HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1994/03/01
Tuesday, Man:h 1, l.994
4:00 p.m.
[Immediately eoDowing City Council meeting.]
Council Chambers
Pub6c Services Building
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chu/a Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAJ, request individuals who may
need special accommodation to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service contact the
Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency at (619) 691-5047 for specific information on existing resources/or programs
that may be available for such accommodation. Please call at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five
days in advance for scheduled services and activities. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
CALL TO ORDER
Members Horton _, Fox _, Moore _, Rindone _, and
Chairman Nader
1. ROLL CALL:
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
February 15, 1994
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 3 and 4)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the
Agency by one motion without discussion unless an Agency Member, a member of the public or City staff requests
that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, pleasefill out a "Request to Speak
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the
meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pinkform to speak
in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action
Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first item, of business.
3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None Submitted.
4. RESOLUTION 1389 EXTENDING THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH
LAWRENCE M. AND STEPHEN P. CUSHMAN, DATED OCTOBER 17,
1991, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS--The Agency entered into an Owner
Participation Agreement (OPA) with Mrs. Helen Cuslnnan on 10/17/91 for the
development of an approximately IO-acre property located at 517 Shinohara Lane.
This property was later transferred to Lawrence M. and Stephen P. Cuslnnan, and
the OPA was extended by the Agency until 10/17/93 at which time the OPAexpired.
The Cuslnnans have requested a further extension of the Agreement due to current
adverse market conditions. As an alternative, staff recommends a two year extension
of the OP A to 10117/95. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community
Development Director)
· · END OF CONSENT CALENDAR · ·
AGENDA
-2-
MARCH 1,1994
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Thefollowing items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. lfyou wish to speak
to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency
or City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation;
complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes
per individual.
None Submilled.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject mntter within the
Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the Agency from
deliberating or taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) lfyou wish to address the Agency
on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" 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.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the
Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Agency and staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out
a "Request to Speak Form" and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to
the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes.
None Submilled.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the Redevelopment Agency will discuss item, which Mve been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Agency members. Public
comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Schedule of Meetings.
6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT . Ratification of Appointment: Rosalinda Nava to the Olay Valley Road
Project Area Commillee
7. MEMBERS' COMMENTS
AGENDA
-3-
MARCH 1,1994
* * * * * * *
The meeting adjourned at: p.m. to the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency
on Tuesday, March 15, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, Council
Chambers, Public Services Building.
IC:\ WP51 IAGENCYIAGENDAS\03-01-94.AGD]
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday. February 15. 1994
6:12 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CAll TO ORDER
1 . ROLL CAll:
PRESENT:
Members Horton, Fox, Moore, Rindone. and Chairman Nader
ALSO PRESENT:
John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attorney; and
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
February 1, 1994
MSUC (Nader/Fox) to approve the minutes of February 1, 1994 as presented.
CONSENT CALENDAR
litem pulled: 41
3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None Submitted.
4. REPORT STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE
PREPARATION AND PROCESSING OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE LOWER
SWEETWATER VALLEY AREA AND REPORT ON NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING--On 12/14/93 Council
directed staff to conduc1 a neighborhood meeting for the purpose of discussing a number of proposals involving 1he
Lower Sweetwater Valley Area. Staff held the meeting and the City is now considering preparation and processing
of a General Plan Amendment for the Lower Sweetwater Valley Area to best accomplish 1he goals and objectives
of 1he City's General Plan. Staff recommends that the Agency direct staff to prepare a draft General Plan
Amendment for the Lower Sweetwater Valley Area. (Community Development Director) Pulled erom the
Consent Calendar.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, gave a brief synopsis of staff activities. Eight hundred
residents had been noticed regarding the public meeting at Rosebank School and eighty people attended. Their
prime concern was that the lower Sweetwater area remain open space. An additional number of concerns was listed
in the staff report. There were four proposed projects for the lower Sweetwater Valley area and those were shown
to the neighborhood groups, i.e. veterans home, Family Fun Center, demineralization plant proposed by the
Sweetwater Authority, and a 400 unit senior residential project. All the projects would require a General Plan
Amendment and staff recommended they proceed to analyze and develop the correct land use designation, hold
another public forum, consult with the appropriate committees/commissions, and return in three to five months to
Council wi1h a recommended land use General Plan designation for further direction at that time before
environmental analysis began. He had been contacted by Cot. Vargas of the Governor's Veterans Affairs Office
who indicated that the veterans. to his knowledge. would prefer the site by Sharps Hospital as their preferred site
in Chula Vista. He also felt Chula Vista was going to be recommended by the Governor in July for funding as one
of the preferred sites in California.
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, gave a brief outline of the process and why the City was pursuing a General
Plan amendment for the area.
Member Rindone questioned if the earthquake fault by the property would have any impact on the proposed project.
Mr. Salomone responded that staff had done a preliminary analysis of thai and felt at the current time thai the
facility could be located on the site by the hospital. The hospital was actually on a site that had an earthquake fault
and they were able to design around it.
:2. -j
Minutes
February 15. 1994
Page 2
Chairman Nader questioned what the cost would be for the processing of the general plan amendment.
Mr. Leiter responded that it would be a three month study and would require one half-time position within the
Planning Department. A work program had not been prepared.
Chairman Nader felt that information was a prerequisite to considering the item.
Director Goss fell it would be approximately $5,000 - $10,000 in staff time.
Chairman Nader questioned if the person would be hired or if existing staff would be utilized. If existing staff was
used, he questioned what projects would be delayed.
Mr. Leiter responded that existing staff would be used. Staff would be returning with an Advanced Planning Work
Program. A couple of the projects that had not been scheduled yet were the park implementation program, 1be child
care element. and the Greenfleet trip reduction program. Those projects would either be delayed or extended over
a longer period of time.
Chairman Nader stated the opinion in the veterans community appeared to be split and it was uncertain as to whether
the other site would be available. The City's Veterans Advisory Task Force unanimously recommended 1ha1
Council continue to look at lower Sweetwater for that use. The City had offered incentives to the Commission and
he was not under the impression that they would be enthusiastic in assuming the cost of a land use study. If the
City was to use the property for parks or open space he questioned if staff was saying that the costs would be
absorbed anywhere other than the General Fund. He stated that staff indicated that was correct. He questioned if
there was any legal requirement that the City had to undertake the proposed General Plan Amendment study prior
to amending the General Plan.
Agency Attorney Boogaard responded that the Agency had the legal authority to do so.
Chairman Nader stated it was a matter of whether or not the Agency felt a study was needed to address 1hose issues.
. Paul Kelpin, 3755 Putter Place, Bonita CA, representing San Diego South County Senior Softball
Association and President of the Chula Vista Senior Recreational League. stated they were interested in holding
softball tournaments in the City but they needed the recreational facilities to bring in people from out of state. They
needed an area with multiple diamonds.
. Dr. Mohiner Boomar, 5 Las Flores Drive, Chuta Vista, CA, gave a presentation representing those in
opposition. He stated they wanted the area to remain open space. They felt the noise reduction measures proposed
were inadequate. The area would be subjected to chronic health hazards which could result in high blood pressure.
ulcers. increased heart disease. neurosis and personality problems. and deafness. They also expressed concern
regarding the affects of carbon monoxide. Heavy traffic flow on Second A venue also needed to be addressed. The
hours of the Family Fun Center were of concern as well as undesirable people and drug and alcohol problems. The
brightly lit area would impact the entire neighborhood. The demineralization plant was also undesirable due to 1he
noise generated by the pumps, storage of toxic chemicals on site, and potential reduction in property values.
Environmentalist concerns regarding wildlife also needed to be addressed and they requested an environmentalists
opinion. A petition was being circulated requesting that the area remain natural open space. Notices of the meeting
were only sent to those attending the public meeting at Rosebank School.
Member Horton questioned if the residents were notified of the Council meeting.
Mr. Salomone responded that staffs interpretation of Council direction was to hold a public meeting and report back
to Council on the results. Eight hundred residents were notified of the public meeting and those attending that
meeting were noticed regarding the Council meeting. It was also in the newspaper.
cJ- -~
Minutes
February 15. 1994
Page 3
Chairman Nader stated he had a problem with that because there was a difference between coming back with a
report on a neighborhood meeting, which was what Council direc1ed, and a recommendation that the Agency
proceed with a GPA study and environmental work that could lead to a change in land use. Had it only been a
report on the neighborhood meeting he would have understood why that notification process was used. The item
before the Agency was a recommendation from staff to proceed with specific action that could result in a change
of land use and the Agency may want to consider whether there should be more complete notification before they
proceeded.
Mr. Salomone stated part of the recommendation would be to go back into the neighborhood and hold another public
forum; none of the meetings were required under the ordinance.
. Lisa Moctezuma-Bender, 48 Las Flores Drive, Chula Vista, CA, spoke In opposition to the staff
recommendation and in support of open space.
. Susan Luzzaro, 95 "D" Street, Chula Vista, CA. spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation and in
support of open space. She questioned why developers purchased property in areas that were not zoned for their
projects. She felt the City should be more creative, i.e. assessments for the people in the neighborhood, etc.
. Frank Luzzaro, 95 "D" Street, Chula Vista, CA. spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation and in
support of open space. He felt the area was the gateway to the City and should not be developed. He expressed
concern regarding noise from the proposed Family Fun Center. He requested that staff return to the neighborhood
a1 a meeting at Rosebank School with the process necessary to keep that area open space. They were an organi:red
community and would listen to whatever was presented to keep it open space.
Member Horton questioned if 1he residents wanted the Agency to consider some type of assessment district where
each of the families had to pay into 1he district annually to keep it open space.
Mr. Luzzaro stated he wanted the City to bring to them anything that would make that process possible.
. Damian Zamudio. 478 Parkside Court, Chula Vista, CA, Associated Student Body President-EastLake High
School, spoke in support of the Family Fun Center. He felt the Fun Center could be beneficial in providing a new
and positive activity for teens while taking them away from the negative aspects of the community. It would also
provide jobs for teens.
. Daniel Edward Stevens, 1552 Larkhaven Drive, Chula Vista, CA, Junior Class President-EastLake High
School. spoke in support of the Family Fun Center. He felt it would be a place for families to come together.
. Terry Costello, Country Vistas Lane, Bonita, CA, Commissioner of Finance-EastLake High School, Eagle
Scout, and President of EastLake High School Interact, spoke in support of the Family Fun Center. Their
organizations were looking at a reward system for maintaining a certain GP A and he felt activities at the Family
Fun Center could be an incentive.
. Sandee Reyna. 64 Minot, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in opposition of the staff recommendation and in support
of open space. She felt EastLake would be a perfect place for the Family Fun Center as there were areas currently
zoned for such a proj ect.
. Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, Chula Vista, CA, gave an organi:red presentation on behalf of
Family Fun Center. He emphasi:red that the facilities being proposed were a newer generation type. They had lush
vegetation and sensitive type lighting. He reviewed the geographic location of the various components of the
project. He did not feel the noise from the go-carts would be perceptible and they were willing to allow the
environmental and noise studies speak for themselves. The issue on lighting was a legitimate one, but the newer
generation of lighting not intrusive on the neighborhood. Traffic was also a legitimate concern and was another
issue that would be dealt with in further environmental studies and EIR. There would be benefils to the community,
i.e. upwards to one hundred employees during the summer and fifty to seventy-five employees for the balance of
2-3
Minutes
February 15. 1994
Page 4
the year. As part of the facility there would be a learning center with a computer lab which would be a free facility
available to adult schools, elementary and secondary schools, business associations, etc. as a community service.
Council had been concerned regarding the lack of recreational facilities in the western portion of the City. The
facility offered a supervised environment for the youth of the community. They had recommended a shared use
of the recreation complex where the Ci1y would have full control of use for three days a week. The high school
and elementary school did not have any concerns regarding the type of land use being proposed, strictly from their
pUlView - whether it going to generate additional students for Rosebank Elementary School and the junior and senior
high schools that would be serviced from the project. Whether they were talking about the Family Fun Center,
Sweetwater project, family recreation center, or senior housing, there would be no children generated by the
projects. They were in complete support of the staff recommendation. Even if the Agency wanted 10 pursue open
space they would have to move forward to the next step. The worse thing the Agency could do would be to do
nothing as it was unfair to those proposing projects and to the residents. If the Agency wanted to pursue open space
they needed to look at it as to whether it should be open space acquired by the City, which had no1 been the policy
of the City over the last thirty years, or to find out if there was an interest on the part of the residents in the
community to purchase the land at fair market value. He hoped if that was something the Agency wanted to do,
they would still allow the planning process to move forward 00 the other alternative land uses.
Chairman Nader questioned if the traffic access would be off Second A venue.
Mr. Cox stated that was correct, there was a sixty foot easement that was proposed as access for the veterans home.
Chairman Nader questioned the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Cox responded there were 280 parking spaces and it was a shared area for the Family Fun Cen1er and the
Chula Vista Recreation Center. Projections had been made regarding vehicle trips for the Fun Center and that
information would be supplied to the Agency. It was an off-peak type of traffic pattern.
Chairman Nader questioned if any other sites had been looked at.
Mr. Cox responded that Mr. Warner had been looking in the Chula Vista area for the last 3 112 years and did look
at a number of sites including the Rancho del Rey Business Park. Other possible sites were where the tree farm
was located on "H" Street and 805, and the proposed Sweetwater site was the only site they had been able to
identify. They also looked at a site across from Eucalyptus Park but it did not work out for a number of reasons.
The Rancho del Rey site was within days of submitting a proposal for the Home Depot.
Chairman Nader stated EastLake was going to have a requirement to make up some public recreational acreage that
was lost because of a misunderstanding between EastLake and the City as to public versus private nature of parks
in EastLake I. He questioned if there had been discussions about using the project in one of the future phases of
EastLake as a means of EastLake meeting that requirement.
Mr. Cox responded that it had not specifically been discussed. but when looking at 1he Family Fun Centers in San
Diego County, everyone was adjacent to a highway.
Chainnan Nader questioned if Mr. Cox had staled that the noise from the go-carts would be dampened to a level
of insignificance to the nearby residents.
Mr. Cox stated he was convinced that was true, but it had to be established through qualified people. That would
be due to the distance to the closest residence and the smaU size of the engines. There had been a significant
number of changes in the go-carts and emissions and noise were within the State standards.
Member Moore felt it was proper for the Agency to review the site and complete the zoning for the area as it
pertained to the General Plan. Alternatives, including open space, along with the various developers desires and
neighborhood desires should be reviewed and returned to the Agency prior to the environmental impact report. The
draft ElR was not official and had to go to the public for review and input. It would then come back as an ElR
02-1/
Minutes
February 15. 1994
Page 5
which would again go out for public review and input with public hearings by the Planning Commission and
Council.
Member Rindone felt it was important to listen to the community. The one theme consistent with the speakers that
needed to be addressed by the Agency was to look at the other alternatives prior to making any motion. Assessment
districts was one op1ion and another option to be considered would be some participation by the City. He hoped
if the item was referred to staff 1he option of looking at the DIF fees 1hat were collec1ed for purchase of parks and
open space on the west side of town would be examined. The most obvious problem with any proposal, including
the ones he had mentioned, was the traffic concern which he felt was a critical issue. There was a great deal of
concern expressed by the residents in relationship to the demineralization plant. There was the process of Eminen1
Domain available to Sweetwater Authority regardless of the wishes of the City. He questioned if the water was
currently demineralized.
· Jim Smythe, Chief Engineer, Sweetwater Authority, responded that it was" not.
Member Rindone questioned if it was a new process for water in the system.
Mr. Smythe responded that it was not. The quality of the water from the Sweetwater River had more minerals and
required a different process.
Member Rindone questioned why the process was being started now and why in that location.
Mr. Smythe stated Sweetwater Authority's goal was to become less dependent on imported water through the San
Diego County Water Authority. That water was becoming more scarce due to environmental concerns in the north
and more water from the Colorado River being taken by Arizona. The lower Sweetwater River basin was another
source of water, but because it was poor quality it required a different treatment.
Member Rindone questioned if the water was more alkaline.
Me. Smythe responded that the area that drained into the basin was very urbanized so there was a lot of grease, oils,
and other pollutants. The treatment was called reverse osmosis.
Member Rindone stated from what was being described it was not currently being done anywhere else in the system.
Mr. Smythe responded that was correct.
Member Rindone questioned how the Sweetwater Authority came to the conclusion that the Sweetwater site was
their top choice.
Mr. Smythe responded that the property was about 5 1/2 acres and they needed only three acres. There was one
other site at Sweetwater and Plaza Bonita Roads. It was in a flood plain, but would be listed as an alternative site.
Member Rindone questioned what the mineral content was as it entered the site.
Mr. Smythe responded the Authority was under a strict regulatory environment from the EPA and State Health
Department. One measure of water was total dissolved solids and the regulatory requirement was 500 milligrams
per liter. The water going down the river was anywhere from 9,000 to 10.000 milligrams per liter. The water in
Sweetwater Reservoir from rainfall was roughly 1,000 to 2,000 milligrams per liter.
Member Rindone questioned what chemicals and other substances would be added to the water during the process.
Mr. Smythe responded that the first chemical that would be added would be sulfuric acid which would allow the
reverse osmosis to act more efficiently. When tbe treatment was completed tbere was a compound tbat would have
to be disposed of. Once through the reverse osmosis process another chemical, which he could not remember at
,2-5
Minutes
February 15. 1994
Page 6
the moment, was added to raise the ph and then sodium hypo-chloride was added as a disinfectant to kill tbe
bacteria. Two cbemicals belped tbe efficiency and one was used as a disinfectant. They were meeting tbe
guidelines of the regulatory environment and there sbould not be a problem.
Member Rindone questioned if there were any gases that could be released from the sulfuric acid or other liquids
!bat could leak into tbe environment.
Mr. Smytbe responded be was not aware of any.
Member Rindone questioned tbe by-products.
Mr. Smythe stated !bere would be a concentrate which contained all !be minerals. That would be flushed and
disposed of. Their consultant was conducting a pilot program to determine all of the constituents in the by-product
and tben tbey would bave to go to !be Regional Quality Control Board to see wbat could be done wi!b !be
concentrate. It could be put in the Spring Valley outfall, put back into the river, and there were a number of areas
that had once been wetlands and they had talked to environmentalists about restoring those areas.
Member Rindone questioned whether tbose options and impacts would be included in any studies.
Mr. Smythe responded that the ErR would address all that.
Member Rindone stated it was is understanding tbat tbe water from Sweetwater Autbority was cblorinated.
Mr. Smythe responded that it was not fully chlorinated. They used chloramines which was chlorine and ammonia.
Again, it was a regulatory environment.
Member Rindone stated he wanted assurance that those issues would be addressed. Another issue that had no1 been
addressed, which had been raised at the Rosebank meeting, was the safety issue of the facility.
Member Horton stated one of the concerns expressed was how much noise the facility would generate.
Mr. Smy!be responded there would be noise from the pumps but they would be contained within the building. The
building would be constructed to altenuate any sound and would meet any noise thresholds imposed by the City.
Member Rindone stated it was important there was a thorough examination of the issues as i1 was something !bat
was beyond !be authority of the City due to the possibility of Eminent Domain. He had also been told !bat there
would be containment on-site of any leakage so there would not be contamination of the ground water.
Mr. Smythe responded that any of the tanks containing chemicals would have containment facilities to ensure there
would not be a leak.
. Cary Wright, Director, Sweetwater Authority, felt Member Rindone's questions were well founded.
Reverse osmosis and demineralization of water was not new and was being done all over the world. To leave any
kind of impression for the public that the Sweetwater Authority would in any way try to pass off any type of safety
hazard to the community was totally inappropriate. Of the twenty-four water agencies in San Diego County,
Sweetwater Authority was probably the most environmentally concerned as they protected the upper Sweetwater
River and fought the Pointe Gosnell development. Of the three chemicals mentioned, the facts should be fully
presented to the people. The EP A and State regulations protected the public on that issue. There were not that
many places to put such a facility and he appreciated the concerns presented by the public, but felt once they saw
the facility and the way it would be landscaped and low noise levels produced, it would be the least of the problems
created by the other proposals being considered. The bottom line was that they were importing 90 % of the water
and it was predicted there would be less water next year. Sweetwater Authority had an opportunity to become more
independent and therefore give their customers a belter break. The citizens should be assured tbat he would have
no part in any kind of a danger to them or their children. The Council and citizens should get behind tbe water
.2 -6
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 7
community to see thai they had a change to deliver more water because the future of water in San Diego County
and South County Was in very desperate straights.
Member Rindone stated the concern of the residents was not only the water supply and costs. but the safety aspects
and the Council had a responsibility to ensure that those were being done. He felt the number one issue was the
1raffic impacts and also the commitment the City had to the veterans home.
. Deseret Moctezuma, 48 Las Flores Drive. Chula Vista, CA, representing the Rosebank Safety Patrol, stated
there were people that were driving in the area that students did not know and were playing loud music and it was
scary. There had been an attempted kidnap near the school and she and other studenls were scared.
Chairman Nader requested that the faculty advisor contact the Police Department regarding the potential kidnapping.
There was also an ordinance that regulated boom boxes and the Police Department would work closely with those
on the Patrol so no student would be afraid to serve on the Patrol.
Member Fox was concerned the residents were not notified of a meeting where the Agency was requested to take
action. He questioned whether the proposed facility by the Sweetwater Authority would impact the other alternatives
proposed.
Mr. Salomone responded that it had not been assessed in detail, it looked like the Sweetwater proposal could go
on its discreet property without impact on the other facilities.
Member Fox appreciated the comments by the representatives of the Sweetwater Authority and knew for a fact that
the comments made were true. He agreed that the worse thing the Agency could do would be 10 do nothing or go
back and study it again. The issue needed to be resolved. He wanted to give the residents an opportunity to have
what they really wanted, i.e. open space. The City needed to be fair to everyone and allow them to make their case
and 1hat was what an EIR would do. It would give the Agency information on traffic, noise, air pollution, and other
problems regarding the proposed projects. If it was going to create significant impacts that could not be mitigated
he would not support it. It was the first time he had heard from the neighborhood that they wanted open space and
were willing to pay for it also. The Agency also had the duty to look at the Family Fun Center proposal as it
established facilities in an area that was facility poor. He was not endorsing anyone particular project, but was
giving all alternatives an equal opportunity.
Chairman Nader stated he had only heard of two proposed uses that he was ready to consider supporting. He was
not speaking about the Sweetwater demineralization plant as that was something under the jurisdiction of the
Sweetwater Authority and the City'sjurisdiction would be limited. Of the other proposed projects or uses he would
support the veterans home and park or straight parks and open space which seemed to be the clear preference of
those living in the area. Any use other than low/moderate income housing would require that the City's housing
fund be reimbursed from other funds for that property. There could be ways of achieving 1hat, i.e. an assessment
district or outright purchase by the City. Once the siting of the veterans facility was announced he would be
supportive of polling the residents in the area as to whether they were in1erested in selling up an assessment district
for permanent open space acquisition and preservation after the City had received a reliable figure as to what the
costs would be so the residents would know what the costs would be. He felt there was a need for a Fun Center
somewhere in the City, but he was concerned regarding the impacts on the existing neighborhood and that was why
staff was directed to hold a neighborhood meeting. He hoped that if the Fun Center did not locate on the
Sweetwater parcel that it would look at properties in EastLake or other parts of western Chula Vista, perhaps along
the 1-5 corridor. He had a fundamental underlying problem with the staff recommendation to proceed to a General
Plan Amendment. Phase II, the environmental process, was required if anything was to be done to the property.
The three items staff indicated would be delayed to accommodate the General Plan Amendment study were of higher
priority than the GPA amendment. He could not support direction to staff to delay those projects and allocate staff
time for a GPA study - Phase 1 which would basically be preparing a great deal of paper on subjects that had been
discussed numerous times. If there was a policy decision that the Agency wanted to do an assessment district for
permanent open space, or the Veterans Commission indicated it was willing to go ahead with the veterans project,
or the majority of the Agency wanted to go with the Fun Center, or the Sweetwater Authority came in wi1h a
02-7
Minutes
February 15. 1994
Page 8
demineralization plant, the last part of Phase I would have to be drafted at that point. He felt it was putting the cart
before the horse to draft 1hat without specific policy direction. Everything above that on Exhibit A was essentially
a rehash of what bad already been presented, especially if it was done before the environmental analysis. He would
be interested in holding a hearing on, and consideration of an actual General Plan Amendment if one was put before
the Agency in response to policy direction by the Agency.
Member Moore stated staff could only do so much and felt there needed to be priorities. He felt staff was going
in the right direction. Northwest Chula Vista was short of recreational activities and the Fun Center proposal gave
the City control over the recreational facilities for three days out of the week for free and after X number of years
it would be turned over to the City. The study should be done, the statistics should come back, the open space
district should come back, and the assessment district should come back.
MS (Fox/Moore) to adopt the staff recommendation - the draft GPA should include costs for an assessment
district and open space.
Chairman Nader stated he would vote no for reasons already stated. Everything above the last line on Phase I was
material that had been discussed on numerous occasions and he would not assign it a high priority.
Member Fox questioned if the staff recommendation was approved if the review by the boards/commissions would
be included in Phase I, prior to Council receiving the report.
Mr. Salomone responded that was correct.
Member Rindone stated he could support the motion as it was partially what was advocated by the property owners.
He wanted to ensure that any park land fees available for the western area of the City would be looked at as
another option. Agreed to by the Maker and Second of the Motion. It could be an additional option, but it was
not intended to deprive the other parks of those DIF fees.
Chairman Nader stated the City had made presentations to the Veterans Commission in the past on a potential
project and he interpreted the motion on the floor as not pulling back on the position. If the State Ve1erans
Commission wanted to work with the City on that proposal the City would remain willing to work with them.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
Member Rindone stated an item of such magnitude should never be put on the Consent Agenda.
******
The Agency recessed at 8:13 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
******
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REOUEST FROM ENERGY AlITO RECYCLING FOR ruE
PURPOSE OFESTABLlSHING A BUSINESS FOR ruE AlITO STORAGE, WRECKING AND DISMANTLING
AT 793-A ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED IN ruE OTAY
VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ISUPO-93-{)3InThe land uses on the subject parcels
were authorized by Conditional Use Permit #PCC-73-27 in 1973 as part of the Otay Industrial Park and
expired in 1986. Under the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan. formed in 1983. the land uses
allowed for this area is Limited Industrial/Research. In order to continue the existing land uses, these
being the storage, maintenance and repair of heavy equipment, the impounding, storage and
dismantling, and wrecking of automobiles, a Special Permit is required under the Redevelopment Plan.
.2 -,ff
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 9
Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. The public: heanlg was opened.-.d cooU1ued from the
meeting of February 1. 1994 to this meeting (February 15. 1994). (Community Development Director)
RESOLUTION 1372 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT TO
ENERGY AUTO RECYCLING FOR CERTAIN AUTO WRECKING USES AT 783-A ENERGY WAY, CHULA
VISTA. CALIFORNIA: PARCEL BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE OTA Y VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST mOM TOWN AUTO RECYCLING FOR THE
PURPOSE OFESTABLlSHING A BUSINESS FOR AUTO STORAGE, WRECKING AND DISMANTLING AT
793-8 ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED IN THE OTAY VALLEY
ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ISUPO-93-()41
RESOLUTION 1373 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT TO
TOWN AUTO RECYCLING FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED AUTO WRECKING USES AT 793-B ENERGY
WAY. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
C. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REOUEST mOM ALL-Z AUTO RECYCLING FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR AUTO STORAGE. WRECKING AND DISMANTLING AT
793-C ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED IN THE OTAY VALLEY
ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ISUPO-93-t)5)
RESOLUTION 1374 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT TO
ALL-Z AUTO WRECKING FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED AUTO WRECKING USES AT 793-C ENERGY
WAY. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
D. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REOUEST FROM JAY JUSTUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR AUTO STORAGE. WRECKING AND DISMANTLING AT 891 ENERGY
WAY. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SUPO-93-061
RESOLUTION 1375 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT TO
JAY JUSTUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED AUTO
WRECKING USES AT 891 ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED
WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Chairman Nader stated he had been informed by the Agency Attorney that the hearings could be heard
simultaneously.
Member Moore stated on page 5-24 and 5-25 some of the conditions were listed. Items under "bullet
#3" had to be done within ninety days and items under "bullet #5" had to be done within thirty days.
He felt it was an extremely important item. The problems in the area had been brought down to a
minimum and the City needed to do what was necessary to get everything in order.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no
public testimony, the public hearings were declared closed.
RESOLUTIONS 1372. 1373. 1374. AND 1375 OFFERED BY MEMBER HORTON. reading of the text
was waived. passed and approved unanimously.
,2 -9
Minutes
February 15, 1994
Page 10
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ACTION ITEMS
None submitted.
ITEMS PULLED mOM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Item pulled: 4. The minutes will retlect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - None
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - None
8. MEMBERS' COMMENTS - None
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:30 P.M. to the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday,
March 1, 1994 at 4:00 p.m.. immediately following the City Council meeting, Council Chambers, Public
Services Building.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
~
. y Clerk
by:
02. -/0
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item i
Meeting Date 03/01194
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION 1:3 81 Extending the Owner Participation Agreement
with Lawrence M. and Stephen P. Cushman, dated October 17, 1991, for
a Period of Two Years
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director ( _ S ,
REVIEWED BY: Executive Director0~ ~~I
(J {4/5ths Vote: Yes No Xl
BACKGROUND:
The Agency entered into an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with Mrs. Helen Cushman
on October 17, 1991 for the development of an approximately lO-acre property located at 517
Shinohara Lane. This property was later transferred to Lawrence M. and Stephen P. Cushman,
and the OPA was extended by the Agency until October 17, 1993. The OPA expired on
October 17, 1993. The Cushmans have requested a further extension of the Agreement due to
current adverse market conditions (see attached letter, Exhibit I).
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency adopt the resolution approving a two year extension
to the OPA.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Otay Valley Road Project Area
Committee reviewed the request for extension of the OPA at their meeting of February 14,
1994. The PAC unanimously approved staff's recommendation for a two-year extension of the
OPA.
DISCUSSION:
The Cushman site comprises 9.73 acres at the westerly end of Shinohara Lane (Project Map
attached, Exhibit 2). This site slopes to the south and is bounded on the south and east by
industrial projects; on the west by single-family residences fronting on Oleander Avenue; and
on the north by a multi-family condominium project. Two industrial warehouse buildings
comprising 110,000 square feet are planned for construction.
This project was originally proposed as a single industrial building with loading bay facing west.
City staff worked closely with the developer's architect to redesign the project in order to
minimize noise and visual impacts upon neighboring residential properties. In approving the
project the Agency required that two noise studies be undertaken: the first to occur when the
building is 80 percent occupied, and the second to occur six months later. If necessary, the
owner will be required to perform reasonable mitigation measures to protect neighboring
residential properties.
'I-I
Page 2, Item t/
Meeting Date 03/01194
The grading of the site has been completed. The Cushmans have requested an extension of the
OPA for three years in order to apply for building permits. The need for the extension is due
primarily to current economic conditions which have greatly impacted the local industrial
construction and rental market.
The Cushmans are not ready to develop the site and have requested a three year extension of the
OP A. Staff considers three years excessive since physical conditions in the area affecting the
project may change thus requiring design changes. As an alternative, staff recommends a two
year extension to October 17, 1995 (four months have already expired). At the end of that time,
the project may require review by the Design Review Committee if staff determines that
conditions in the area have changed.
FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated value of the proposed project is $2,750,000. The project
will provide $27,500 in tax increment revenue to the Agency following construction.
[C:IWP51IAGENCYlRA4SICUSHMAN3.RA4]
1--1 - 1--
.i\
// \\ ./-
.. . - ~
/' ,.~ ,. " rr'> 'r~~'
..-- r . r- (#./"-_'r,. r' r..-,(' r-l",.
- -I!;Y,'~ r,.f:"r:r";,J -.Lr ":r;.......~r - ,........ ''r'...
....,. r# L # rr~ "r_ - "Jr.-" r,.,: rt:rl
~;.;J<${~~t,.;;.;,E.<:"''':;::,~,;,~_ ,~
~II\""", E ~1[T1ITT1TTTi
~~ ~'~~\~~ ~
Z (1 .......... ~r::::J. l-~C:;.Bl1IIllI'n
.L ~g/I: E'B u
~ L IUUWUJt= 8 g QillllW
~ c~ 1~:~ i~ g WUlJ.
ill E1lUWEtt s _
\W ~~r E.=
~ ;-- ~e:8 \~,.
'\"'_\. ,~~ j
n ~~ . . .J
~~~'U
~
~
~
.
-.~~..-
.~
,
,
',... C"l s~
. -
t!)J ~r';:: '~H~ RtJ :11- --; I L J ~~,
' . , - r:a r- H 1 r--r.
r--, 'l 1 r-- .u....._
rr-
~Dr!: B J..r-
f'. 1ll.4 d ...J
T'." R 41
I /.... J. l' r- 1 l.L.1. \-
.L L_r- r;:J j .L t
L.---' \J L..tJ-- 1..1 J.
'"
'\ ,r r
\, r~r--
r-~ t- i =:l L
L ::=:- ..;1<fRRY PT
)
,..-,.-,r
-, te-
II- r-
::-~
1 J
~
'JcL ~ \
~
CT.
i
I
.....
~
f12.b~T
L.L:tA n t'H
L
-
r-
r--
Jr--
-
'"
z
.
>-.
o
z
<C
:r
1ZI
o
'"
z
-'
'"
o
CJ '
<.>
.
c(
:s
o
a:
OTAY VALLEY ROAD
.~
~
----
'1-3
)'(LOCA TOR '
. w~~ /Vfflt.e
, L...
-' ;;/If'
( ~~ N. OJ~t--4.AN
~'"1 c;q.~ ~.
( ......... - - -
1
10/13/93 1~;49
X 619 460 900~ W" STEEN & ASSOC
e2
r~ ~~~'V~:~~~~ L~D ~~~~G~I"~!~N~
October 13, 1993
Mr. Fred Cassman
The Redevelopment Agency
City of Chu1a Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
ehu1a Vista, CA 91910
Re: Otay Valley Industrial Park -
517 Shinohara Lane, Resolution 1267
Ilear Fred:
On behalf of OUT "lients. Lawrence M. snd Stephen I'. Cushman. we hereby
requ8st a 3 year extenRion of time of the Owner Parti"lpation Agreement for the
above referenced property. The current economic condition.. have reaulted in
our clients being unable to develop the referenced property as requircd by the
Owner Participation Agreement.
A copy of Resolution 1267 and the Owner Perticipation ARreement is enclosed
as you requested. Please include this reqnest for ""tension of time on the "gonda
of the next Redevelopment Agency in November.
Your help is greatly appreciated. Please give m.. a call if you have any
questions or need any clarifications.
Very truly your..,
WILLIAM A. ST~RN & ASSOCIAT~S
c:ffJ~;(?0;~~
WAS:MAT:,.s
William A. Steen
c~t Lawrance M. CURhman
P.Ilclosures
#621~-101
~
L{~'f
. B580 LA MESA BLVD.. SlllTE 102. I.A MESA. CALIFORNIA 91941. (619) 460-9000 . ~A)( (619) 400-"005 ·
10/13/"3 1~;~1
10/11/U3 13:4U ttS1U 291 5544
X 61" 460 "00~ WM STEEN & RSSOC
06
1iI 00%/007
Recording Requested By
and When Recorded Return to:
The Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attention:
[Space above for Recorder's use only)
OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CIIULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
and
STm'HEN p, AND LAWRENCE M, CUSHMAN
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, a body corporate and politic [hereinafter referred to 8S "AGENCY"]; and HELEN N.
CUSHMAN [hercinafter referred to as "DEVBLQPBR"].
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desires to develop real piOpert}' within the Otay Valley
Road Redevelopment Project Area which is subject to the jurisdiction and control of the AGENCY: and,
wHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has presented plalls tor development to the Otay Valley
Road Project Area Comminee and the Design Review Committee; and,
WHEREAS, said plans for development bave been ~mmended for approval by said
Committees; and,
WHEREAS, the AGENCY hereby approves the development proposals as submitted by
[he DEVELOPER; and,
WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires that said development proposal be implemented and
completed as 800[1 as is practicable.
NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DBVHLOPBR agree as follows:
I. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Agreement.
2. The property to be developed is descn'bed as Assessor's Parcel Number 644-040-01
located at S 17 Shinohara Lane, Chula Vista. attached hereto and by this reference
Incorporated heJein.
# <I~5
18/13/'3 1~;~2
S 61' 466 '00~ WM STEEN & ASSOC
07
11003/007
10/11/93 13:50 "619 291 5644
3. The DEVELOPER covenants by and for themselves, their heirs, executors,
administtators and assigns, and all pl'fSons claiming under or thtoU&h them tho following:
A. That the property will be developed in accordance with the AGENCY appwved
development proposal attached hereto liS Erhlblt A. and on file with the AGBNCY
Secretary, as Document No. oV/OPII20.
B. DEVELOPER agrees to obtain buUding permits within two yeatS from the date
of this Agreement and to actually develop tho propertY within one year from the date
of issuance of the building permits. In the event DEVELOPER falls to obtain such
building permits within two years or fails to obtain an extension to obtain said
permits, the approval of DEVELOPER'S development proposals shall be void and
Ihis Agreement shall have no further force or effect.
c. That in aU deeds granting or conveying an intereat in the propertY, the follDWing
language shall appear:
1he grantee herein covenants I1y andfor themselVt!s, their heirs,
e;recUlors, administrators and assig/lJ, and all perso71S claiming
under or Ihrough them, thilt there shall be no discrlmination.
against or segregadon of, arry person 01' group uf perso/lJ on
account of race, color. creed, nalional origin or ancestry In the
sule. U!ase, sublease, transfer, use, occupa1lCY. tenure, or
enjoymem oftheprmlses Mrdn conveyed. nor shtlU the gmnlet
himself or any persollS claiming ruuJer or through him /!Stabllsh
or pennit MY $uch practice uf discrimination or $egregation with
T(/erence to the selection, location, nrnnber use or occupancy uf
lenan,s. lessees. sublenant lessees, or verrllees /lJ the premises
herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the
land.
D. That in all leases demising an interest in all or any part of the property. the
following langlJ8&C shall appear:
The lessee herein coW/nalllS by and for themselves. their heirs. eucUlOrs,
administrators and assigllS, and all persons clatrning under or through him. and
this lease Is made and accepted upon and subJect 10 the following condiltOIlS:
7hat there shall be no discrimination agalmt or segregation of, any person or
group ufperso/lJ. on Qccount of race, color, creed, IUIIlomU origin. orancestry.
In Ihe leasing, subleasing, transferring use. occupancy. tenure. or enjoyment uf
the premises herein leased, nor shall the lessee himSelf or any persons claiming
undLr or through him. eSlablish or pennl, any such practices of discrimination
or segregation Wllh rliference to the: selection. location, number or use, or
occupancy ofte1UJfIIS, lessees. sublessees. subtenants. or vendees In rhepremlses
herein leased.
-----
~
~ tf-(P
10/13/9'3 1'=~2
10/11/93 13:51 !t119 291 5544
S 619' 460 9'0B~ WM STEEN & ASSOC
08
~004/00T
4. DEVELOPER agrees that if either the AGENCY or the CITY OF CHULA VISTA
proceeds to form a Special Assessment District for the constrUCtion or maintelW1ce of
public roads, common areas, or other public facilities which benefit the real property,
subject to this agreement, the DEVELOPER hereby waives any right she may have to
protest the fonnation of such Special Assessment District. Said waiver shall not preclude
the DEVELOPER from protesting the Bmount of any assessment on such property.
S. DEVELOPER agrees to accept the attached conditiOl1ll imposed by the Design
Review Committ= as deacribcd in Exhibit B,
6. DEVELOPER agrees to maintain the premises in FIRST CLASS CONDlTJON.
"A. DUTY TO MAINTAIN FI~T q;~SS CnNTlITION. Throughout the
term of this Alreemcnt, Developer shall, at Developer's sole cost and expeIlse,
maintain the Premises and all Improvements in first class condition and repair, and
in accordance with all applicable lliws, pennits, licenses, Blld other governmental
authorizations, rules, ordinances, orders, dccrccs, and regulatiolll now or hereafter
enacted, issued or promulgated by federal, 1ItaI.e, county, municipal, and other
governmental agencies, bodies, and courtS having or claiming jurisdiction and all
their respective departments, bureaus, IlIld offielals.
If the owners fall to maintain the property in a "flI'St class condition", the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista or Its agents shall havo the right
to go on Lhe property Blld perform the necessary maintenance Blld the cost of said
maintenance shall become a lien against the property. The AglltlCy shall have the
riiht to enforce thi, lien either by foreclosing on the property or by forwarding the
amount to be coJlected to the Tax Asscssor who shall mpke it part of the tax bill,
B. Developer shall promptly and diligently repair, restore, alter, add to, remove,
and replace, as required, the Premises and all Improvements to maintain 01 comply
as abovc, or to. remedy all damage to or destruction of all or my part of the
Improvements. Any repair, restoration, altenLtion, addition, removal, maintenaDce,
replacement and other act of compliance under this Paragraph [hereafter collectively
referred to as "Restoration'] shall be completed by Developer whether or not funds
are available from insurance proceeds or subtenant contributions. The Reatomtlon
shall satisfy the requirements of any sub-sublease then in effect for the Premises or
Improvements with respect thereto 01, if no sub-sublease is then in effect, shall be
repaired or restored in the building standard shell condition existing immediately
prior to !he date of such damage or destruction. .
C. In order to enforce all above maintenance provisions, the parties agree that the
Community Development Dil:CCtor is empowered to make reasonable determinations
as to whether the property is in a first class condition, 1f 110 detetmines they are
not, he (l) will notify the owners in writing IlIld (2) extends a reasonable time to
cure. If a cure or substantial progress to cure hBll not been made within that time,
the Director is authorized to effectuate the cure by City forces or otherwise, the cost
of which will be promptly reimbursed by the owners.
~
cf;;;1 t( - 7
10/13/'5'3 1~;~3
10/11/93 J3:52 "619 291 5544
X 61~ 460 900~ WM STEEN & ASSOC
..
IilI 005/007
In the event that there is a dispute ovu whether property is in II. f'1rst class conditioo
Dr over the amount of work and expense authoril.cd by the Director to cure, the
parties agree that the City Manager or his designee shall resolve that dispute and
both parties shalI be bound by his decision. In the event that the Din:ctor llecilles
without dispute, or the City Manager decideI in dispute, that the City hu to cure
and the amount of cure, then OWlJers have to reimburse the City within thirty (30)
days of demand. If not reimbursed, it constitutes II. lien and City is authorized to
record said lien with the County Recorder, upon the premises.
D. FIRST CLASS CONDmON DEFINED. 'Plrst class condition and repair,'
means Restontion which is nllCesllllrY to keep the Premises and Improvements in
efficient and llltracti.ve condition, at least substantially equal in quality to the
condition which exists when the condition(s) in attached Erhibir B are completed. .
7. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPBR
expressed herein shall run with the land for the term of this agreement. DEVELOPER
shall have the ri&ht, without prior approval of AGENCY, to asllign its rights and delegate
its duties under this Agreement, and shall thereafter have no furtber liability bere\inder.
8. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER
expressed herein are for the express benefit of tbe AGENCY and for all owners of mIl
propeny within the boundaries of the Olay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area as
the same now exists or may be hereafter amended. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree
that the provisions of this Agreement may be spllCifica11y enforced in any court of
competent jurisdiction by the AGENCY on its own behalf or on behalf of any owner of
real property within tbe boundaries of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project
Area.
9. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the pnmJises shall only be used fOT light
industrial land uses permitted under the I-L, Limited Industrial zone of the City of Chula
Vista's Zoning Ordinance, or land uses permitted in I-L zones through the conditional
use process.
10. DEVELOPER or subsequent owners shall not allow activities to be conducted that
create noise, light or other nuisances, Upon completion of the project, DEVELOPER
will provide to the owners of residential properly directly Bbutting the DBVELOPER'S
parcel the telephone numbers of property managers and the City's Code Enforcement
Officer to allow for complaints to be lodged and abatement to be iniliakd if anyon-site
noise ieneration activitios result in a perceived nuisance.
11. The term of this Agreement shall be the same as the term of the Olay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area which runs until December 2028, or until major
redevelopment of the building taDs place, whichever first occurs. Initiation of the
redevelopment shall mean the preparation and submission of plana to the AGBNCY for
the renovation or demolition of structures and redevelopment of the site.
~tr 'f-f
10/13/93 1~;~4
10/11/93 13:&4 !tl19 291 5544
a 61' 460 900~ WM STEEN & ASSOC
,.
IZJ 001/007
12. AGENCY and DBVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DBVELOPBR
expressed herein are for the express benefit of the AGENCY and for all Ownerll of real
property within the boundaries of the Olay Valley Read Redeve1opll1Cllt Project Area lIB
the lIlUIIe now exists or may be hereafter amended. AGENCY and DBVBLOPBR. qrec
that the proviaions of this Agreement may be specifu:all.y onlotted ill any court of
competent j\lrisdietion by the AGENCY on ita own beba1f or on behalf of lUlY owner of
real property within the boundaries of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment project
Area,
13. AGBNCY and DEVELOPER qree that Ibis Aateement may be recorded by the
AOENCY in the Offico of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California.
RBDBVELOPMBNI' AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
. AGENCY"
Dated: ru.. 1>.Jt'> J.w... 10) 191;;)-
By: r/!./~
nm Nader, Chai.rman
STBPJmN P. CUSIIMAN
"DBVBLOPBR"
Da~: BovembBr 11, 1992
~ (~,L,J._
Steph P. Cushman
LAWRBNCB M. CUSHMAN
"DBVELOPER"
Da~: NDv.mbeT 1'-. 1QQ,
IC:\wr.!11AllIlNCY\Ctlll1lM.Vl3.0...]
"
:;: L/~9
This Jage intentionally left blank.
.~ / ,
.
7
-if --- t/~!O
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA EXTENDING THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
WITH LAWRENCE M. AND STEPHEN P. CUSHMAN, DATED OCTOBER 17,
1991, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") entered into an Owner
Participation Agreement with Lawrence M. and Stephen P. Cushman ("Owners") on October
17, 1991; and
WHEREAS, said Owner Participation Agreement required the Owners to obtain
building permits within two years from the date of the Agreement, and to develop the property
within one year thereafter; and
WHEREAS, the Owners have graded the site but have not as yet applied for building
permits due to current adverse economic conditions impacting industrial development in the San
Diego region; and
WHEREAS, the Owners have requested an extension to apply for building permits and
start construction.
NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA does hereby fmd, order, detennine and resolve as follows:
1. The Owner Participation Agreement with Lawrence M. and Stephen P. Cushman,
dated October 17, 1991, is hereby extended to October 17, 1995 and the second sentence of
Section 3~f said Owner Participation Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
"In the event the developer fails to obtain such building permits /2y.
October 17. 1995, or fails to obtain an extension to obtain said
permits, the approval of the developer's development proposals
shall be void and the Agreement shall have no further force or
effect. "
2. All other sections of the Agreement not hereby amended shall remain in full force
and effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman is hereby authorized to execute said
Amendment on behalf of the Agency.
PRESENTED BY:
~~. S'~
./
Bruce M. Boogaard
Agency General Cou
Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary and
Community Development Director
[C:I WP51 IAGENCYIRESOSICUSHMAN3.RES]
-:1 ---/:3
tj~)1
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
NAME: R~ \~ndd ~V<Sl
HOME AOORESS:.l:r\O ~aG[')V\ Ave..
RES PHONE #: 4'7b-/2.-!7 BUS PHONE #:47b-5330
~~~
7~~
~.......,;~--
~~~~,
- - --
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
_ Aging (Cmsm on)
_ Appeals (Board, of)
Charter Review
Child Care Cmsm
Civil Service Cmsm
_ Cultural Arts Cmsm
~ Oesign Review Cmsm
Economic Oev Cmsm
_ Ethics (Board of)
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
RECEIVED
Please Indicate Your Imerest By Checking rhe Appropriate Line(s).
If You Check Mou..1haU-QlJe l,.inefot Please Prioritize Your Imeresl.
)f4 ~tH 11 r3:22
2 Growth Mgml Cmsm _ Safety Cmsm
_ Human Relalio~.c"'Df CfiULA VISTA Southwest PAC Cml
J Int'I Friendshipl{!;Q'mCLERK'S OFFICE ,~ To"" Centre Prj Area Cml
_ Library Board of Trustees _ UC - CV
_ Mobilehome Renl Review Cmsm 8 United Nations Oay Cml
J.- Olay Valley Proj Area Cmt Veterans Affairs
':3 Parks & Rec Cmsm OTHER
~ Planning Cmsm
Resource Con~v Cmsm
CITy:C1LJb *6~
ZIP::3.tllJ:-SS\l
.
REGISTERED VOTER IN CHULA VISTA: ~
YES
NO
DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA'! v""
YES
NO
HOW LONG? SlY'::'
Grade:
WHAT ARE YOUR PRINCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST IN OUR CITY G
SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CAN YOU ~ BRING TO THOSE AR,EAS?
<'-\-
I am f.miliar with the responsibilities assig~d 10 the 8oard/Commillsion/C~)mmil1e.: on which I wish 10 UNe,
@!,l}St1
, 'DATE
. . . PLEASE SEE T REVERSE SIDE OF THIS APPLICA nON FOR VERY IMPORT ANT LEGAL INFORMATION. . .
(, -/