilled by the Agency and the Developer. The Purchase Price shall not be delivered by the Escrow Agent unless and until it has recorded the Deed to the applicable Parcel and has, delivered to the Developer a title insurance policy insuring title and conforming to the requirements of Section 2.11 of this Agreement. 3. Record any instruments delivered through this escrow if necessary or proper to vest title in the Developer in accordance wi th the terms and p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2. 060 ~ 4- -/73 provisions of the escrow instructions portion of this Agreement (Sections 1.4-1.5 and 2.1-2.12). All funds received in this escrow shall be deposited by the Escrow Agent in a general escrow account with any state or national bank doing business in the State of California and reasonably approved by the Developer and the Agency, and may be combined in such with other escrow funds of the Escrow Agent. If this escrow is not in condition to close on or before the time for conveyance established in Section 2.6 of this Agreement, either party who then shall have fully performed the acts to be performed before the conveyance of title may, in writing, demand the return of its money, papers or documents from the Escrow Agent, No demand for return shall be recognized until ten (10) days after the Escrow Agent (or the party making such demand) shall have mailed copies of such demand to the other party or parties at the address of its principal place of business. Objections, if any, shall be raised by written notice to the Escrow Agent and to the other party wi thin the ten ( 1 0) day period, in which event the Escrow Agent is authorized to hold all money, papers and documents with respect to the applicable Parcel until instructed by a mutual agreement of the parties or, upon failure thereof, by a court of competent jurisdiction, If no such demands are made, the escrow shall be closed as soon as possible. If objections are raised as above-provided for, the Escrow Agent shall not be obligated to return any such money, papers or documents except upon the written instructions of both the Agency and the Developer, or until the party entitled thereto has been determined by a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. If no such objections are made within said ten (10) day period, the Escrow Agent shall immediately return the demanded money, papers or documents. Any amendment to the escrow instructions shall be in writing and signed by both the Agency and the Developer. At the time of any amendment the Escrow Agent shall agree to carry out its duties as Escrow Agent under such amendment. All communications from the Escrow Agent to the Agency or the Developer shall be directed to the addresses and in the manner established in Section 7,1 of this Agreement for notices, demands and communications between the Agency and the Developer. 2.6 Conveyance of Title and Deliverv of Possession Subject to any mutually agreed-upon extension of time, conveyance to the Developer of ti tIe to each Parcel shall be completed on or prior to the dates set forth in Section 2.3 hereof or such later date mutually agreed to in writing by the Executive Director of the Agency and the Developer and communicated in writing to the Escrow Agent. p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispA9r2.060 -~ ~ - /7'f Except as otherwise provided herein, possession of the applicable Parcel shall be delivered to the Developer concurrent with the conveyance of title. The Developer shall accept title and possession to the applicable Parcel on or before the dates set forth above, 2.7 Form of Deed The Agency shall convey to the Developer title to the each Parcel in the condition provided in Section 2.8 of this Agreement by Grant Deed in a form to be mutually agreed upon by the Agency and the Developer consistent with this Agreement and otherwise utilizing Escrow Agent's standard form. The Grant Deed to each Parcel shall contain covenants necessary or desirable to carry out this Agreement. 2.8 Condition of Title The Agency shall convey to the Developer fee simple title to each Parcel of the Site subject only to those matters of record set forth as items , , , , and , of Schedule B of that certain Preliminary Title Report issued by Escrow Agent, dated as of , 1995. 2.9 Time for and Place for Deliverv of Deed Subject to any mutually agreed-upon extension of time, the Agency shall deposit the Grant Deed for the applicable Parcel with the Escrow Agent on or before the date established for conveyance, as set forth above. 2.10 Payment of the Purchase Price and Recordation of the Deed The Developer shall promptly deposit the Purchase Price for the applicable Parcel with the Escrow Agent upon or prior to the date for conveyance thereof, provided that Escrow Agent shall have notified the Developer in writing that the Grant Deed conveying the applicable Parcel to the Developer, properly executed and acknowledged by the Agency, has been delivered to the Escrow Agent and that title is in condition to be conveyed in conformity with the provisions of Section 2.8 of this Agreement, The Escrow Agent shall deliver the Purchase Price to the Agency immediately following the delivery to the Developer of a title insurance policy insuring title in conformity with Section 2,11 of this Agreement and the filing of the deed for recordation among the land records in the Office of the County Recorder for San Diego County. 2.11 Title Insurance Concurrently with recordation of the Grant Deed, Escrow Agency ( "Ti tIe Co.") shall issue and deliver to the Developer an ALTA extended coverage policy of title insurance insuring that the title p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 ~ .y - 115 is vested in the Developer in the condition required by Section 2.8 of this agreement. The title insurance policy shall be in the amount of the Purchase Price of the applicable Parcel or in such greater amount as the Developer may specify as hereinafter provided, Concurrent with the issuance of the title policy for the applicable Parcel, Escrow Agent shall, if requested by the Developer, provide the Developer with an endorsement to insure the amount of the Developer's estimated construction costs of the improvements to be constructed thereon. 2,12 Taxes and Assessments Ad valorem taxes and assessments, if any, on each Parcel shall be prorated in escrow as of the date of close of escrow based on a 30-day month and a 360-day year. 2.13 Condition of the Site Subject to completion of the work set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement, the Site, each Parcel, and all improvements thereon shall be conveyed in an "as is" condition, with no warranty, express or implied by the Agency as to the physical condition (including the existence of hazardous materials) , value, development, use, marketability, feasibility and suitability of the Site, or any Parcel thereof, for Developer's intended use. Developer is a sophisticated purchaser who is familiar with this type of property. Developer will make its own independent investigation, to the extent Developer deems necessary, of the condition or suitability of the Site and each Parcel and will acquire all or any portion of the Site solely in reliance on such independent investigation, Developer acknowledges that any and all studies, reports, surveys, maps and other information that Developer may receive from Agency or its agents in connection with the Site are provided without any warranty (whether oral or written, express or implied) by Agency as to their accuracy, and on the express condition that Developer shall make its own independent evaluation of such information. Developer uncondi tionally releases Agency from and against any and all liability to Developer, both known and unknown, present and future, for any and all damages, losses, claims and costs (including attorneys fees), without limitation, the existence of hazardous materials), or the Site's non-suitability for Developer's intended use. Developer waives the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1542 which provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor. The Agency agrees that it will not cause, or permit its contractors or agents to cause, without remediating the same, during the time the applicable Parcel is in the possession of the p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\OispAgr2.060 ~ +~17~ Agency, and prior to conveyance of title to the applicable Parcel to the Developer, the placement of any hazardous or toxic substances on the applicable Parcel which contaminates the soil and/or water on the applicable Parcel. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any hazardous or toxic substances already existing on the Site may be moved and/or temporarily stockpiled on the Site in accordance with the scope of demolition and/or remediation work conducted at the Site by Watkins Contracting, Inc. and/or Woodward- Clyde under contracts with the Agency which have been approved by Developer, 2.14 Preliminary Work bv the Developer Prior to the conveyance of ti tIe to each Parcel, representatives of the Developer shall at all reasonable times have the right of access to and entry upon those real properties comprising the applicable Parcel which are owned by the Agency, or of which the Agency has possession, for the purpose of obtaining data relevant to its development process and making surveys and tests necessary to carry out this Agreement. The Developer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Agency, the City, and their officers, employees, contractors and agents, harmless from and against any and all claims, liability, loss, damage, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs) arising out of any work or activity of the Developer, its officers, employees, contractors and agents permitted pursuant to this Section 2. 1 4. The Agency agrees to provide, or cause to be provided to the Developer all data and information pertaining to each Parcel that is available to the Agency when requested by the Developer, 2,15 Submission of Evidence of Financinq The Developer shall report regularly as requested by the Agency (but at least every three (3) months) on its progress in obtaining financing for the development on each Parcel. The reports may be oral, or shall be in writing if requested by the Agency. The reports shall explain in reasonable detail the sources and methods of financing sought, the status of obtaining the financing and the issues, if any, which must be resolved, and the preleasing or pres ales activity which is required or has been achieved, The information in the reports shall remain confidential to the extent permitted by law, recognizing without limitation that they are subject to review by responsible officials, employees and contractors of the Agency. Developer shall submit to the Agency evidence satisfactory to the Agency that the Developer has obtained the financing necessary for the acquisition and development of the applicable Parcel in accordance with this Agreement. Such evidence of financing shall include all information described in Section 2.4(a) of this Agreement and the following: p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2. 060 -~ 1--/77 (a) A copy of the term sheet describing the details of the terms and conditions of the mortgage loan or loans obtained by the Developer (both for interim construction financing and take out financing if a condition of funding the construction loan) to assist in financing the construction of the improvements on the applicable Parcel (as defined in the Scope of Development attached as Attachment 6), certified by the Developer to be a true and correct copy or copies thereof; and (b) Evidence reasonably satisfactory to the Agency of sources of equity capital sufficient to demonstrate that the Developer has adequate funds to cover the difference, if any, between construction cost minus financing authorized by mortgage loans. The Agency shall approve or disapprove such evidence of financing in a timely manner. If the Agency shall disapprove any such evidence of financing, the Agency shall do so by written notice to the Developer stating the reasons for such disapproval. 3. PREACQUISITION OBLIGATIONS. 3,1 Demolition of Existinq Buildinqs The Agency has contracted for demolition of the existing structures at the Agency's sole cost with Watkins Contracting, Inc. ("Demolition Contract"), Such demolition work shall be completed in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Demolition Contract. The demolition work shall include all work described in the Demolition Contract ("Demolition Work"), Except as otherwise provided herein, Developer shall be responsible, at Developer's sole cost, for any and all other work on the Site necessary for the development of the Project. 3.2 Site Remediation Work. (a) Agency has contracted with Woodward-Clyde ("Environmental Consultant") for testing and the performance of a limited surface soils investigation for the Site, Agency shall be responsible for payment of all costs of the pre-demolition soils testing (approximately $17,000.00 (Seventeen Thousand Dollars)) ("Pre-demo Soils Testinq"). (b) Agency shall contract with the Environmental Consultant to conduct the additional testing, monitoring and remediation recommended by the Environmental Consultant as a result of the Pre-demo Soils Testing and which is of a type and scope agreed to by the parties to this Agreement ("Remediation Work"). p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\OispAgr2. 060 -:x- if -/7tf (c) Agency and Developer each commit to share in the costs of the Remediation Work, as follows: (i) Developer shall be responsible for payment of up to the first Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) due and payable for the Remediation Work; (ii) Agency shall be responsible for payment of up to the next Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) due and payable for the Remediation Work; and (iii) each party will be responsible for payment of fifty percent (50%) of up to the next Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) due and payable for the Remediation Work. If during the course of performing the Remediation Work, Environmental Consultant indicates or the parties otherwise agree that the Remediation Work will cost in excess of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00), ("Additional Remediation Work") then, while neither party shall be obligated to advance sums in excess of this amount, the parties shall meet, discuss and negotiate the allocation of responsibility. (d) If the parties are unable to agree to the allocation of responsibility for Additional Remediation Work, Developer may terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 6.6.1. Notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement, Developer shall remain liable for the first Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) due and payable for the Remediation Work and fifty percent (50%) of up to the next Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) due and payable for the Remediation Work. Developer shall be responsible for such amounts only if Agency proceeds with the Remediation Work and incurs such costs. (e) If the parties reach agreement as to the allocation of responsibility for Additional Remediation Work or if the Remediation Work does not exceed Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00), then, subject to the Agency's completion of the Demolition Work, the Site shall be acquired by Developer in an "as is" condition with no representations and warranties from Agency with respect to the physical condition thereof. (f) The Agency shall contract for and oversee the Remediation Work and any agreed upon Additional Remediation Work. Developer shall reimburse Agency for any amounts owed by Developer within seven (7) days of the receipt of the applicable invoice and supporting documentation from Agency. (g) The Remediation Work and any Additional Remediation Work shall be deemed complete when Environmental Consultant or another licensed hazardous materials professional has issued a letter or report certifying that no further environmental work needs to be conducted at the Site. (h) Developer shall have the right but not the obligation to monitor the Remediation Work and any Additional Remediation Work. This right shall include the ability to review all information generated by Environmental Consultant and to meet and discuss the progress with Environmental Consultant. p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 -~ 1--/71 ( i ) Developer and Agency shall meet and confer regarding pursuit of monetary claims relating to the Remediation Work. If the parties so agree, Agency shall use its best efforts to pursue any and all monetary claims the Agency may have including those against Fuller Ford and its principals and under the state Underground storage Tank Cleanup Fund for the cost of the Remediation Work. If Agency pursues such claims, Agency shall reimburse Developer for up to its monetary contribution to the Remediation Work out of the first available proceeds after deducting Agency's actual costs in pursuing such claims. 4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE 4.1 Development of the Site Developer shall have no obligation to construct on any Parcel unless and until Developer elects to acquire that Parcel. Upon such election and the close of escrow conveying any Parcel to Developer, Developer's obligation to construct the improvements on that Parcel shall mature and Developer shall be subject to the remedies provided in this Agreement for failure to complete construction in the manner and the time set forth in this Agreement. All construction shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, and all environmental, land use and other conditions imposed on the Project. 4.1 .1 Scope of Development The Site, and each Parcel thereof, shall be developed with "Business Homes" in accordance with and within the limitations established in the "Scope of Development" incorporated herein and attached to this Agreement as Attachment No.4. 4.1. 2 Basic Concept and Schematic Drawinqs The Developer has prepared and submitted, and Agency has approved Basic Concept and Schematic Drawings and related documents for the development of the Site. The Site shall be developed as established in the Basic Concept and Schematic Drawings and related documents except as changes may be mutually agreed upon between the Developer and the Agency. Any such changes shall be within the limitations of the Scope of Development (Attachment No.3) and shall be processed in accordance with all applicable local land use processes and conditions. 4.1.3 Landscapinq and Gradinq Plans The Developer shall prepare and submit to the Agency for its approval preliminary and final landscaping and preliminary and finish grading plans for each Parcel. Those plans shall be prepared and submitted within the time established by the parties p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2. 060 -~ L/-IJ'CJ as described in Section 2.3. The landscaping plans shall include a lighting program which highlights the design of components of the development, including, but not limited to, building facades, archi tectural detail, building interiors, landscaping and sculpture. The landscaping plans shall be prepared by a professional landscape architect and the grading plans shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. Such landscape architect and/or civil engineer may be the same firm as the Developer's architect. 4.1. 4 Construction Drawinqs and Related Documents for the Site The Developer shall prepare and submit construction drawings and related documents (collectively called the "Drawinqs") for the development pertaining to each Parcel to the Agency for review (including but not limited to architectural review), and written approval in the times established by the parties as described in Section 2.3. Such construction drawings and related documents shall be submitted in three stages: Design Development Drawings, 50% Complete Construction Drawings and Final Construction Drawings. Final Construction Drawings are hereby defined as those in sufficient detail to obtain a building permit. Approval of progressively more detailed drawings and specifications will be promptly granted by the Agency if developed as a logical evolution of drawings or specifications theretofore approved. Any items so submitted and approved by the Agency shall not be subject to subsequent disapproval. During the preparation of all drawings and plans, the Agency and the Developer shall hold regular progress meetings to coordinate the preparation of, submission to, and review of construction plans and-related documents by the Agency. The Agency and the Developer shall communicate and consult informally as frequently as is necessary to insure that the formal submittal of any documents to the Agency can receive prompt and speedy consideration. If any revisions or corrections of plans approved by the Agency shall be required by any non-City/Agency government official, agency, department, or bureau having jurisdiction over the development of the Site, the Developer and the Agency shall cooperate in efforts to obtain waiver of such requirements or to develop a mutually acceptable alternative. 4.1. 5 Aqencv Approval of Plans. Drawinqs and Related Documents Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Agency shall have the right of review (including without limitation architectural review) of all plans and submissions, including any proposed p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2. 060 ~ 1- If I changes therein. The Agency shall approve or disapprove the plans, drawings and related documents referred to in Sections 4.1.3, and 4.1.4 of this Agreement in a timely manner. Any disapproval shall state in writing the reasons for disapproval and the changes which the Agency requests to be made. Such reasons and such changes must be consistent with the Scope of Development (Attachment No.3) and any items previously approved or deemed approved hereunder. The Developer, upon receipt of a disapproval based upon powers reserved by the Agency hereunder, shall revise the plans, drawings and related documents, and shall resubmit to the Agency as soon as possible after receipt of the notice of disapproval. If the Developer desires to make any substantial change in the Final Construction Drawings after their approval, such proposed change shall be submitted to the Agency for approval. If the Final Construction Drawings, as modified by the proposed change, conform to the requirements of Section 4.1.4 of this Agreement and the Scope of Development, the proposed change shall be approved and the Developer shall be notified in writing within fifteen (15) days after submission. Such change in the construction plans shall, in any event, be deemed approved unless rejected, in whole or in part, by written notice thereof setting forth in detail the reasons therefor, and such rejection shall be made within said fifteen (15) day period. 4.1.6 Cost of Construction The cost of developing the Site, and each Parcel thereof, and constructing all improvements thereon shall be borne by the Developer, except as provided in this Agreement. 4.1. 7 Construction Proqress Reports During periods of construction, the Developer shall submit to the Agency a written report of the progress of the construction when and as reasonably requested by the Agency. The report shall be in such form and detail as may be reasonably required by the Agency and shall include a reasonable number of construction photographs (if requested) taken since the last report by the Developer. 4.1.8 Indemnification Durinq Construction: Bodilv In;urv and Property Damaqe Insurance During the period commencing with execution of this Agreement by the Agency, and continuing until such time as the Agency has issued a Certificate of Completion with respect to the construction of all improvements on the Site, the Developer agrees to and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Agency, and City and their respective officers, employees, contractors and agents from and against all claims, liability, loss, damage, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs) arising from or as a result of the death of any person or any accident, injury, p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispA9r2.060 -1)IZ 1- - /1 2--- loss or damage whatsoever caused to any person or to the property of any person arising out of the activities of the Developer under this Agreement, and which shall be directly or indirectly caused by any acts done or any errors or omissions of the Developer or its officers, employees, contractors or agents. The Developer shall not be responsible for (and such indemnity shall not apply to) any acts, errors or omissions of misconduct by the Agency, the City, or their respective officers, employees; contractors or agents. Without limiting the preceding sentence, except for activities undertaken by the Developer with respect to a Parcel before the conveyance of title thereto to the Developer, the Agency hereby acknowledges that (as between the Agency and the Developer) the Agency is responsible for maintaining each Parcel and any improvements which may remain thereon in a safe condition prior to conveyance of title to the applicable Parcel to the Developer. During the period commencing with any preliminary work on the Si te by the Developer under Section 2.14, or if none, then commencing with conveyance of title to: the first Parcel to the Developer, and ending on the date when a Certificate of Completion has been issued with respect to the entire Site, the Developer shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the Agency, duplicate originals or appropriate certificates of bodily injury and property damage insurance policies in the amount of at least Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) combined single limit naming the Agency and Ci ty, and their officers, employees, contractors and agents as additional insureds. 4.1.9 Antidiscrimination durinq Construction The Developer for itself and its successors and assigns agrees that in the construction of the improvements on the Site provided for in this Agreement, the Developer will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, marital status, race, color, creed, religion, national origin or ancestry. 4.1.10 Local. State and Federal Laws The Developer shall carry out the construction of the improvements on the Site in conformity with all applicable laws, including all applicable federal and state labor standards. 4.1.11 City and Other Governmental Aqency Permits Before commencement of construction or development of any buildings, structures or other work of improvement upon each Parcel of the Site, the Developer shall, at its own expense, secure or cause to be secured, any and all permits which may be required by the City or any other governmental agency affected by such construction, development or work. Agency staff shall reasonably cooperate with the Developer in securing these permits. 4.1.12 License/Easement p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAQr2. 060 -~ ~ -/13 Agency and/or City shall and do hereby grant Developer a license, revocable upon the termination of this Agreement, to use portions of the Site not yet acquired by Developer for construction staging and stockpiling relating to Developer I s development and construction activities upon the Site. Any such use of the Site by Developer shall be subject to Section 4.1.8 hereof. 4.2 Fees Developer shall be solely responsible for payment of all applicable Project processing and impact fees. Developer reserves the right to challenge the propriety of the imposition of or amount of any such fees. 4.3 Taxes: Assessments: Encumbrances: and Liens The Developer shall pay when due all real estate taxes and assessments assessed and levied on or against each Parcel subsequent to the conveyance of the title thereto. The Developer shall not place, or allow to be placed, on the Site or any Parcel thereof, any mortgage, trust deed, encumbrance or lien not authorized by this Agreement. The Developer shall remove, or shall have removed, any levy or attachment made on the Site (or any Parcel thereof ), except those created by work of the Agency, or shall assure the satisfaction thereof within a reasonable time but in any event prior to a sale thereunder. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prohibit the Developer from contesting the validity or amount of any tax assessment, encumbrance or Lien, nor to limit the remedies available to the Developer in respect thereto. The covenants of the Developer set forth in this Section 4.4 relating to the placement of any unauthorized mortgage, trust deed, encumbrance or lien, shall remain in effect only until a Certificate of Completion of construction has been recorded with respect to the Parcel upon which any unauthorized mortgage, trust deed, encumbrance or lien might be placed. 4.4 Prohibition aqainst Transfer Prior to the recordation by the Agency of a Certificate of Completion for a Parcel (referred to in Section 4.7 of this Agreement), the Developer shall not, except as permitted by this Agreement, assign or attempt to assign this Agreement or any right herein with respect to such Parcel, nor make any total or partial sale, transfer, conveyance or assignment of the whole or any part of such Parcel or the improvements thereon, without prior written approval of the Agency. This prohibition shall not apply to a Parcel (or any portion thereof) subsequent to the recordation of the Certificate of Completion with respect thereto. This prohibition shall not be deemed to prevent the granting of easements or permits necessary for the development of the Site, nor shall it prohibit entering into contracts to sell individual business homes conditional on the issuance of a Certificate of p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2. 060 -~ ~ -/J'tf Completion therefor, nor shall it prohibit granting any security interests expressly described in this Agreement for financing the acquisition and development of the applicable Parcel. 4.5 Securitv Financinq: Riqht of Holders 4.5.1 No Encumbrances except Mortqaqes. Deeds of Trust. Conveyances and Leases-Back or Other Conveyance for Financinq for Development Notwithstanding Section 4.4, after conveyance of title to the applicable Parcel to the Developer, mortgages, and deeds of trust, or any other form of conveyance required for any reasonable method of financing are permitted with respect to the Parcel before the recordation of the Certificate of Completion (referred to in Section 4.7 of this Agreement), but only for the purpose of securing loans of funds to be used for financing the acquisition of such Parcel, the construction of improvements on such Parcel, and any other expenditures necessary and appropriate to develop such Parcel under this Agreement. The Developer shall notify the Agency in advance of any mortgage, deed of trust, or other form of conveyance for financing, if the Developer proposes to enter into the same before the recordation of the Certificate of Completion. The Developer shall not enter into any such conveyance for financing without the prior written approval of the Agency, which approval the Agency agrees to give if any such conveyance is given to a financial or lending institution approved by Agency under the standards set forth in Section 2.4(a) and 2.17 hereof. Such lender approved by the Agency pursuant to this Section 4.5.1, shall not be bound by any amendment, implementation or modification to this Agreement subsequent to its approval without such lender giving its prior written consent. In any event, the Developer shall promptly notify the Agency of any mortgage, deed of trust, conveyance and lease-back, or other financing, conveyance, encumbrance or lien that has been created or attached to the Site or any Parcel (or any portion thereof) prior to completion of the construction of the improvements thereon whether by voluntary act of the Developer or otherwise. The words "mortgage" and "deed of trust" as used herein include all other appropriate modes of financing real estate acquisition, construction and land development. 4.5.2 Holder Note Obliqated to Construct Improvements The holder of any mortgage, dead of trust or other security interest authorized by this Agreement shall in no way be obligated by the provisions of this Agreement to construct or complete the improvements or to guarantee such construction or completion; nor shall any covenants or any other provision in the grant deed for the applicable Parcel be so construed as to so obligate such holder. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 -~ ~ _/cfP 5 permit such holder to devote the Site to any uses or to construct any improvements on the Site, other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement. 4.5.3 Notice of Default to Mortqaqe. Deed of Trust or Other Security Interest Holders; Riqht to Cure Whenever the Agency shall deliver any notice or demand to the Developer with respect to any breach or default by the Developer in completion of construction of the improvements, the Agency shall at the same time deliver to each holder of record of any mortgage, deed of trust or other security interest authorized by this Agreement a copy of such notice or demand. Each such holder shall (insofar as the rights of the Agency are concerned) have the right at its option within ninety (90) days after the receipt of the notice, to cure or remedy, or commence to cure or remedy, any such default and to add the cost thereof to the security interest debt and the lien of its security interest. If such default shall be a default which can only be remedied or cured by such holder upon obtaining possession, such holder shall seek to obtain possession with diligence and continuity through a receiver or otherwise, and shall remedy or cure such default within ninety (90) days after obtaining possession; provided that in the case of a default which cannot with diligence be remedied or cured, or the remedy or cure of which cannot be commenced within such ninety (90) day period, such holder shall have such additional time as reasonably necessary to remedy or cure such default with diligence and continuity; and provided further that such holder shall not be required to remedy or cure any non-curable default of the Developer. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to permit or authorize such holder to undertake or continue the construction or completion of the improvements (beyond the extent necessary to conserve or protect the improvements or construction already made) without first having expressly assumed the Developer's obligations to the Agency by written agreement satisfactory to the Agency. The holder in that event must agree to complete, in the manner provided in this Agreement, the improvements to which the lien or title of such holder related, and submit evidence satisfactory to the Agency that it has the qualifications and/or financial responsibility necessary to perform such obligations. Any such holder properly completing such improvements shall be entitled, upon written request made to the Agency, to a Certificate of Completion from the Agency. 4.5.4 Failure of Holder to Complete Improvements In any case where, six (6) months after default by the Developer in completion of construction of improvements on any Parcel under this Agreement, the holder of any mortgage, deed of trust or other security interest creating a lien or encumbrance upon such Parcel (or portion thereof) has not exercised the option to construct, or if it has exercised the option but has not proceeded diligently with construction, the Agency may purchase p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 -~ -1-lcP~ the mortgage, deed of trust or other security interest by payment to the holder of the amount of the unpaid debt, plus any accrued and unpaid interest. If the ownership of the Parcel (or portion thereof) has vested in the holder, the Agency, if it so desires, shall be entitled to a conveyance from the holder to the Agency upon payment to the holder of an amount equal to the sum of the following: (a) The unpaid mortgage, deed of trust or other security interest debt at the time title became vested in the holder (less all appropriate credits, including those resulting from coLlection and application of rentals and other income received during foreclosure proceedings). (b) All expenses with respect to foreclosure. (c) The net expense, if any (exclusive of general overhead), incurred by the holder as a direct result of the subsequent ownership or management of the Parcel (or portion thereof), such as insurance premiums and real estate taxes. (d) The cost of any improvements made by such holder. (e) An amount equivalent to the interest that would have accrued on the aggregate of such amounts had all such amounts become part of the mortgage or deed of trust debt and such debt had continued in existence to the date of payment by the Agency. 4.5.5 Riqht of the Aqencv to Cure Mortqaqe. Deed of Trust. or Other Security Interest Default In the event of a default or breach by Developer under any mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument with respect to any Parcel prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion by the Agency wi th respect to such Parcel, the holder of such security instrument shall give the Agency the same notice and cure rights to which Developer is entitled under the applicable loan documents. In the event of a default or breach by the Developer of a mortgage, deed of trust or other security interest with respect to any Parcel (or any portion thereof) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion by the Agency, and the holder has not exercised its option to complete the development, the Agency may cure the default prior to completion of any foreclosure. In such event, the Agency shall be immediately entitled to reimbursement p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAQr2.060 -~ ~ - I cf7 from the Developer of all costs and expenses incurred by the Agency in curing the default. The Agency shall also be entitled to a lien upon the applicable Parcel (or portion thereof) to the extent of such costs and disbursements. Any such lien shall be subordinate and subject to mortgages, deeds of trust, or other security instruments executed for the sole purpose of obtaining funds to purchase and develop such Parcel (or portion thereof) as authorized herein. 4.6 Riqht of the Aqencv to Satisfv Other Liens on the Property After Title Passes Prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Completion (referred to in Section 4.7 of this Agreement), and after the Developer has had a reasonable time to challenge, cure or satisfy any liens or encumbrances on the applicable Parcel (or any portion thereof), the Agency shall have the right to satisfy any such liens or encumbrances; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall require the Developer to payor make provisions for the payment of any tax, assessment, lien or charge so long as the Developer in good faith shall contest the validity or amount thereof, and so long as such delay in payment shall not subject the Parcel (or any portion thereof) to forfeiture or sale. 4.7 Certificate of Completion Promptly after completion of all construction and development to be completed by the Developer upon the applicable Parcel, and assuming Developer is not otherwise in default under this Agreement or in non-compliance with applicable local laws, permits and conditions, the Agency shall furnish the Developer with a Certificate of Completion upon written request therefor by the Developer. The Agency shall not unreasonably withhold any such Certificate of Completion. Such Certificate of Completion shall be, and shall so state, conclusive determination of satisfactory completion of the construction required by this Agreement upon the applicable Parcel, and of full compliance with the terms hereof wi th respect to the applicable Parcel. The Agency may also furnish the Developer with a Certificate of Completion for portions of the improvements upon the applicable Parcel, including for specific uses, as are properly completed and ready to use if the Developer is not in default under this Agreement. The Certificate of Completion shall be in such form as to permit it to be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of San Diego County. If the Agency refuses or fails to furnish a Certificate of Completion for the applicable Parcel after written request from the Developer, the Agency shall, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the written request, provide the Developer with a written statement which details the reasons the Agency refused or failed to furnish a Certificate of Completion. The statement shall also p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAQr2. 060 -~ ~ -If.? contain the Agency's opinion of the action the Developer must take to obtain a Certificate of Completion. If the reason for such refusal is confined to the immediate unavailability of specific items or materials for landscaping, or incidental interior punchlist items, or incidental exterior punchlist items which do not adversely affect the appearance of the development, the Agency will issue its Certificate of Completion upon the posting of a bond by the Developer with the Agency in an amount representing one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the cost of the work not yet completed. Such Certificate of Completion shall not constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of the Developer to any holder of a mortgage, or any insurer of a mortgage securing money loaned to finance the improvements, nor any part thereof. Such certificate of Completion is not notice of completion as referred to in Section 3093 of the California Civil Code. In no event shall the issuance of such Certificate of Completion constitute a representation by Agency for any other purpose as to the adequacy or completeness of the applicable improvements, or otherwise relieve Developer of any liability for improper design or construction (or other performance) of the applicable improvements or of any liability for any indemnity or other obligation undertaken by Developer with respect to the applicable improvements. 5. USE OF THE SITE 5.1 Uses The Developer covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof, that during construction and thereafter the Developer, its successors and assignees shall devote the Site, and each Parcel, to the uses specified in the Redevelopment Plan, the Scope of Development and the Grant Deed. 5.2 Maintenance and Control of Common Areas Developer shall convey and Agency shall accept title to the "Common Areas" associated with that Phase as more particularly described on Attachment 4, as part of the parcel map process and otherwise prior to the conveyance of the first Business Home unit. Agency staff and Developer agree to meet and confer to formulate an assessment district to provide maintenance of the Common Areas. Agency staff and Developer shall present the application for the assessment district to the City for its consideration, with the goal of substantial implementation prior to the conveyance of Phase 1 . 5.3 Obliqation to Refrain from Discrimination p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 -~ ~- /J'Cj The Developer covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof, there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person, or group of persons, on account of sex, marital status, race, color, creed, religion, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Site nor shall the Developer itself or any person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the Site. 5.4 Form of Nondiscrimination and Nonseqreqation Clauses The Developer shall refrain from restricting the rental, sale or lease of the Site on the basis of sex, marital status, race, color, creed religion, ancestry or national origin of any person. All deeds, leases or contracts shall contain or be subject to substantially the following nondiscrimination or nonsegregation clauses: (a) In deeds: "The grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors 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 sex, marital status, race, color, creed, religion, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the land herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land." (b) In Leases: "The lessee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, 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 sex, marital status, race, color, creed, religion, national origin or ancestry in the leasing, subleasing, renting, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 -J< ~ -/9CJ or enjoyment of the land herein leased, nor shall lessee itself, or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants or vendees in the land herein leased." (c) In contracts: "There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of sex, marital status, race, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land, nor shall the transferee itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the land." 5.5 Land Use Controls Developer and Agency shall work together to implement mechanisms to restrict the use of the Business Homes to residential/commercial joint owner occupancy, as follows: (a) In Deeds; Deeds shall contain substantially the following clause: "The grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, for the benefit of the City of Chula Vista, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, and each and every other Business Home owner at the Site, that the commercial and residential portions of the property shall be jointly used by the same individual occupant." (b) In CC&R' s : The CC&R' s described in Section 5.8 shall include a provision requiring joint occupancy of the commercial and residential portions of each Parcel. (c) Business License Restrictions: Zoning permits and/or business licenses issued for businesses occupying any Parcel may include a provision requiring joint occupancy of the commercial and residential portions of each parcel. p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 -~ 1-- /9 ( 5.6 Effect and Duration of Covenants The covenants established in this Agreement shall, without regard to technical classification and designation, be binding on the Developer and any successor in interest to the Site and each Parcel (or any part thereof) for the benefit and in favor of the Agency, its successors and assigns, and the City. Such covenants as are to survive the issuance of the Certificate of Completion by the Agency shall be contained in the Grant Deed and shall remain in effect for the period specified therein. 5.7 Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions Prior to Agency's conveyance of Parcel 1 to Developer, Developer shall prepare Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CC&R' s") for review and approval by Agency. The CC&R' s shall address occupancy restrictions, commercial area use, access, maintenance, alterations, maintenance of private improvements and other similar issues which Agency and Developer mutually agree should be included or which are otherwise required by Agency or Ci ty. Agency shall be a third party beneficiary of the CC&R' s with enforcement rights. 6. DEFAULTS, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION 6.1 Defaults - General Subject to the extensions of time set forth in Section 7.4, failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. The party who fails or delays must immediately commence to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay and shall complete such cure, correction or remedy using its best efforts and all due diligence, and during any period of curing shall not be in default. The injured party shall give written notice of default to the party in default, specifying the default complained of by the injured party. Failure or delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default, nor shall it change the time of default. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any failures or delays by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies. Delays by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies shall not deprive either party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 -~ ~ -/92-- 6.2 Leqal Actions 6.2.1 Institution of Leqal Actions In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Such legal actions must be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, state of California, in any other appropriate court of that county, or in the Federal District Court in the Southern District of California. 6.2.2 Applicable Law The Laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. 6.2.3 Acceptance of Service of Process In the event that any legal action is commenced by the Developer against the Agency, service of process on the Agency shall be made by personal service upon the Executive Director or Chairman of the Agency, or in such other manner as may be provided by law. In the event that any legal action is commenced by the Agency against the Developer, service of process on the Developer shall be made by personal service upon the Developer (or upon a general partner or officer of the Developer if an entity) and shall be valid whether made within or without the State of California, or in such manner as may be provided by law. 6.3 Riqhts and Remedies Are Cumulative Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 6.4 Damaqes If either party defaults with regard to any of the provisions of this Agreement, the non-defaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not commenced to be cured within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of default and is not cured promptly in a continuous and diligent manner within a reasonable period of time after commencement, the defaulting party shall be liable to the non- defaulting party for any damages caused by such default, and the non-defaulting party may thereafter (but not before) commence an p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAQr2. 060 -~ 4 - /93 action for damages against the defaulting party with respect to such default. 6.5 Specific Performance If either party defaults with regard to any of the provisions of this Agreement, the non-defaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not commenced to be cured within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of default and is not cured promptly in a continuous and diligent manner within a reasonable period of time after commencement the non-defaulting party, at its option, may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for specific performance of the terms of this Agreement pertaining to such default. 6.6 Remedies and Riqhts of Termination 6.6.1 Termination bv the Developer In the event that prior to the conveyance of title to the applicable Parcel to the Developer: (a) the Agency, despite being in a position to do so, does not tender either conveyance of title to the applicable Parcel or possession thereof, to the Developer in the manner and condition, and by the date provided in this Agreement; or (b) the parties are unable to agree to the allocation of responsibility for Additional Remediation Work; or (c) the Agency is unable, despite diligent and good faith efforts, to timely convey title to the applicable Parcel under circumstances which will freely permi t the Parcel to be cleared and developed in accordance wi th the terms and conditions of this Agreement; or (d) the Developer is unable, despite diligent and good faith efforts, to obtain financing for the acquisition and development of the applicable Parcel and submit evidence thereof to the Agency as referred to in Section 2.15; and (e) if any default or failure referred to in subdivision (a) or (b) of this Section shall not be cured within thirty (30) days after the date of written demand by the Developer; p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAQr2.060 ~ L/ -/9f then this Agreement, at the option of the Developer, shall be terminated with respect to any unconveyed Parcels, by written notice thereof to the Agency, and except to the extent provided in Section 3.2(d) of this Agreement, neither the Agency nor the Developer shall have any further rights against or liability to the other under this Agreement with respect to any unconveyed Parcels, or with respect to the entire Site if no Parcel has been conveyed. 6.6.2 Termination bv Aqencv In the event that prior to the conveyance of title to the applicable Parcel to the Developer: (a) the Developer shall fail to timely make any report to the Agency on its progress in obtaining financing for the development on a Parcel as required by Section 2.15 of this Agreement, or to submit to the Agency the evidence of financing commitments referred to in Section 2.15 of this Agreement; or (b) the Developer (or any successor in interest) assigns or attempts to assign the Agreement or any right herein, or in the Site or any Parcel (or portion thereof); or (c) the Developer does not submit any plans, drawings and related documents as required by this Agreement by the date provided in this Agreement therefor; or (d) the Developer does not pay the Purchase Price and take title to the applicable Parcel under a tender of conveyance by the Agency pursuant to this Agreement; or (e) the Agency is unable, despite diligent and good faith efforts, to timely convey title to the applicable Parcel under circumstances which will freely permit the Parcel to be cleared and developed in accordance wi th the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and ( f) if any default or failure referred to in subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of this Section shall not be cured within thirty (30) days after the date of written demand by the Agency; then this Agreement and any rights of the Developer, or any assignee or transferee, in this Agreement, or arising therefrom with respect to the Agency, shall at the option of the Agency, be terminated with respect to any unconveyed Parcels, by written p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 ~ 1- /95 notice to the Developer, and except to the extent provided in Section 3.2(d), neither the Agency nor the Developer shall have any further rights against or liability to the other under this Agreement with respect to any unconveyed Parcels, or with respect to the entire Site if no Parcel has been conveyed. 6.7 Riqht of Reentry The Agency shall have the right, at its option, to reenter and take possession of any Parcel (or portion thereof) with all improvements thereon, and to terminate and revest in the Agency the estate theretofore conveyed to the Developer, if after conveyance of title to such Parcel and prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Completion pertaining to such Parcel (or portion thereof), the Developer (or its successors in interest) shall: (a) fail to commence or complete construction of the improvements on such Parcel (or portion thereof) as required by this Agreement for a period of three (3) months after written notice to proceed from the Agency, provided that the Developer shall not have obtained an extension or postponement to which the Developer may be entitled pursuant to Section 7.4 hereof; or (b) abandon or substantially suspend construction of the improvements on such Parcel (or portion thereof) for a period of three (3) months after written notice of such abandonment or suspension has been given by the Agency to the Developer, provided the Developer has not obtained an extension or postponement to which the Developer may be entitled to pursuant to Section 7.4 hereof; or (c) assign or attempt to assign this Agreement, or any rights herein, or transfer, or suffer any involuntary transfer of such Parcel, or any part thereof, in violation of this Agreement, and such violation shall not be cured within thirty (30) days after the date of receipt of written notice thereof by the Agency to the Developer. Such right to reenter, repossess, terminate and revest shall be subject to and be limited by and shall not defeat, render invalid or limit: (a) any mortgage, deed of trust or. other security interests permitted by this Agreement with respect to the applicable Parcel; p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 - J7f"-. ~- I 90 (b) any rights or interests provided in this Agreement for the protection of the holders of such mortgages, deeds of trust or other security interests. The rights established in this Section 6.7 shall not apply to any Parcel (or portion thereof) on which the improvements to be constructed thereon have been completed in accordance with the Agreement and for which a Certificate of Completion has been recorded therefor as provided in Section 4.7. The Grant Deed to each Parcel shall contain appropriate reference and provision to give effect to the Agency's right, as set forth in this Section 6.7 under specified circumstances prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Completion, to reenter and take possession of the Parcel, or any part thereof, with all improvements thereon, and to terminate and revest in the Agency the estate conveyed to the Developer. Upon the revesting in the Agency of title to the applicable Parcel, or any part thereof, as provided in this Section 6.7 the Agency shall, pursuant to its responsibilities under state law, use its best efforts to resell the Parcel, or any part thereof, as soon and in such manner as the Agency shall find feasible and consistent with the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law and the Redevelopment Plan to a qualified and responsible party or parties (as determined by the Agency), who will assume the obligation of making or completing the improvements, or such other improvements in their stead, as shall be satisfactory to the Agency and in accordance with the uses specified for the Parcel, or any part thereof, in the Redevelopment Plan. Upon such resale of the Parcel, or any part thereof, the proceeds thereof shall be applied: (a) first, to payoff all liens and encumbrances and offsets for any Developer defaults; and (b) second, to reimburse the Agency on its own behalf or on behalf of the City of all costs and expenses incurred by the Agency, including but not limited to salaries to personnel engaged in such action, in connection with the recapture, management and resale of the Parcel, or any part thereof (but less any income derived by the Agency from the sale of the Parcel, or any part thereof, in connection with such management); all taxes, assessments and water and sewer charges with respect to the Parcel or any part thereof (or, in the event the Parcel, or any part thereof, is exempt from taxation or assessment or such charges during the period of ownership, then such taxes, assessments or charges, as would have been payable if the Parcel, or part thereof, were p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\D1spAgr2.060 -~ ~ -197 not so exempt); any payments made or necessary to be made to discharge or prevent from attaching or being made any subsequent encumbrances or liens due to obligations, defaults or acts of the Developer, its successors or transferees; any expenditures made or obligations incurred with respect to the making or completion of the agreed improvements or any part thereof on the Parcel, or any part thereof; and any amounts otherwise owing to the Agency by the Developer and its successor or transferee. Any balance remaining after such reimbursements shall be retained by the Agency as its property. To the extent that the right established in this Section 6.7 involves a forfeiture, it must be strictly interpreted against the Agency, the party for whose benefit it is created. The rights established in this Section 6.7 are to be interpreted in light of the fact that the Agency will convey each Parcel to the Developer for development and not for speculation in undeveloped land. 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7.1 Notices. Demands and Communications between the Parties Formal notices, demands and communications between the Agency and the Developer shall be sufficiently given if dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal offices of the Agency and the Developer, as designated in Section 1.5 hereof. Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section 7.1. 7.2 Conflicts of Interest No member, official or employee of the Agency shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such member, official or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested. The Developer warrants that it has not paid or given, and will not payor give, any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. This paragraph shall not be construed to apply to the payment of attorneys' fees and other consultant costs. 7.3 Nonliabilitv of the Aqencv Officials and Emplovees p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 -~ ~ - /Cfef No member, official, employee or consultant of the Agency shall be personally liable to the Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Agency or for any amount which may become due to the Developer or to its successor, or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement. 7.4 Time is of the Essence; Enforced Delay: Time of Performance Extension of Time is of the essence with respect to each and every obligation hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lock-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, Acts of God, acts of the public enemy, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, adverse economic or market conditions, lack of transportation, governmental restrictions, litigation, unusually severe weather, inability to secure necessary labor, materials or tools, delays of any contractor, subcontractor or supplies, acts of the other party, acts or failure to act of the City or any other public or governmental agency or entity (other than that act or failure to act of the Agency). An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within thirty (30) days of knowledge of the commencement of the cause. Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by mutual agreement of the Agency and the Developer. 7.5 Inspection of Books and Records The Agency shall have the right after reasonable notice and at all reasonable times during normal business hours to inspect the books and records of the Developer pertaining to the Site and each Parcel as pertinent to the purposes of this Agreement. The Developer shall also have the right after reasonable notice and at all reasonable times during normal business hours to inspect the books and records of the Agency pertaining to the Site and each Parcel as pertinent to the purposes of this Agreement. 7.6 Approvals Approvals required of the Agency or the Developer shall not be unreasonably withheld except as otherwise provided herein, or otherwise required by law. 7.7 Real Estate Commissions The Agency shall not be liable for any real estate commissions, brokerage fees or finders fees which may arise from the sale of the Site or any Parcel to the Developer. The Agency p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 -~ ~ - /99 . , and the Developer each represent to the other that it has employed no broker, agent, or finder in connection with this transaction. 7.8 No Third Party Beneficiarv The terms and provisions herein contained shall be only for the benefit of the parties hereto and such terms and conditions shall not enure to the benefit of any other party whosoever, it being the intention of the parties hereto that no one shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary of this Agreement. 7.9 Developer's Representation Developer represents and warrants that Josef Citron and Lenore Citron are the sole shareholders of Citron Realty Management Corporation, a California corporation, and that Citron Realty Management Corporation and Josef and Lenore Citron personally, collectively own a majority interest of Broadway Village Business Homes, L.P., a California limited partnership. 7.10 Covenants to Run with Land All covenants contained in this Agreement pertaining to the use of the Site or any Parcel thereof shall run with the land and shall be binding for the benefit and in favor of the Agency, the City of Chula Vista, and their respective successors and assigns. The City and the Agency, in the event of any breach of any such covenants, shall have the right to exercise any and all remedies provided hereunder or otherwise available at law or in equity, in order to enforce compliance with such covenants. 7.11 Recordation Agency reserves the right, at its election, to cause the recordation of this Agreement or a Memorandum thereof which Developer agrees to execute and acknowledge. The recordation of a Certificate of Completion shall operate to remove the effect of this Agreement or any Memorandum thereof upon the real property described in that Certificate of Completion. 7.12 Compliance with Laws: Disclosure Developer shall comply with all laws relating to the marketing and sale of the Business Home units, including, as applicable, disclosure of the existence of the assessment district and any land use restrictions. 7.13 Leqal Challenqe In the event that any court action or other legal proceeding is brought by any person not a party to this Agreement to challenge this Agreement, the granting of any Entitlements or the fulfillment of any condition to the obligations of the parties hereto, and p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2. 060 -~ ij -;2.cJC) without regard to whether or not the Developer or the Agency is a party to said action or proceeding, the Developer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days notice in writing to Agency given at any time during the pendency of such action or proceeding prior to the conveyance of the Site or any Parcel thereof to Developer. If this Agreement is not terminated, Developer shall indemnify the Agency and the City for all expenses including attorneys' fees, to defend the City or the Agency from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, the Agency or their agents officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any Entitlements or condition to the obligations of the parties hereto. The City and the Agency shall promptly notify Developer of any such claim, action or proceeding. For purposes of this Section, the Developer acknowledges that the term "attorney's fees" includes the reasonable costs incurred by the City or Agency in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding by the City Attorney or his staff. In the event of a successful challenge of the legality of this Agreement or any implementing documents, this Agreement and all implementing document shall terminated and no party shall have any further obligation thereunder. 8. ENTIRE AGREEMENT, WAIVERS AND AMENDMENTS This Agreement shall be executed in originals each of which is deemed to be Agreement includes pages and constitute the entire understanding and duplicate an original. This attachments which agreement of the parties. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the Site. None of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions set forth in this Agreement shall be deemed to be merged with the Grant Deed conveying title to any Parcel and this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect with respect to each Parcel before and after conveyance until after a Certificate of Completion for the applicable Parcel as provided in Section 4.8 is recorded. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Agency or the Developer, and all amendments hereto must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Agency and the Developer. p: \9\9484\4656S\Trans\DispAgr2. 060 -~ ~ - ;20/ 9. TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT BY THE AGENCY; DATE OF AGREEMENT This Agreement, when executed by the Developer and delivered to the Agency, must be authorized, executed and delivered by the Agency within sixty (60) days after this Agreement is signed by the Developer, or this Agreement may be terminated by the Developer on written notice to the Agency. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date it is signed by the Agency. BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P., a California limited partnership By: Citron Realty Management Corporation, a California corporation Dated: By: Its: Dated: By: Its: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (Agency) Dated: By: Its: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY ON THIS DAY OF 199 , By: Agency General Counsel p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 -~ ~->>~ 2. 3. 4. 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUBJECT OF AGREEMENT . . . . . . . 1.1 Purpose of the Agreement 1.2 The Redevelopment Plan. 1.3 The Redevelopment Project Area 1.4 The Site. ..... 1.5 Parties to the Agreement. . . 2 2 2 2 3 3 ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF THE SITE 2.1 Sale and Purchase . . . 2.2 Adjustment of Purchase Price . 2.3 Phasing of the Acquisition. . . . 2.4 Conditions to Developer's Right to 3 3 4 5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 Acquire Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... 6 Escrow . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... 8 Conveyance of Title and Delivery of Possession 10 Form of Deed . .. ........ 11 Condition of Title. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Time for and Place for Delivery of Deed . .. 11 Payment of the Purchase Price and Recordation of the Deed . . . . . . . 11 Title Insurance . . . 11 Taxes and Assessments 12 Condition of the Site 12 Preliminary Work by the Developer 13 Submission of Evidence of Financing 13 PREACQUISITION OBLIGATIONS. 3.1 Demolition of Existing 3.2 Site Remediation Work Buildings 14 14 14 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE 4.1 Development of 4.1 .1 4.1.2 Construction 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.1. 6 4.1.7 4.1.8 4.1.9 4.1.10 p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\D1spAgr2.060 16 16 16 the Site Scope of Development Basic Concept and Schematic Drawings . . . . . . . . . 16 Landscaping and Grading Plans 16 Construction Drawings and Related Documents for the Site ... 17 Agency Approval of Plans, Drawings and Related Documents 17 Cost of Construction 18 Construction Progress Reports 18 Indemnification During Construction; Bodily Injury and Property Damage Insurance Antidiscrimination during 18 Local, State and Federal Laws 19 19 ;;K-- ~->>3 5. 6. 7. 4.1.11 City and Other Governmental Agency permi ts . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1.12 License/Easement..... 19 4.2 Fees. . .. .............. 20 4.3 Taxes; Assessments; Encumbrances; and Liens 20 4.4 Prohibition against Transfer . . . . . . .. 20 4.5 Security Financing; Right of Holders . . .. 21 4.5.1 No Encumbrances except Mortgages, Deeds of Trust, Conveyances and Leases-Back or Other Conveyance for Financing for Development . . . 21 4.5.2 Holder Note Obligated to Construct Improvements . . . . . .. 21 4.5.3 Notice of Default to Mortgage, Deed of Trust or Other Security Interest Holders; Right to Cure . .. 22 4.5.4 Failure of Holder to Complete Improvements . . . . . 22 4.5.5 Right of the Agency to Cure Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or Other Security Interest Default . 23 4.6 Right of the Agency to Satisfy Other Liens on the Property After Title Passes 24 4.7 Certificate of Completion 24 USE OF THE SITE . . . . . . . . . . 5. 1 Uses. . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Maintenance and Control of Common Areas 5.3 Obligation to Refrain from Discrimination 5.4 Form of Nondiscrimination and Nonsegregation Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Land Use Controls . . . . . 5.6 Effect and Duration of Covenants 5.7 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions 25 25 25 25 26 27 28 28 DEFAULTS, 6.1 6.2 REMEDIES AND TERMINATION 28 Defaults - General . . . 28 Legal Actions . . . . . 29 6.2.1 Institution of Legal Actions 29 6.2.2 Applicable Law . . . . . .. 29 6.2.3 Acceptance of Service of Process 29 Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative 29 Damages ............ 29 Specific Performance . . . . . . . 30 Remedies and Rights of Termination 30 6.6.1 Termination by the Developer 30 6.6.2 Termination by Agency 31 Right of Reentry 32 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 GENERAL PROVISIONS . . . . 7.1 Notices, Demands and Communications between the Parties 7.2 Conflicts of Interest 34 34 34 p:\9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2.060 -~ ~ -;L~ f 8. 9. 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 Nonliability of ~he Agency Officials and Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time is of the Essence; Enforced Delay: of Time of Performance . . . . . Inspection of Books and Records Approvals . . . . . . . . Real Estate Commissions No Third Party Beneficiary Developer's Representation Covenants to Run with Land . .. 34 Extension 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 ENTIRE AGREEMENT, WAIVERS AND AMENDMENTS 37 TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT BY THE AGENCY; DATE OF AGREEMENT ..................... p: \9\9484\46565\Trans\DispAgr2. 060 -~ ~ - )..lJ 5 38 , This page Blank ~ - 2/)0 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of San Diego: I am a citizen of the Unitod States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the STAR-NEWS, CHULA VISTA, a newspaper of general circulation, published TWICE-WEEKLY in the City of Chula Vista, and the South Bay Judicial District, County of San Diego, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the date of April 23, 1951, Case Number 164327; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy ( set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the follvwing dates, to-wit: 6/28 all in the year 1995 I certify ( or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at CHULA VISTA California, this 28 day of June ,1995 SigOal";~Q fl0PP" f~~'~0 PRINCIPAL CLE This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp .~ . CV 06284 Proof of Publication of: PUBLIC HEARING NOnCE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CHUlA VISTA CITY COUNCil CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY G~ YEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCil will hold a public hearing to consider the following: The purpose of consider- ing a rezoning application .ubmilled Ilr Josef A. & Lenore S. Citron to rezone 2.53 acres on west side of Broadway between J & K Slreets. " you wish to challenge . :he Citv's action on this mat- .ar in coon, you may be lim. ited to raising only those is- sues yt'IU Of liOlTl&Jf'lQ else raised at the pub:~ hearing described in this notice, or in wril1en correspondence de- livered to the City Clerk's Of- ficeal or prior 10 the public haaring. SAIO PUBLIC HEARING Will BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCil on T ue.. day, Ju~ 11, 1995 at 6:00 p.rn.in the Council Cham. bers, Public Services Build- ing, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desir- Ing to be heard may appear. DATED: June 22. 1995 CV06284 6128/95 ;.: ,