HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1994-17705 COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17705
RDA RESOLUTION NO. 1430
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 94-02) FOR THE CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER;
ADOPTING ADDENDUM EIR 94-02A; MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE FEASIBILITY OF
MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES;
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the area of the land which is subject of this resolution consists of
approximately 31.63 acres located at the terminus of North Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula
Vista, California within the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area, and further identified
as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 562-324-02 and 562-324-04 ("Project Site"); and,
WHEREAS, a person having control over all or a portion of the development of the
Project Site, National Avenue Associates ("Developer"), has proposed the development of an
approximately 212,000 square foot retail shopping center currently known as the Channelside
Shopping Center, including a Wal-Mart Store as a major tenant, as such project is more
particularly described in Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR-94-02, ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, on January 21, 1994, in connection with the Project, the Developer filed
applications with the City of Chula Vista ("City") for (1) General Plan Amendment from
"Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare", and (2) Rezoning from
"I-L-P" (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan) to "C-C-P" (Central Commercial-Precise Plan)
("Discretionary Approvals Applications"); and,
WHEREAS, concurrently, based on a preliminary review of the Project the staff
("Staff") of the City and the Redevelopmerit Agency of the City of Chula Vista
("Redevelopment Agency") has determined that the Project may have an adverse impact on
the environment; and,
WHEREAS, the Staff has determined that the Project is not exempt, neither statutorily
or categorically, from compliance with the statutory duty, as set forth in the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to prepare an Environmental Impact Report; and,
WHEREAS, City retained the services of a Consultant to prepare the Environmental
impact Report for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 1994, evaluating the
Project was prepared and was transmitted by the Redevelopment Agency, as lead agency, to
all concerned parties for review and comment; and,
WHEREAS, notice of availability of the draft Environmental Impact Report was given
as required by law and by policy of the City; and,
II .I
Resolution No. 17705
Page 2
WHEREAS, a public forum on the project was held on June 30, 1994, which included
a presentation on the draft Environmental Impact Report; and,
WHEREAS, written and comments from the public on the draft Environmental Impact
Report were accepted from June 16, 1994 to August 10, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, on July 25, 1994, the Resource Conservation Commission accepted the
draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR-94-02, by a vote of 4 to 1; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing, accepted public
testimony and closed the public review period on the draft Environmental Impact Report on
August 10, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, public comments have been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Project dated September, 1994 ("FEIR 94-02"); and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing on FEIR 94-02, the Discretionary Approvals Applications
and the LCP Amendment was duly noticed and held before the Planning Commission at the
meeting of September 28, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on September 28, 1994,
considered FEIR 94-02, the Discretionary Approval Applications and the LCP Amendment,
took evidence as set forth in the record of its proceedings, made certain findings as set forth
in their Recommending Resolution GPA-94-02/PCZ-94-C, and recommended that City Council
certify FEIR 94-02 and approve the Discretionary Approvals Applications subject to certain
terms and conditions; and,
WHEREAS, an Addendure to FEIR 94-02 ("Addendum 94-02A") was prepared in
accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council
of the City of Chula Vista on November 1, 1994 on FEIR 94-02, Addendum 94-02A,
(collectively "FEIR 94-02'"), the Discretionary Approvals Applications, the LCP Amendment
and the CDP to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public
testimony with regard to same; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, as the Responsible Agency, and the
Redevelopment Agency, as the Lead Agency, have reviewed, analyzed and considered FEIR
94-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project; the Findings of Fact
("CEQA Findings"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations attached hereto; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have found, in their
independent judgment, that FEIR 94-02, the CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared in
accordance with requirements of CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
II I I'
Resolution No. 17705
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency do hereby resolve
as follows:
I. FEIR Certification, CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
A. Certification of Final EIR and Adoption of Addendum.
The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency do hereby certify that the final
Environmental Impact Report, FEIR-94-02 has been prepared in accordance with
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines and
does hereby adopt Addendum 94-02A.
B. Adoption of CEQA Findings.
The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency do hereby approve, accept as
their own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every
one of the findings contained in the CEQA Findings attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
C. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted.
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 94-02 and in the CEQA Findings,
the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency hereby find pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, that the
mitigation measures described as feasible in the above referenced documents,
are feasible, and will become binding upon the party assigned thereby to
implement same.
D. Infeasibility of Alternatives.
Each of the alternatives to the Project which were identified as potentially
feasible in FEIR 94-02 are found not to be feasible since they could not meet
both the objectives of the Project and avoid the identified significant
environmental effects through implementation of feasible mitigation measures
for the reasons set forth in the CEQA Findings.
E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council
and the Redevelopment Agency hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program ("Program") attached hereto as Exhibit B and find that the
Program is designed to ensure that during Project implementation the
permittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the
Project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified
in the Findings and the Program.
Resolution No. 17705
Page 4
F. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects
caused by the Project, or curnulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council
and the Redevelopmerit Agency hereby issue, pursuant to CEQA Guideline
Section 15093, the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as
Exhibit C which identifies the specific economic, social, and other
considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental
effects acceptable.
G. Independent Judgment.
The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency hereby find and determine
that their certification of FEIR 94-02 and the related findings and adoptions
made in connection therewith, were the product of their exercise of their
independent review and judgment.
II. Notice of Determination.
The Environmental Review Coordinator of the City/Agency is here directed to ensure
that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San
Diego at such time that the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency may approve
the Project.
III. Invalidity; Automatic Revocation.
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable,
if the City so determines in its sole discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be
revoked and of no further in force and effect.
Presented by ~,pTd as t/ifor
Director of Planning City Attorney
II I
Resolution No. 17705
Page 5
BEFORE THE t;rlY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RE: PROPOSED CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING (T~rl'ER
FINDINGS OF FACT
L DESCI~JFrION OF THE PROJECT
The 32.5-acre project site is located in the northwestern pox'don of the City of Chula Vista in the County of
San Diego, approximately one mile east of the San Diego Bay. The City of National City borders the west,
north and a potdon of the eastern project limits. State Route 54 extends along the nonhem project
bounda~. Local access to the site is provided by National City Boulevard (Broadway) to the west and 5th
Avenue to the south. The historic Sweetwater River flows through the western potdon of the project site.
The Channelside Shopping Center project consists of the development of a regional retail commercial
shopping center totaling 219,219 square feet in floor space. Within the 22-acre area proposed for
development, specific uses would include a 149,289 square foot anchor store, a 52,640 square foot
anchor retail store, 10,790 square feet of additional retail space and a 6,500 square foot retail/restaurant.
Approximately 10 acres encompassing the historic Sweetwater River in the western potdon of the site and
a drainage in the southern potdon of the site are not proposed for development, with the exception of a fill
bridge proposed to cross the historic Sweetwater River. The f'fll bridge would provide vehicular access from
National City Boulevard to the project site.
Discretionary actions associated with the proposed project include amendments to the Chula Vista General
Plan and Town Center II Redevelopment Ran from Limited-Industrial to Commercial-Thoroughfare. A
fezone, Local Coastal Program amendment and Coastal Development Permit would also be required.
Construction of the fill bridge through the historic Sweetwater River may require permits from the U. g.
Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Fish and Wildiife Service, and/or the California Department of Fish and
Game.
II. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth in the following pages, the administrative record of the City
Council decision on this project shall consist of the following:
1. The Draft and Final Supplemental EIR for the project;
2. All reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by the environmental
consultant and the City that are not privileged communications under the Public Records Act;
3. All documents submitted by members of the public, and public agencies in connection with the
proposed project;
4. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all public meetings and public hearings held by the City;
5. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at public meetings and public hearings; and
6. Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to, the following:
a) Chula Vista General Plan -2010
Resolution No. 17705
Page 6
b) Chala Vista Zoning Ordinance
c) Chula Vista Threshold/Standards Policy
d) Town Center II Redevelopmerit Plan
e) Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dixieline Drainage Channel Realignment (IS-93-037)
f) Chula Vista, City of. 1993a. Addendure Mitigated Negative Dedaration 91-50B Fifth Avenue
Golf Range Sports Center. January 19.
g) Chula Vista, City oL 1991. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chula Vista Industrial
Complex, Case No. IS-91-50. May.
h) Chula Vista, City oL 1992. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration fir the Fifth Avenue Golf
Range/Sports Center, Case No, IS-91-50. June 23.
IH. TERMINOLOGY/THE FURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER ~QA
Section 1S091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effect identified in
an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of
three allowable conclusions. The fLrst is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR." The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissible
contusion is that Is] pecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternative identified in the Final FIR.
As regards the first of the three potential f'mding, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between
"avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The ~
meaning of these terms therefore must be gleaned from other contexts in which they are used. Public
Resources Code Section 21081, on which CEQA Guideline Section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate"
rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially
lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code Section
21001, which declares the Legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significant
environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could "avoid or
substantially lessen" such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" will refer to the ability of one or more mitigation measures
to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially
lessen" will refer to the ability of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a
significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to a level of insignhcicance. Although CEQA Guidefines Section
15091 requires only that approving agerides specify that a particular significant effect is "avoidled] or
substantially lessen led]," these Findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specif~ whether the effect
in question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has simply been
substantially lessened (and thus remains significant). Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does
not require findings to address environmental effects that an FIR identifies as merely "potentially significant,"
these findings will, where appropriate, nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final
FIR.
IV. LEGAL ~-Fi~CT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures oudined in the Final
EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista (City) hereby
binds itself and any other responsible parties to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, '7 i,
II 'l I'
Resolution No. 17705
Page 7
are not meraly informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts a resolution approving the project.
V. MH'IGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, in
adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The program is
designed to ensure that, duxing project implementation, the City and other responsible parties comply with
the feasible mitigation measures. That program is described in the document entitled, Channelside Shopping
Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
VL SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ~F~CTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final EIR identified one significant and several potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts)
that the proposed Shopping Center development would cause. These potentially significant effects will be
adopted through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while one cannot be avoided.
Potentially Si~ntificant Effec~
The following environmental effects, which would be significant (or potentially significant) in the absence
of mitigation measures, can be avoided because of the adoption of mitigation measures. Page numbers of
the Final EIR where the impacts are discussed follow each impact.
Land Use
Implementing the crossing from National City Boulevard to the site would result in impacts to
coastal salt marsh. This is considered to be a significant land use inconsistency with the LCP which
calls for preservation of wetlands (FEIR, p. 4.1-13).
The project as designed would result in impacts to the Chula Vista Greenbelt designation on the
project site. Impacts associated with encroachment into the Chula Vista Greenbelt are considered
to be significant (FEIR, p. 4.1-12).
Ak Q,~llW
Implementation of the proposed project during the construction phase would result in a si~cant
shor~ term local and cumuJative impact to air quality (PM~o)
The projec(s impacts to ozone levels contribute to a cumulativaly significant redohal impact that
is not mitigahle at the project level.
Biological Resources
Direct impacts to 0.06 acre (250 linear feet) of unvegetated drainage are considered significant
because the drainage represents waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the U. 8. Army Corps
of Engineers and wetlands under the jurisdiction of the California Depazl~aent of Fish and Game
(FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
Direct and in~rect impacts to coastal salt marsh habitat as a result of bzldge consm~ctlon are
considered significant. Coastal salt marsh is a rare and depleted habitat type; it is recognized as
Resolution No. 17705
Page 8
wetland habitat by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. In addition, it may support the salt marsh skipper (FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
Direct impacts to Coulter's salt marsh daisy are considered significant (FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
Potential indirect impacts to the light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow as a result
of construction noise are considered significant (FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
Public Septices and Utilities
Implementation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of use on the site and would
result in significant impacts to schools (FEIR, p. 4.7-10).
Traffic Circulation
Implementation of the proposed project without a connection to the National City Boulevard/35th
Street intersection is not proposed since this option was not analyzed and total project traffic
impacts are not known under this untested scenario (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
Implementation of the proposed project would result in unacceptable LOS (<D) for the 5th
Avenue/C Street intersection if left unsignalized (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an adverse traffic impact at 4th Avenue and
Brisbane Street without signallzation and additional capadty for the southbound and eastbound
approaches (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). 'T'~
Implementation of the proposed project would slightly worsen an unacceptable furare LOS peal<
hour condition on SR-54 west bound off-ramp at Highland Avenue and Broadway and E Street
(FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
GeoloRy
Because of the moderate to high erosion hazard, unsuitable imported fill material, and low strength
an high setclement characteristics of the site geology, development of the site in its existing
condition would be a potentially significant impact to proposed structures (FEIR, p. 4.9-8).
The seismic hazard potential is considered high and is therefore a potentially significant impact to
proposed structures and public safety (FEIR, p. 4,9-9).
Due to the presence of potential seismic activity, existing shallow groundwater and sllty sandy soils,
the potential for seismically induced liquefaction occuning on-site is high and represents a
potentially significant impact to proposed structures (FEIR, p. 4.9-9).
Hvdroloszv/INa~er OualitV
The potential for a hydraulic capadty deficit in the earthen channel which rims along the southerly
portion of the project site to convey 50-year ultimate storm flows in accordance with City design
and threshold suandards is considered a potentially significant impact
Resolution No, 17705
Page 9
Short-Tr. rm
-- t~rosion and sedimentation impacts resulting from earth movement and grading would be significant
during construction of the proposed project.
Long-Term
-- Urban runoff from the proposed project would con~ibute to a cumulatively significant impact to
water quality.
Significant Effects
The proposed project would result in the following irrevarsible environmental changes:
Significant impacts to air quality associated with project implementation have been identified,
Although the projecfs impacts to ozone levels are not considered individually significant, they
contribute to a cumu]atively significant regional impact that is not mitigable at the project level
(1~IR, p. 4.3-7).
As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this
impacts are acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations.
The subsections below restate all of the above-identified impacts and the mitigation measures are
recommended to be adopted to avoid impacts (or the reasons the mitigation measures or alternatives are
infeasible due to specific economic, social or other considerations). There ase no measures or alternatives
that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency to adopt or implement.
A, ~ USE
Potentially Si~,nitkant Effect: Implementing the crossing from National City Boulevard to the site would
result in impacts to coastal salt marsh. This is considered to be a significant land use inconsistency with the
LCP which calls for preservation of wetlands (FEIR, p. 4,1-13).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.1-15;4.1-16).
The land use impact associated with the inconsistency of the project with the wedan~ preservation goals
of the LCP, which have resulted from impacts to sensitive wedands habitat and species, will be mitigated
by on-site revegetation at a 3:1 ratio. Mitigation for this impact is further described in Section 4.6, Biology.
This mitigation would reduce inconsistency with wedand preservation goal impacts to a less than significant
level and would serve as the Environmental Management Program as requi~ed by the LCP.
Potentially Si~mi~cant Effecv.. The project as designed would result in impacts to the Chula Vista Greenbelt
designation on the project site. Impacts associated with encroachment into the Chula Vista Greenbelt are
considered to be significant (FEIR, p. 4.1-12).
Resolution No. 17705
Page 10
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
MidRation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.1-16).
The land use impacts associated with Chula Vista Greenbelt inconsistencies on the project site shah be
mitigated by providing a 15-25 ft. wide landscape strip/buffer along the northerly property fine. In addition,
enhanced landscaping necessary to implement the visual aspects of the Greenbelt, in concert with the
ongoing landscape program for the SR-54 freeway right-of-way, shall be installed within this landscape
strip/buffer as well as along the back edge of the 100-ft. wetlands buffer. Plant materials for each of these
areas shall be subject to approval of the Cit3/s Landscape Architect and shall also be consistent with the goals
of the current LCP and Coastal Development Permit for the Sweetwater River area.
B. AIR QUALITY
Potantiallv Si_.~nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project during the construction phase would
result in a significant short term local and cumulative impact to air quality (PM~0) (HEIR, p. 4.3-7).
F'mdings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
MitiRalion Measm-es: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(HEIR, p. 3.1-5).
Revegetation of disturbed areas shah be conducted within 15 days of completion of Fading.
Active grading sites shall be watered at least twice dally.
Spoil, import, export, or other stock piles (sand, gravel, etc.) excluding surcharge material, shah be
enclosed, covered, or watered twice dally.
Trucks hauling dirt, sand or gravel or other loose material shah be covered and should maintain a
two-foot fleeboard.
Vehicle wheel washers, or other methods acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be installed where
vehicles exit the project site.
Ultimate deposition of export material off-site would require that the applicant demonstrate the
inclusion of erosion control measures and compliance with other requirements as determined
necessary by the City of National City or the City of San Diego.
Significant Effect: The projeces impacts to ozone levels contribute to a ettrnulatively significant regional
impact that is not mitigable at the project level (FEIR, p. 4.3-7).
Findings: No mitigation measure(s) is/are presently available to avoid this impact at the project levd.
Mitigation of this impact relies on regional progralns to reduce regional air pollution. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this impact is
acceptable because of overriding economic, sodal, and/or other considerations.
II1
Resolution No. 17705
Page 11
C, BIOIX2~ICAL RESOURCES
PotemliallV Sismi~eant Effect: Direct impacts to 0.06 acre (250 linear feet) of unvegetated drainage are
considered significant because the drainage represents waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers and wedands under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game
(FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
MiliS~a~on Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 3.1-5).
Proposed mitigation for impacts to the drainage include reconfiguration and maintenance of a new drainage
channel. It is likely that an individual Section 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act will not be
required because the impact is less than an acre. Owing to the limited acreage involved, the project is likely
to be covered by the Nationwide permit process. However, a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement
pursuant to the California Fish and Game code will be required prior to construcfon activities. Application
for the 1603 agreement will need to be accompanied by biological documentation of the site and a
conceptual revegetation and monitozing plan. This plan may include measures such as limitations on
grading, erosion control measures, revegetation and plant survival criteria, subject to the approval of
permitting agencies.
Potemtiallv Sismi~cant Effects: Direct and indirect impacts to coastal salt marsh habitat as a result of bridge
construction are considered significant. Coastal salt marsh is a rare and depleted habitat type; it is
recognized as wedand habitat by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. In addition, it may support the salt marsh skipper (FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mili~afion Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
Impacts to coastal salt marsh are the direct result of the proposed bridge connecting the project with
Broadway to the west of the site. For purposes of this impact analysis, a "worst case scenario" has been
assessed, i.e., the most intrusive bridge design has been evaluated. It is strongly recommended that the
bridge design that is the least intrusive into the coastal salt marsh habitat be selected, thereby minimizing
impacts to this sensitive habitat type. The "worst case" design not only results in the direct loss of
approximately 0.1S acre of salt marsh habitat, through fill and shading, but may adversely affect the salt
marsh to the north of the proposed bridge. Regardless of the final design, impacts to coastal salt marsh shall
be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 by area, preferably on-site. Hence, excavation and salt marsh revegetation
should be conducted in the southwestern corner of the site adjacent to existing coastal salt marsh habitat.
It is likely that a Section 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act will not be required because the
impact is less than an acre; i.e., the impact is likely to be covered by the Nationwide permit process.
However, a Section 1603 Su'eambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code
will be required prior to construction activities. Application for the 1603 agreement will need to be
accompanied by biological documentation of the site and a conceptual revegetation and monitoring plan.
Resolution No. 17705
Page 12
Potentially Significant EffecJs: Direct impacts to Coulter's salt marsh daisy are considered significant (FEIR,
p. 4.6-7).
F'mdings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4,6-7).
Direct impacts to Coulter's salt marsh daisy shah be mitigated through salvage and transplantation on-site
prior to grading for consauction.
Potentially Significant Effect: Potential indirect impacts to the light-footed dapper rail and Belding's
savannah sparrow as a restdt of consauction noise are considered significant (FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
Potential indirect impacts to the light-looted dapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow shall be mitigated
by scheduling consauction activities to avoid the breeding seasons of these two bird species, which extend
from March 15 to August 1. If the project applicant wishes to proceed with consauction activities during
the breeding season, a focused survey must be conducted to ensure that neither species is breeding and/or
nesting in the salt marsh habitat onsite. If breeding and/or nesting is occurring, no consauction activities
that exceed 60 dB at the nest location shah be performed during the breeding and/or nesting season.
D. PUBLIC SERVK3ES AND {JI'ILrXl~S
Potan~alht Si__~nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of use
on the site and would result in significant impacts to schools <FEIR, p. 4.7-10).
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and has been required
as a condition of approval through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.7-10).
The applicant shall pay State-mandated impact fees of $0.28 per square-foot of building area.
E. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION & PARKING
Potentially Sj__*:-ifc~t Effect: Implementation of the proposed project without a connection to the National
City Boulevard/35th Street intersection is not proposed since this option was not analyzed and total project
traffic impacts are not known under this untested scenario (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
IT I I'
Resolution No. 17705
Page 13
Miri~L, alion Measures: The following mitigation measnres have been found to be feasible a~d have been
requ~'ed either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the Cit~ through these fm~gs
(FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
The project applicant shall add a 4th leg (crossing) to the intersection of National City Boulevard at 3Sth
Street. Project improvements include a connection between the project parking lot and National City
Boulevard, restriping on National City Boulevard, and signal modifications to provide for full turning
movements.
PotentinllV giRnificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would result in unacceptable LOS
(<D) for the 5th Avenue/C Street intersection if left unsignalized (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
The applicant shall signalize the intersection of 5th Avenue at C Street.
PotenliallV Simfllcant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would result in an adverse traffic
impact at 4th Avenue and Brisbane Street without signalization and additional capacity for the southbound
and eastbound approaches (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mirigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
Project applicant shall construct an access road connection between the site and 4th Avenue. The
roadway should align across from Brisbane Avenue and have two left-turn lanes and one
through/right-turn eastbound approach lanes and two westbound lanes.
Land use buildout of the Channelside Shopping Center, National City Marketplace and Target, plus
project cumulative traffic will necessitate that the access road be aligned concentric with Brisbane
Street at Fourth Avenue (ultimate improvements). For short term, prior to the redevelopmerit of
the property of the south (Target), the access road can be aligned approximately 60 feet north of
Brisbane Street creating an offset intersection at Fourth Avenue to avoid encroachment onto the
property occupied by Target.
The ultimate objective however, is to achieve the concentric aligmnent with Brisbane. To this end,
staff has agreed if the ultimate improvements are not achieved at the time that the Channelside
Shopping Center/National City Marketplace projects proceed, the offset intersection will be allowed
providing that the cost of the interim improvements are borne by the Channelside Shopping Center
or National City Marketplace developers. Furthermore, these two projects shall be conditioned to
provide for the ultimate improvements. As such, a condition will be placed on the approvals forthe
Channelside Shopping Center/National City Marketplace projects to provide a pro-rata share of the
ultimate improvements. Final design approval will be subject to financial security via a bond,
Resolution No. 17705
Page 14
promissory note, or other such financial mechanism to ensure participation. The terms of this
condition wi]l be further defined in the agreement between the Cities of Chula Vista and National
City regarding costs and responsibilities for public improvements.
If Channelside Shopping Center and National city Marketplace developers proceed with their
projects in advance of their ability to achieve the ultimate improvements, the project applicants shall
be responsible for not only the interim improvements, but for their pro-rate share of the ultimate
improvements when those improvements occur.
Project applicant shall pay fair share cost to widen 4th Avenue on the west side between SR-54 and
the project chiveway to provide a southbound right-turn lane.
Project applicant shall pay fair share cost to install a traffic signal at the 4th Avenue/Brisbane
Avenue intersection.
Potentially S'~mi~cant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would slightly worsen an
unacceptable future LOS peak hour condition on SR-54 west bound off-ramp at Highland Avenue and
Broadway and E Street (FEIR, p. 4.8~26).
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentiaLhJ significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Me~sure~: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.8'26).
SR-54 westbound off-ramp at Highland Avenue. Applicant to pay fair share cost to widen the ramp
to allow a second westbound left-turn lane.
Broadway at E Street. Applicant shah pay fair share cost to add eastbound left- and right-turn lanes
and a westbound right-turn lane.
F. GEOLOGY
Potelfially SiRnfficant Effects: Because of the moderate to high erosion hazard, unsuitable imported fill
material, and low s~rength and high settlement characteristics of the site geology, development of the site
in its existing condition would be a significant impact to proposed structures.
Irmdings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.9-8).
To mitigate adverse soil conditions, the applicant has been conducting surcharge operations on the
portions of the site that will accept loading from structures. The building areas are being
overburdened with soil to compress underlying soils to the point where they are suitable for
development. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall provide evidence to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that satisfactory soil conditions have been achieved.
lIT I'
Resolution No. 17705
Page 15
Potentially Significant Effects: The seismic hazard potential is considered high mad is therefore a significmat
impact to proposed structures and public safety.
Due to the presence of potential seismic activity, existing shallow groundwater, and silty sandy soils, the
potential for seismically induced liquefaction occurring on-site is high and represents a significmat impact
to proposed sl~uctures.
Findings: Chinages or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Miti~ration Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.9-8).
Structural components of the proposed project shall be designed by a professionally California State
licensed structural engineer with specilie experience in designing similar structures. Structures shall
be designed in accordance with the 1994 UBC guidelines. At a minimum, structural design shall
be done in accordance with the 1994 UBC Seismic Zone 4 factors. Preliminary design shall be
submitted to the Department of Building mad Housing and shall be in conformmace with the current
UBC at the time the application for a building permit is submitted.
G, HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Potentially Simfiflcant Efteels: The potential for a hydraulic capacity deficit in the earthen channel which
runs along the southerly portion of the project site to convey 50-year ultimate storm flows in accordance
with City design mad threshold stmadards is considered a potentially significant impact.
Findings: Chinages or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significmat environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
MitiRation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.10-15).
The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the channel in the
southerly portion of the project site can provide for 50-year ultimate storm flows in accordance with
City design mad threshold stmadards prior to issumace of a grading permit.
Potenliallv Silrnificant Effects: Erosion mad sedimentation impacts resulting from earth movement mad
grading would be signiflcmat during construction of the proposed project.
Findings: Chinages or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Milla~a~on Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.10-15).
Development of the Chmanelside Shopping Center project shall comply with all applicable
regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth
in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban
Resolution No. 17705
Page 16
runoff and stormwater discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista thereto.
Further, the applicant shall file a notice of intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to
obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater for Discharges associated with
construction activity an implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent
with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion control and
pollution prevention measures listed below under 4.10-c and Mitigation Measures 4.3 as listed in
See'don 4.3, Air Quality, pursuant to the City's Grading Ordinance.
Pote~lliallV Significant Effects: Urban runoff from the proposed project would contribute to a cumulatively
significant impact to water quality.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
MittiRation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been
required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings
(FEIR, p. 4.10-15).
Acceptable pre-treatment devices or facilities installed on the on-site stormdrain system shall be
effective in the removal of urban pollutants. Adequate effectiveness shall be approved by the City
Engineer prior to approval of the grading permit. A maintenance schedule shall also be submitted
to the City Engineer. At a minimum, pre-treatment devices or facilities shall be teaned on a
quarterly basis and prior to the rainy season (November 1).
VII. IbR~EASIBIL1TY OF ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (PUBLIC
RESOUR(~S CODE SECTION 21081
The approval of the project would cause significant unavoidable cumulative impacts by contributing to
existing regional air quality impact. The only way to mitigate this impact is to disapprove the project and
to not allow existing approved uses to be carried forward. Essentially, all future discretionan/projects would
have to be denied. The decision makers reject this approach because it would not achieve the City goals
for productive use of the subject site. It is an expllck goal of the Chula Vista General Plan and Town Center
II Redevelopment Plan to increase the retail base of the City. Additionally, the General Plan states as a goal
to maintain or improve qualit~ of life through responsible management of growth, while providing services
and amenities to residents end visitors, including housing, open space and recreation shopping opportunities.
In addition, the decision makers find that the project will generate permanent jobs and result in a net
positive fiscal impact from sales tax revenue.
The decision makers have considered whether any of the project alternatives discussed in the EIR could
feasibly substantially lessen or avoid the identified significant effects. As will be explained below, the
decision makers conclude that none of the project alternatives could both meet the objectives of the project
and lessan or avoid the identified significant effects.
There were seven (7) alternatives including the proposed project evaluated in this Supplemental EIR. Their
characteristics are:
' If 1 I'
Resolution No. 17705
Page 17
<emallve: Description ' '
Project Two major retail anchors and accompanying
commerciaL/restaurant uses,
No Project Maintain site in its current condition.
Existing General Plan and Zoning Development of the project site in accordance with
the adopted research and limited manufacturing land
use designnations and zoning.
Reduced Density Commercial Building areas would be reduced by one third.
Alternative Site (1) Otay Rio Business Park
Alternative Site (2) EastLake Business Park (Phase I1)
Alternative Site (3) Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center
No Proiect Alternative
Adoption of the No Project Alternative would avoid potential impacts associated with the proposed project.
However, implementation of this alternative would not achieve the objectives of the adopted General Plan
and Town Center II Redevelopment Plan which call for providing retail uses within the Central Chula Vista
area.
Additionally, this alternative does not as effectively expand the retail tax base of the City of Chula Vista, or
provide the project's level of sales tax revenue to the City to enhance public services city-wide.
The No Project alternative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of the Town Center II
l~edevelopment Plan and General Plan Land Use Element. Additionally, implementation of this alternative
would reduce the anticipated sales tax revenue to the City. The alternative is, therefore, rejected as
infeasible.
Existing General Plan Designation and Zoning
Development of the site in accordance with the adopted Research and Limited Manufacturing land use
designations would reduce, but not eliminate, environmental impacts of the proposed project and would
result in significant unmitigable impacts to air quality. As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality of the FEIR,
cumulative impacts to air quality are due to regional conditions. Only adoption of the No Project Alternative
would avoid the project's contribution to the air quality impacts. Short of denying this project and future
projects, these cumulative impacts will incrementaily increase.
Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with the General Plan. However, it would conflict
with the goals of the General Plan and the Town Center II Redevelopmerit Plan. As discussed in Section 4.1,
Land Use of the FEIR, it is a goal of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as well as the Town Center
II Redevelopment Plan to provide for retail facilities in the Central Chnla Vista area to improve employment
levels and the availability of retail uses.
Based on these factors, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of the Town
Center II Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan Land Use Element and therefore is rejected as infeasible.
Resolution No. 17705
Page 18
Reduced DensiB' Commercial
Impacts associated with this alternative would be of a similar type to those anticipated under the proposed
project. However, for most of the impacts, the intensity or extent of the impact would be reduced but not
avoided under this alternative. Implementation of this alternative would result in significant unmitigable
impacts to air quality. Cumulative impacts to air quality are due to regional conditions. Only adoption of
the No Project Alternative would avoid the project's contribution to the air quality impacts. Short of denying
this project and future projects, these cumulative impacts will incrementally increase.
Under the reduced square footage alternative, the project would not likely support a large, high volume,
discount retailer, thereby requiring a different type as well as size of commercial use than is curren~y
proposed. As a result, fiscal benefits would be reduced.
As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided under
this alternative and the economic benefit to the City would be reduced as compared to the proposed project.
The alternative is, therefore, considered to be infeasible.
Alternative Site
With the exception of potential biological, hydrolo~/, and greenbelt impacts associated with the proposed
project, implementation of the project at this location would not eliminate any significant adverse impacts
associated with the proposed location. As discussed in Section 5, Alternatives of the FEIR, potentially
significant land use impacts are associated with this site due to the current land use designation of the site,
Research and l.lmited Manufacturing, as well as potential confficts associated with siting a commercial use
in a business park. Potentially significant traffic impacts are also associated with this site due to access ,'~
concerns. Implementation of a commercial use in an alternative site would have similar impacts to air
quality, schools, public utilities, and geology, as would implementing a commercial project at the proposed
site.
Additionally, implementation of the project at this location would not be consistent with the goals of the
General Plan and the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan. As discussed in Section 4.1, Land Use of the
FEIR, it is a goal of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as well as the Town Center II Redevelopment
Plan to provide for retail facilities in the Central Chula Vista area to improve employment levels and the
avallab'dity of retail uses.
As discussed above, the significant unmitjgated impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided under
this alternative. Additionally, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of
the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Land Use Element. Based on these factors, the
alternative is rejected as infeasible.
Alternative Site
With the exception of potential impacts to biological resources and hydrology associated with the proposed
project, implementation of the project at this location would not avoid any of the significant impacts
associated with the proposed location. As discussed in Section S, Alternatives of the FEIR, land use impacts
under this alternative would be considered potentially significant due to the current land use designation
of the site, Research and l.lmited Manufacturing, as well as potential conflicts with siting a commercial use
within a business park. Future projections indicate that traffic impacts on surrounding roadways would also
be potentially significant. Implementation of a commercial use in an alternative site would have similar
impacts to air quality, schools, public utilities, and geology, as would implementing a commercial project
at the proposed site.
Resolution No. 17705
Page 19
Additionally, implementation of the project at this location would not be consistent with the goals of the
General Plan and the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan. As discussed in Section 4.1, Land Use of the
FEIR, it is a goal of the Land Use Element of the General Ran as well as the Town Center II Redevelopment
Plan to provide for retail facilities in the Central Chula Vista area to improve employment levels and the
availability of retail uses.
As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided under
this alteFnative. Additionally, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of
the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Land Use Element. Based on these factors, the
alternative is rejected as infeasible.
PAternative Site
Implementation of the project at this alternative site is not considered to be environmentally superior to the
proposed project. Implementation of a commercial use at this alternative site would have similar impacts
to air quality, schools, public udlities, and geology, as would implementing a commercial project at the
proposed site.
Additionally, the infrastructure necessary to support the proposed project is not available and are not
scheduled for completion for the next five to ten years (FEIR, p. 5.0-6). Development of the proposed
project is scheduled for 1995 and 1996 and, therefore, infrastructure would not be available to serve the
project. For this reason, the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center site is not considered to meet the objectives
of the project.
As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided under
this alternative. Additionally, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project. Based on these
factors, the alternative is rejected as infeasible.
Resolution No. 17705
Page 20
CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Monitorinl ProSeram Description and Purpose
The California Environlnantal Quality Act requires a lead or responsible agency that approves a project
where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has identified significant enviromnental effects, to adopt a
"reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects."
The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency for the Channelside Shopping Center project. A Draft and Final
EIR were prepared for this project which addressed potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate,
either recommended mitigation measures to reduce identified significant impacts below a level of
significance or a recommended alternative to avoid the impact. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. The City of Chnia
Vista will adopt this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) after considering the Final EIR
and if approval of the project occurs.
Roles and Resnonsibiliries
The MMRP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project, including final design,
pre-grading, construction and operation. The City of Chula Vista has the primary enforcement role for the
implementation of mitigation measures. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) will provide
final approval for the completion of the implementation of mitigation measures. The ERC will appoint a
Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) who will be responsible for the actual monitoring of the
implementation of the mitigation measures. The MCC will interface with the ERC, the City Engineer, the
City Landscape Architect, the Construction Supervisor, and the Construction Inspector(s), all of who have
some responsibility for the implementation of the mitigation measures.
Resolution No. 17705
Page 21
Resolution No. 17705
Page 22
Resolution No. 17705
Page 23
Resolution No. 17705
Page 2~-
Resolution No, 17705
Page 25
.......... T ........ ii
Resolution No. 17705
Page 26
Resolution No. 17705
Page 27
Resolution No. 17705
Page 28
Resolution No. 17705
Page 29
Resolution No. 17705
Page 30
'1111'
Resolution No. 17705
Page 31
0
Resolution No. 17705
Page 3~
II ] I
Resolution No. 17705
Page 33
STATEIVI~NT OF OVEP, P~DING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Chula Vista City Council, in approving the various actions
that are the subject of the Channelside Shopping Center FEIR, having considered and independently judged
the information contained in the FEIR and having reviewed and considered the public testimony and record,
makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the Findings and the action of
the City Council approving the project.
The City Council finds and concludes that the public benefits of the project outweigh the identified
significant and unmitigated impacts to air quality set forth in the Findings. The decision makers find that
the following factors support approval of the project, despite the identified significant environmental impact.
Therefore, the City Council sets forth the following Statement of Overriding Considerations:
1. The project will benefit the City by providing needed commercial goods and services in the Central
Chula Vista portion of the City, by serving a growing population base in that area and by achieving
stated goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan.
2. The project will result in a substantial net positive fiscal impact upon the City thereby allowing for
enhanced City services.
3. Thepr~jectwll~benefittheCitybygenerafingappr~x~mate~y35~newj~bs~~~ntributingt~animpr~ved
jobs to housing balance in the Central Chula Vista area.
4. As set forth in the Findings, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project or made
binding on the applicant through the adoption of the Findings, which to the extent feasible, reduce
impacts to below a level of significance.
5. The City C~unci~ has carefu~~y balanced the benefits ~fthe pr~ject~ as pr~p~sed~ against its unav~idab~e
environmental risks and has determined that the risks are "acceptable" because of the fiscal benefit to
the city as well as the contribution of the project to achieving the and use goals of the General Plan and
Town Centre II Redevelopmerit Plan.
Consequently, the Council believe that the proposed project is the supetior alternative despite the significant
impacts to air quality that would result from implementation of the project.
Resolution No. 17705
Page 34
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 15th day of November, 1994, by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers: Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Nader
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
Vicki C. Soderquist, ~ City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17705 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by
the City Council at a joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting held on the 15th day
of November, 1994.
Executed this 15th day of November, 1994.
Vicki C. Soderquist, D~ City Clerk