HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 2004/08/24
~{f?
=-~c.~
------~
CllY OF
CHUIA VISTA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 24,2004 COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING
(immediately following the City Council meeting)
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Agency/Council Members Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas; Chair/Mayor Padilla
CONSENT CALENDAR
The staff recommendations regarding the following item(s} listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted
by the Council/Agency by one motion without discussion unless an Council/Agency member, a member of the
public or City staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items,
please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Redevelopment Agency or
the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Public
Hearing items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 3,2004
2. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE 2004 HOLIDAY
LIGHTING PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING WAIVING THE FORMAL BIDDING
PROCESS; APPROPRIATING $47.423 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO PAY
FOR THE PROGRAM; AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO DEKRA-
LITE INDUSTRIES; AND DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE 2004
HOLIDAY LIGHTING PROGRAM - The Holiday Lighting Program is an
ongoing effort undertaken by the City to celebrate the holiday season. Since
the program's inception in 1999, Dekra-Lite has decorated the downtown
area with a variety of colorful holiday lights, displays, and thematic banners,
including the lighting of three freeway overpasses. (Director of Community
Development) 4/5ths VOTE REQUIRED
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency/Council adopt the resolution.
3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AN EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND FRED BORST. BORST FAMILY TRUST
AND FASK LAND, INC. AUTHORIZING A .72-ACRE PARCEL OWNED BY
THE CITY (APN NO. 644-040-11 ) TO BE EXCHANGED FOR AN
ASSIGNABLE IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR 7.62-ACRE
PARCEL OWNED BY FRED BORST, BORST FAMILY TRUST, AND FASK
LAND, INC. - A 7.62-acre parcel within the Otay Valley Redevelopment
Project Area will be exchanged for a .72-acre parcel within the Auto Park
Specific Plan Area that was formerly the site of the City's Animal Shelter.
(Director of Community Development)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the resolution.
4. APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A 22 ACRES EXPANSION ON SITE (APN#644-040-66
AND 644-040-11) IN THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
(FRED BORST, BORST FAMILY TRUST AND FASK LAND, INC) - The Master
Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) presented to the Redevelopment
Agency addresses the negotiable development considerations and
performance requirements for the project. Many of the provisions are
standard to owner participation agreements in the Redevelopment Project
Areas. Special provisions pertaining to this project include dates by which
site improvements, dealership construction, and dealership operations will
begin. In addition, the OPA outlines issues to be addressed by the Master
Developer, Individual Dealerships and the Agency /City. The OPA
benchmarks will ensure the timely delivery of economic benefits and quality
development of the project. (Director of Community Development)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the resolution.
5. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR
2003-04 BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUDGET TRANSFER
POLICY AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE - The Council Policy on
Financial Reporting and Transfer Authority requires that all departments
complete the fiscal year with a positive balance in each budget summary
category (Personnel Services, Supplies and Services, Other Expenses and
Capital). In order to comply with the intent of this policy, the transfers are
listed on Attachment A and discussed below. All recommended General
Fund transfers can be done using existing appropriations. Appropriations
from the SR 125 Fund, Southwest Pass-Through Funds, Salt Creek DIF and
Cypress Creek Fund are recommended. (Director of Finance)
4/Sths VOTE REQUIRED
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council/Agency adopt the resolution.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter
within the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits
the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish
to address the Agency on such a subject. please complete the" Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Redevelopment Agency, August 24, 2004 Page 2
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to
the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up
action.
PUBLIC HEARING
The following item(s) have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the
Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
6. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FROM APPLICANT OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE
TOWER ELEMENT OF THE PROPOSED TOYOTA DEALERSHIP PROJECT TO
BE LOCATED IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA
Sunroad Enterprises is proposing to build a Toyota automobile dealership on
7.6 acres of the larger 29-acre Auto Park. Pursuant to Section VII of the
Auto Park East Specific Plan, development plans for individual parcels are
required to be submitted to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for review
and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The decision of the
DRC is final unless appealed to the Redevelopment Agency. On 8/2/04, the
DRC reviewed and unanimously approved the overall design plans for the
project but modified Condition #1 of the Notice of Decision regarding the
proposed 100-foot high tower element. (Director of Community
Development)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING APPLICANT'S APPEAL OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE
TOWER ELEMENT OF THE PROPOSED TOYOTA DEALERSHIP
PROJECT TO BE LOCATED IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
7. CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
04-03) FOR THE CROSSINGS COMMERCIAL RETAIL PROJECT AND
CONCEPTUAL TENTATIVE MAP (TM)
In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act, the EIR has been prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the
proposed Crossing Commercial Retail Project. The Final EIR contains a
summary of the comments and responses to the comments received during
the public review period. (Director of Planning and Building)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 04-
Redevelopment Agency, August 24, 2004 Page 3
03) FOR THE CROSSINGS COMMERCIAL RETAIL PROJECT AND
CONCEPTUAL TENTATIVE MAP; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF
FACT; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
8. CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA-03-11) AND A
ZONE CHANGE (PCZ-03-06) FOR LANDS LOCATED AT 4501 MAIN STREET
AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW (DRC-03-87) FOR THE CHULA VISTA
CROSSINGS COMMERCIAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (Y ACOEL PROPERTIES
LLC)
The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and
Design Review to allow the development of a commercial retail shopping
center on the south side of Main Street and east of Interstate 805. The
proposed shopping center consists of five retail tenants and two restaurant
pads, totaling approximately 189,000 square feet on a site of approximately
17.2 acres. (Director of Community Development)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council conduct the public hearing; and
a) Council adopt the following resolution:
A. ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA-03-11)
FROM RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL
COMMERCIAL FOR 4501 MAIN STREET IY ACOEL
PROPERTIES, LLC)
b) Council place the following ordinance on first reading:
B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ADOPTING A ZONE CHANGE (PCZ-03-06) FROM
LIMITED INDUSTRIAL TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL FOR 4501
MAIN STREET IY ACOEL PROPERTIES, LLC)
c) Agency adopt the following resolution
C. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW (DRC-03-
87) FOR A RETAIL COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER AT 4501
MAIN STREET (YACOEL PROPERTIES, LLC)
OTHER BUSINESS
9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
10. CHAIR REPORT
11. AGENCY COMMENTS
Redevelopment Agency, August 24, 2004 Page 4
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to an adjourned meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on
September 14, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council
meeting in the City Council Chambers.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who
require special accommodates to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service
request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services
and activities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at (619)
691-5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 1619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is
also available for the hearing impaired.
Redevelopment Agency, August 24, 2004 Page 5
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND A SPECIAL
MEETING OF THE PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
August 3, 2004 4:00 P.M.
Adjourned Regular Meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency and a Special
Meeting of the Public Financing Authority of the City ofChula Vista were called to order at 4:58
p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Agencyl Authority/Councilmembers Davis, McCann, Rindone,
Salas, and ChairlMayor Padilla
ABSENT: Agencyl Authority/Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/Authorityl
City Attorney Moore, City Clerk Bigelow
CONSENT CALENDAR
With reference to Item No.1, Agency/Authority/Councilmember Rindone stated that he would
abstain from voting on the minutes of July 20, 2004, due to his absence at the meeting.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of July 13, 2004 and July 20, 2004
Staff recommendation: Agency/Council approve the minutes.
2. COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2004-262 AND AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1884,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN
THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF) AND DESIGNATING THE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE/TREASURER AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
FINANCE AS AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES FOR LAIF TRANSACTIONS
The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), a voluntary program created by statute,
began in 1977 as an investment alternative for California's local governments and special
districts. The City Council approved the use of LAIF as an authorized investment
alternative in 1977. The authorized signatures related to LAIF transactions have become
outdated. In order to update the authorized signatures, LAIF requires a resolution
designating the names and titles of officials authorized to order deposits and withdrawals
of LA IF funds. (Director of Finance)
Staff recommendation: Council! Agency adopt the resolution.
ACTION: ChairlMayor Padilla moved to approve staff's recommendations and offered the
Consent Calendar, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 5-0 except
with regard to approving the minutes of July 20, which carried 4-0-1 with
Agencyl Authority/Councilmember Rindone abstaining due to his absence at the
meeting.
1- I
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
ACTION ITEMS
3. COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2004-263 AND AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1885,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RATIFYING THE LIST OF MEMBERS TO
SERVE ON THE URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The City is preparing an Urban Core Specific Plan for new development in the northwest
area of the City. As part of the planning process, an advisory committee will be
established to advise the staff and consultant team on various aspects of the plan. The
Council subcommittee has submitted names of individuals fÌom various backgrounds
throughout the region to serve on the committee. Adoption of the resolution will ratify
the list of Urban Core Specific Plan Advisory Committee members. (Community
Development Director)
Agency/ Authority/Councilmember McCann stated that he would abstain fÌom discussion and
voting on this item due to the proximity of his residence to the area.
ACTION: Agency/Authority/Councilmember Davis moved to adopt Council Resolution No.
2004-263 and Agency Resolution No. 1885, headings read, texts waived.
Agency/ Authority/Councilmember Rindone seconded the motion, and it carried
4-0-1 with Agency/ Authority/Councilmember McCann abstaining due to the
proximity of his residence to the area.
4. CONSIDERATION OF THE FORMATION OF A 50lC3 CORPORATION FOR
PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING REDEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING FUNCTIONS
AND CONSIDERATION OF OTHER INCIDENTAL DECISIONS RELEVANT TO
THE FORMATION OF THE CORPORATION (Continued fÌom the meeting of July 20,
2004) .
ACTION: ChairlMayor Padilla moved to continue the item indefinitely at the request of
staff. Agency/ Authority/Councilmember Davis seconded the motion, and it
carried 5-0.
5. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER PLAN AND THE
DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT WITH HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP,
INCORPORATED, FOR RENOVATIONS TO THE CITY'S CIVIC CENTER
COMPLEX (Continued fÌom the meeting of July 13, 2004)
The Council previously approved Project GG-139, which involves the renovation of the
Civic Center complex. Since the execution of the designlbuild agreement with Highland
Partnership, Incorporated, a number of substantive design changes have been proposed
that will result in higher costs but will add significant value to the overall project.
Adoption of the resolution approves the proposed amendments to the Master Plan and to
the designlbuild agreement with Highland Partnership, Incorporated. (Director of
General Services)
Page 2 Council/RD AlPF A Minutes ! - ,).. 08/03/04
,....--
ACTION ITEMS (Continued)
Agency/Authority/City Attorney Moore stated that the City Attorney's office has opined in the
past that Agency/Authority/Councilmember Rindone should abstain rrom discussion and voting
on the Civic Center project due to the proximity of his residence to the site.
Agency/ Authority/Councilmember Rindone left the dais at 5 :03 p.m.
General Services Director Griffin presented the key project elements, including the new City
Hall and Council Chambers, renovations to the Public Services Building and former Police
facility, site and landscaping improvements, and expanded parking to meet the needs of staff and
visitors.
Gordon Carrier, design architect for the project, presented the proposed architectural features.
David Berkson, landscape architect, presented the proposed site and landscaping improvements.
Andrew Fordum, representing Carrier JOHNSON, presented the major assets and functions of
the Council Chambers, historical main lobby, courtyards, and staff office spaces.
Erin Bilz, representing Carrier Johnson, presented the proposed interior finishes.
Ian Gill, representing Highland Partnership, Incorporated, spoke regarding the proposed
budgetary changes, including increases to the guaranteed maximum price and total project cost.
He also added that the project will include a 42,000 square-foot, newly constructed City Hall, a
200-seat Council Chambers, a 25,000 square-foot renovation of the former Police facility
basement, new backbone inrrastructure for telecommunications, voice, data, and cabling
systems, and energy efficient insulation and photovoltaics.
ACTION: ChairlMayor Padilla offered Resolutions 2004-264 and 2004-265, headings read,
texts waived:
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-264, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AN
AMENDED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
AMENDING THE CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-265, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN BUILD AGREEMENT WITH
HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INCORPORATED FOR THE
PROVISION OF SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF RENOVATIONS TO THE CITY'S CIVIC
CENTER COMPLEX PURSUANT TO THE AMENDED MASTER
PLAN; APPROVE THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE OF
$38,346,000 FOR DESIGNIBUILD SERVICES FOR THE
RENOVATIONS OF THE CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX AND
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO
THE AGREEMENT
The motion carried 4-0-1, with Agency/Authority/Councilmember Rindone
abstaining due to the proximity of his residence to the project site.
Agency/ Authority/Councilmember Rindone returned to the dais at 6: 1 0 p.m.
Page 3 CounciVRDAlPF A Minutes 1- 3 08/03/04
...- .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. CONSIDERATION OF THE EXECUTION, SALE AND DELIVERY OF
CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION IN ORDER TO FINANCE CERTAIN PUBLIC
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (Continued trom the meeting of July 13, 2004)
The Council previously approved a capital project to renovate the Civic Center complex,
and directed staff to return with recommended long-term financing. This financing plan
includes funding for the first phase of the Civic Center complex renovation (demolition
and construction of City Hall) and intrastructure improvements in western Chula Vista.
Staff recommends approval of long-term borrowing by issuing certificates of
participation in an amount not-to-exceed $39,000,000. (Director of Finance/Treasurer)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Agency/ Authority/Councilmember Rindone stated that he would abstain trom discussion and
voting on Items 6A and 6C due to the proximity of his residence to the project. He then left the
dais.
ChairlMayor Padilla opened the public hearing.
Finance Director Kachadoorian reported on project costs, average lease payments, and general
fund obligations.
ChairlMayor Padilla asked if anyone wished to speak on Items 6A or 6C. There was no
response.
ACTION: Agency/ Authority/Councilmember Davis offered Council Resolution No. 2004-
266 and Public Financing Authority Resolution No. 1886, headings read, texts
waived:
A. RESOLUTION NO. 2004-266, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAKING REQUIRED
FINDINGS AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SALE AND DELIVERY OF NOT-
TO-EXCEED $29,000,000 2004 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION,
(CIVIC CENTER PROJECT - PHASE 1), APPROPRIATING
$15,955,550 FROM BOND PROCEEDS AND $3,000,000 FROM THE
PUBLIC FACILITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND (PFDIF) TO
THE CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX PROJECT (GG-139), AND
REIMBURSING UP TO $6,820,450 TO THE PFDIF FUND FOR
MONIES PREVIOUSLY SPENT ON THE PROJECT, BASED ON
ANTICIPATED PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE
CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, AND AUTHORIZING
CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
Page 4 CouncillRDAlPF A Minutes / - <I 08/03/04
-
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
C. RESOLUTION NO. 1886, RESOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A LEASEIPURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AND CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE
2004 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (CNIC CENTER
PROJECT - PHASE I) IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT-TO-
EXCEED $29,000,000
The motion carried 4-0-1 with Agency/Authority/Councilmember Rindone
abstaining due to the proximity of his residence to the project.
At 6: 19 p.m., Agency/ Authority/Councilmember Rindone returned to the dais.
Finance Director Kachadoorian then reported on the 2004 Certificates of Participation.
There being no members of the public who wished to speak, ChairlMayor Padilla closed the
public hearing.
ACTION: Agency/Authority/Councilmember McCann offered Council Resolution No.
2004-267 and Public Financing Authority Resolution No. 1887, headings read,
texts waived:
B. RESOLUTION NO. 2004-267, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAKING REQUIRED
FINDINGS, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND
DELNERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SALE AND
DELNERY OF NOT-TO-EXCEED $12,000,000 2004 CERTIFICATES
OF PARTICIPATION, (WESTERN CHULA VISTA
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT), APPROPRIATING $9,000,000 FROM
PROCEEDS TO THE WESTERN CHULA VISTA INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECT (GG-188), AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH
D. RESOLUTION NO. 1887, RESOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A LEASEIPURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AND CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE EXECUTION AND DELNERY OF THE
2004 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (WESTERN CHULA
VISTA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT) IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
NOT-TO-EXCEED $12,000,000
The motion carried 5-0.
Page 5 Council/RDAlPF A Minutes (-s- 08/03/04
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
7. CONSIDERATION OF (A) RE-ZONING A 1.2-ACRE SITE AT 1030/1034
BROADWAY FROM THE THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL PRECISE PLAN (C-
T-P) ZONE TO THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL PRECISE PLAN (C-C-P) ZONE,
INCLUDING ADOPTION OF PRECISE PLAN STANDARDS ALLOWING
REDUCTION IN BUILDING SETBACKS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS; (B)
SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT
INCLUDES A 5,000 SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AND 30 RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM UNITS, ALONG WITH PARKING, OPEN SPACE, ACCESS AND
CIRCULATION, AND LANDSCAPED AREAS (Continued from the meeting of July
20,2004)
The applicant has requested an amendment to the zoning map to rezone 1.2 acres on the
west side of Broadway, between Moss and Naples Street, from Commercial
Thoroughfare, Precise Plan (CTP) to Central Commercial, Precise Plan (CCP). The
applicant has also requested a Special Use Permit to allow the construction and operation
of an office commercial/residential mixed-use project at the same location. (Director of
Community Development)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
ChairlMayor Padilla opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner Steichen presented the proposed Pharos Plaza proj ect.
With no members of the public wishing to speak, ChairlMayor Padilla closed the public hearing.
ACTION: Agency/ Authority/Councilmember Salas offered the following ordinance for first
reading and Agency Resolution No. 1888 for adoption, headings read, texts
waived:
A. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-03-034)
AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY SECTION
19.18.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, REZONING A 1.2 ACRE
PARCEL LOCATED AT 1030/1034 BROADWAY FROM THE CTP
(THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, PRECISE PLAN) ZONE TO THE
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL, PRECISE PLAN ZONE AND ADOPTING
PRECISE PLAN STANDARDS
B. AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1888, RESOLUTION OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPS 04-07 AND DESIGN FOR
A MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 103011034 BROADWAY WITHIN
THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
The motion carried 5-0.
Page 6 Council/RDAlPF A Minutes 1- ~ 08/03/04
OTHER BUSINESS
8. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
There were none.
9. CHAIR/MAYOR'S REPORTS
There were none.
10. AGENCY ICOUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:36 p.m., ChairlMayor Padilla adjourned the meeting of the Public Financing Authority until
further notice; and the Redevelopment Agency to an Adjourned Meeting on August 24, 2004, at
6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council Meeting in the Council Chambers.
~ d.-LJ~g~-c>
Susan Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
Page 7 Council/RDA/PFA Minutes 1-7 08/03/04
'm_ .
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: ;L
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: JOINT AGENCY/COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2004
HOLIDAY LIGHTING PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING WAIVING THE
FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS; APPROPRIATING $47,423 FROM THE
GENERAL FUND TO PAY FOR THE PROGRAM; AWARDING A
PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO DEKRALlTE INDUSTRIES; AND
DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE 2004 HOLIDAY LIGHTING
PROGRAM
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGE j)f"'"
4/5THS YOTE: YES 0 NO D
BACKGROUND
The city's Holiday Lighting Program was initiated in 1998 in response to the end of the holiday
lighting and displays that took place for many years on Candy Cane Lane at Guava Avenue.
Downtown business merchants originally proposed the idea of downtown holidoy lighting, which led
to a partnership belween the City and the Downtown Business Association to develop a festive
holiday program for the downtown area. Soon after, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was prepared to
solicit bids from specialty lighting and decoration companies. Dekra-Lite, a company based in
Santa Ana, was eventually selected due to their ability to meet the RFP's program goals, the
excitement and quality of their design, and project cost. Dekra-Lite has since worked diligently with
the City in implementing this popular annual program.
For the past five years, the City has issued a purchase order to Dekra-Lite for continuing the
Holiday Lighting Program. Additional business with Dekra-Lite requires Agency/Council
approval. Therefore, staff is requesting that Agency/Council waive the formal bidding process
and award a purchase agreement to Dekra-Lite to implement the 2004 Holiday Lighting
Program, with an option to renew for subsequent holiday seasons. This recommendation is
based on the limited market for this type of service, Dekro-Lite's past satisfactory performance,
and because they've supplied the original holiday lights, displays, and banners.
RECOMMENDATION
Agency/Council adopt a resolution:
1. Approving the 2004 Holiday Lighting Program;
2. Authorizing waiving the formal bidding process and awarding a purchase agreement to
Dekra-Lite;
3. Appropriating $47,423 from the General Fund to pay for the program; and
4. Directing staff to implement the 2004 Holiday Lighting Program.
,;;2-/
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: ;L
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
N/A
DISCUSSION
The Holiday Lighting Program is an ongoing effort undertaken by the City to celebrate the holiday
season. Since the program's inception in 1999, Dekra-Lite has decorated the downtown area with a
variety of colorful holiday lights, displays, and thematic banners, including the lighting of three
freeway overpasses at H Street at 1-5, and H Street and J Street at 1-805. Except for a single
modification, the 2004 Holiday Lighting Program is identical to last year's program. The
modification is related to the Civic Center renovation effort that is underway and expected to last for
the next several years. In an effort to avoid any potential construction interruptions, there will be no
installation of holiday decorations and tree lighting at the Civic Center.
The 2004 Holiday Lighting Program will officially commence following the conclusion of the
Downtown Starlight Yule Parade, which usually takes place on the first Saturday of December. Since
Dekra-Lite's business centers on the holidays, their customers require the same installation dates,
which requires Dekra-Lite to accommodate orders on a first come, first serve basis. As a result, it is
important for the City to provide Dekra-Lite with a purchase before October in order to secure
installation dates.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost to implement the 2004 Holiday Lighting Program is $47,423, which is $26,139 less
than lost year's program. Since the City arborist recommended that the downtown trees not be
trimmed this year, there was no need to remove and reinstall the tree lights. As 0 result, there is a
cost reduction to this year's program due to the removal of the cost associated with removing and
reinstalling the tree lights. This year's tree lighting costs are only maintenance related. Please note,
that the cost reduction to this year's program was also due to the cancellation of holiday decorations
and tree lighting at the Civic Center.
The funding sources expended to implement previous Holiday Lighting programs have included the
Town Centre Fine Arts Fund, the Residential Construction Tax (RCT) Fund, and the General Fund.
Due to lack of construction activity last year in the Town Centre area, and due to the increased
dedication of RCT funds for city related improvement projects, there are no Fine Arts or RCT Funds
available to cover all or a portion of this year's program. As a result, staff recommends that
Agency/Council appropriate $47,423 from the City's General Fund to pay for the cost of
implementing this year's program. The following provides a break down of the costs associated with
implementing the 2004 Holiday Lighting Program.
:;.-~
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: ;L
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
PRODUCT LABOR/
COSTS SERVICES
DEKRA-LlTE PROPOSAL: COSTS
Freeway Overpass Lighting (3) 3,150
Tree Lighting Maintenance 3,010 9,030
Third Avenue Displays and Decorations 532.80 14,666.10
Memorial Pork Displays and Decorations 1,320.80 10,555
Public Parking Lot Banners and Decorations 2,859
County Court House Displays and Decorations 2,125
Cleaning of parking lot, Third Avenue banners, bell pole 970
decorations, & tree pole decorations
Electrician for Installation (credit for 2003 - did not require) (1,600)
SUBTOTAL DEKRA-LlTE PROPOSAL $4,863.60 $41,755.10
APPLICABLE SALES TAX AND SHIPPING (7.75%) $376.93
SHIPPING $427.22
SUBTOTAL $5,667.75
TOTAL $47,422.85
J:\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\2004\08-24-04\2004 Hol;doy Ughting Progrom.doc
,;l. - 3
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO.
AND
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
JOINT AGENCY/COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2004 HOLIDAY
LIGHTING PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING WAIVING THE FORMAL BIDDING
PROCESS; APPROPRIATING $47,423 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO PAY
FOR THE PROGRAM; AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO
DEKRALlTE, INDUSTRIES; AND DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE
2004 HOLIDAY LIGHTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista initiated the Holiday Lighting Program in 1998 in response to the end
of the holiday lighting and displays on Candy Cane Lane; and
WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal was prepared to solicit bids from specialty lighting and decoration
companies; and
WHEREAS, in October 1998, Dekra-Lite Industries, a holiday lighting and decoration company based
in Santa Ana, was selected due to their ability to meet the Request for Proposal's program goals, the excitement
and quality of their design, and project cost; and
WHEREAS, Dekra-Lite has since then worked diligently with the City in implementing the Holiday Lighting
Program; and
WHEREAS, for the last five years, the City issued a purchase order to Dekra-Lite to continue the Holiday
Lighting Program due to the limited market for this type of service, Dekra-Lite's past satisfactory performance, and
because they've supplied the original decorations; and
. WHEREAS, additional business with Dekra-Lite requires City Council and Redevelopment Agency
approval; and
WHEREAS, staff is requesting that City Council and the Redevelopment Agency waive the formal bidding
process and award a purchase agreement to Dekra-Lite to implement the 2004 Holiday Lighting Program, with
the option to renew for subsequent holiday seasons; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have reviewed the proposed 2004 Holiday
Lighting Program as presented in the Joint Redevelopment Agency/City Council Agenda Statement dated August
24, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Chula Vista does hereby:
1. Approve the 2004 Holiday Lighting Program; and
2. Based on the facts set forth above, waive the formal bidding process as impractical under CVMC
Section 2.56.070, and award a purchase agreement to Dekra-Lite Industries; and
3. Appropriate $47,423 from the General Fund to pay for the program; and
4. Direct staff to take all necessary and appropriate measures to implement the 2004 Holiday Lighting
Program.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Dc..- '7. ~-
Laurie Madigan Ann Moore
Director of Community Development City Attomey and Agency Counsel
J:\COMMDEVlRESOS\2004\08-24-04\2004 Holiday Lighting.doc
éJ--i
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: .3
MEETING DATE: 8-24-04
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN EXCHANGE OF REAL
PROPERTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND FRED BORST, BORST FAMILY TRUST
AND FASK LAND, INC AUTHORIZING A .72-ACRE
PARCEL OWNED BY THE CITY (APN NO. 644-040-11) TO
BE EXCHANGED FOR AN ASSIGNABLE IRREVOCABLE
OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR 7.62-ACRE PARCEL OWNED
BY FRED BORST, BORST FAMILY TRUST, AND FASK
LAND, INC.
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECT
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
4/5THS VOTE: YES c=J NO IT]
BACKGROUND
Fred Borst, Borst Family Trust, and Fask Land, Inc (Borst) owns a total of 106 acres in the Otay
Valley Redevelopment Project Area. The Auto Park East Specific Plan Area, approved by Council
in June 2004, is located within the northernmost 29 acres of the property. The remaining 77 acres
are located to the south of the Auto Park East Specific Plan Area are within the Otay Valley
Regional Park (OVRP). A 7.62-acre parcel within the OVRP will be exchanged for a .72-acre
parcel within the Auto Park East Specific Plan Area that was formally the site of the City's Animal
Shelter.
The agreement presented to the City Council authorizes the exchange of the .72-acre parcel owned
by the City of Chula Vista for an assignable Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (lOD) on a 7.62-acre
parcel owned by Borst.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the exchange of real property agreement between
the City of Chula Vista and Fred Borst, Borst Family Trust and Fask Land, Inc.
.3- (
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: .3
MEETING DATE: 8-24-04
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has detennined that the activity is not a
"Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to
Section l5060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no
environmental review is necessary.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
None
DISCUSSION
In 200 I, the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista and the County of San Diego adopted a concept
plan for the OVRP. The OVRP extends trom the southeastern edge oflower San Diego Bay, east to
the Otay Lakes Reservoir. The area contains sixteen habitat types that are home to several rare and
endangered species. The park is planned to provide a mix of recreation opportunities ranging trom
picnic areas to hiking, biking and horse trails.
The 7.62 acres to be exchanged are located directly to the south of the Auto Park East Specific
Plan Area and within the proposed OVRP. The area includes sensitive habitat and will be added
to the proposed OVRP and conserved as open space consistent with the City's General Plan and
the Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. The City will obtain an assignable
Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) for public use over the 7.62-acre parcel of.
The .72-acre parcel owned by the City was previously the site of the City's Animal Shelter. This
small parcel is now located in the Auto Park East Specific Plan Area, on the south side of Main
Street between Brandywine and Maxwell Road within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area.
The City has contemplated the development of the surrounding area for some time with auto park
uses.
Pursuant to Section 54221 of the California Government Code the City owned parcel is being
exchanged and is therefore exempt trom the surplus property disposal provisions set forth in Section
54222 of said Government Code.
The exchange of these properties will facilitate the implementation of the goals of the OVRP to
provide open space, active and passive recreation areas, trail corridors and preserve sensitive habitat
as well as facilitate the development of the Auto Park and the objectives of the Otay Valley
Redevelopment Project Area.
;3-.:L
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: .3
MEETING DATE: 8-24-04
FISCAL IMPACT
The City will receive the 7.62 lOD parcel in exchange for the. 72-acre parcel of land. The City
will have subsequent maintenance responsibilities for the lOD parcel.
J:ICOMMDEVIStaff.repIBorst Land Exchange.doc
..1-.3
EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT
THIS EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into this
24th day of August, 2004, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a charter city organized
under the laws of the State of California ("City"), and Fred Borst, Borst Family Trust, and Fask Land,
Inc. herein after collectively referred to as "Borst", for the exchange of real property or real property
interest by and between the City and Borst of certain real property and real property interest for the
Otay Valley River Park (OVRP).
WHEREAS, City desires to obtain an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for public use over the
eastern-most 7.62 acres of a 77-acre parcel of land owned by Borst, currently identified as San Diego
County Assessors Parcel No's 644-040-64, 644-040-65 and 644-040-67, herein after referred to as
"IOD Area," and
WHEREAS, Borst desires to acquire that certain 0.72 acre parcel of land owned by City,
currently identified as San Diego County Assessor's Parcel No.644-040-ll herein after referred to as
Exchange Parcel for commercial development consistent with Auto Park East Specific Plan, said
parcel of land being no longer needed for public use as determined by Resolution No. of the
City Council of the City ofChula Vista, dated , and
WHEREAS, City is a member of the Otay Valley Regional Park Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement ("OVRP JEP A") was established by the City, County of San Diego, and City of San Diego;
and
WHEREAS, the OVRP JEP A is designed to facilitate the acquisition of property for and the
planning of the OVRP; and
WHEREAS, the IOD Area will eventually be assigned to the OVRP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 54221 of the California Government Code said Exchange
parcel, is exempt from the surplus property disposal provisions set forth in Section 54222 of said
Government Code.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. AGREEMENT TO EXCHANGE
City herby agrees to grant the herein described Exchange Parcel in fee to Borst, upon the terms
and for the consideration set forth in this Agreement, said Exchange Parcel being granted rree and
clear of all liens and encumbrances except easements and assessments of record at the time of
exchange. A legal description of said Exchange Parcel is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by
reference made a part hereof. City agrees to provide Borst with a preliminary title report covering all
109363.000001/485909.02
-I-,;}_</
of said Exchange Parcel for review and approval prior to said execution.
2. Said IOD Area shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except easements and
assessments of record prior to Borst executing said Irrevocable Offer of Dedication. Borst shall
provide City with a Preliminary Title Report covering all of said IOD Area for review and approval
prior to said execution.
3. Borst and City agree to and hereby do indemnify, defend and hold each other, and their
respective officers, employees and agents, harmless from and against any claim, action, suit,
proceeding, loss, cost, damage, liability, deficiency, fine, penalty, punitive damage or expense
(including without limitation attorneys' fees) (hereinafter collectively the "Claim"), resulting from or
arising out of, or based upon (i) the presence, release, use, generation, discharge, storage, or disposal of
any hazardous materials on, under, in or about, the IOD Area, or the Exchange Parcel, as applicable,
or (ii) the violation or alleged violation of any statute, ordinance, order, rule regulation, permit,
judgment or license relating to the use generation, release, discharge, storage, disposal of hazardous
materials on, under, in or about the IOD Area or the Exchange Parcel, as applicable, whether
discovered before or after the acceptance of the property interests. This indemnity shall include,
without limitation, any Claim for personal injury including sickness, disease or death, tangible or
intangible property damage, compensation or lost wages, business income, profits or other economic
loss, damage to the natural resource or the environment, nuisance, pollution, contamination, leak, spill,
release, or other adverse effect on the environment. City does not release Borst, and Borst does not
release City with regard to any environmental issues, including, but not limited to responsibility for
cleanup of any toxic or otherwise hazardous materials which may be located in, on, or under the
subject property. Nothing in this Agreement is attended to affect the applicability of any federal, state
or any other laws relating to environmental issues. This indemnity shall not include any Claim to the
extent directly caused by the negligent or intentional activities of the indemnified party or any or its
officers, employee, or agents.
4. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which so executed shall, irrespective
of the date of its execution and delivery, be deemed an original, and all such counterparts together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.
5. If any dispute arises out of this Agreement, or the breach thereof, and if the dispute cannot be
settled through negotiation, the Parties agree first to try in good faith to settle the dispute by mediation
before a mediator to be agreed upon by the Parties before resorting to legal action. The Parties agree to
share equally the cost and fees for mediation.
6. In the event any legal action is brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement or to recover
damages for its breach, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees therein as
well as attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing any judgment pertaining thereto.
7. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties, and neither party relies
1 093 63 .00000 1 /485909 .02
-2- ..3-:;)
upon any warranty, promise, representation, or agreement not contained in writing herein.
8. The Parties acknowledge and agree that terms and conditions of the Agreement shall survive
the close of escrow and remain in full force and effect.
9. Time is of the essence and each party shall promptly execute all documents necessary to
effectuate the intent herein and shall perform in strict accordance with each ofthe provisions herein.
10. The Parties warrant each to the other that the person whose signature appears on its behalf
below has the authority to bind such party to the terms of this Agreement, and that by entering into this
Agreement, such party is not thereby in breach of any other agreement or contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first written
above.
BORST: CITY:
FRED BORST, BORST FAMILY CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a California
TRUST AND F ASK LAND, INC. A Charter City
By: By:
Its: Manager
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ANNE MOORE, CITY ATTORNEY
By:
Attorney for City
109363.000001/485909.02
- 3 - ..3-~
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN EXCHANGE OF REAL
PROPERTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND FRED BORST, BORST FAMILY
TRUST AND FASK LAND, INC AUTHORIZING A .72-
ACRE PARCEL OWNED BY THE CITY (APN NO. 644-040-
11) TO BE EXCHANGED FOR AN ASSIGNABLE
IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR 7.62-
ACRE PARCEL OWNED BY FRED BORST, BORST
FAMILY TRUST, AND FASKLAND, INC.
WHEREAS, in 2001, the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista and the County of San
Diego adopted a concept plan for the Otay Valley Regional Park; and
WHEREAS, Fred Borst, Borst Family Trust, and Fask Land, Inc. ("Borst") owns 7.62
acres located in the proposed Otay Valley Regional Park; and
WHEREAS, the 7.62 acre area includes sensitive habitat will be preserved as open
space consistent with the City's General Plan and the Muitiple Species Conservation Program
Subarea Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista owns. 72-acre parcel that was formally the site of the
City's Animal Shelter and is within the Auto Park East Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, an exchange of real property agreement between the City of Chula Vista
and Borst has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the exchange of real property agreement authorizes the .72 acre parcel
(APN 644-040-11) to be exchanged for an assignable Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for 7.62
acres; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that
the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not
subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
that this City Council does hereby approve the Exchange of Real Property Agreement between
the City of Chula Vista and Fred Borst, Borst Family Trust, presented in substantially final form
and subject to those minor modifications as determined to be in the best interest of the City and
approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized to execute said Exchange of Real Property Agreement with Fred Borst, Borst Family
Trust for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
3 -7
Presented by Approved as to form by
/
Laurie A. Madigan
Director of Community Development
J :\Attorney\EHull\Agenda Statements\Borst Resolution1.doc
.:3 - <6
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: 1
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 22 ACRES
EXPANSION ON SITE (APN#644-040-66 AND 644-040-11) IN THE
MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (FRED BORST, BORST
FAMILY TRUST AND FASK LAND, INC)
SUBMlnED BY: {,.,«
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
4/5THS VOTE: YES c=J NO CD
BACKGROUND
The Master Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) presented to the Redevelopment Agency
addresses the negotiable development considerations and performance requirements for the project.
Many of the provisions are standard to Owner Participation Agreements in the Redevelopment
Project Areas. Special provisions pertaining to this project include dates by which site improvements,
dealership construction, and dealership operations will begin. In oddition, the OPA outlines issues to
be addressed by the Master Developer, Individual Dealerships and the Agency. The OPA
benchmarks will ensure the timely delivery of economic benefits and quality development of the
project.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Master Owner Participation
Agreement with Fred Borst, Borst Family T rust and Fask Land, Inc.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
The Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) addresses development considerations and performance
requirements for the project. Many of these provisions are standard to Owner Participation
Agreements of the Redevelopment Agency. Provided below, however, are the significant provisions
to the OPA.
1-/
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: f
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
Master Developer: Fred Borst, Borst Family Trust, and Fosk Land. Inc is named as the "Master
Developer" to complete all site and infrastructure improvements to the Dealership parcels as set forth
in the Specific Pion. The OPA ollows the ossignment of the Moster Developer obligotions under
certoin circumstonces. In addition, the OPA contemplates an assignment from Borst to Sunroad CV
Land Partners, LP. It is anticipated that this assignment will occur within the next few weeks.
Individual lot development (individual buildings, on-site landscaping, etc.) may be accomplished by
either the Master Developer or individual Dealerships.
Developer ObliQations:
0 Master Developer shall complete, the initial on-site and off-site improvements that are
a part of the Project, including grading and infrastructure improvements to the
Dealership Parcels, consistent with the Phasing Plan.
0 Master Developer shall obtain approval of the final Parcel Map for the Property and
Project, including subdivision of the Property into the Dealership Parcels
0 Master Developer shall post a performance bond with the City in an amount equal to
one hundred and ten percent (110%) of the City Engineer's good faith estimated cost
of the grading and site improvement work for the Project
0 The Master Developer shall be responsible for the installation of public right-of-way
landscaping within the Project but shall not be responsible for the installation of
landscaping within the Dealership Parcels.
0 Master Developer may enter into Purchase Agreements with one or more entities for
disposition and development of each Dealership Parcel
0 Each Purchase Agreement shall contain a provision requiring the ultimate owner of
the Dealership Parcel to be a member of and participate in the Association
0 The Association will:
0 Require common maintenance of landscape in right of ways and public areas,
storm drainage, stormwater and run-off management, and other infrastructure
matters
0 Be required to develop a common signage program for dealers in the Chula
Vista Auto Park
0 Master Developer agrees to enter into and record prior to any transfer of a Dealership
Parcel a declaration of conditions, covenants, and restrictions (the "Auto Park
Declaration") for maintenance of the Dealership Parcel as a single integrated auto
park on the Project
Aaeney Obliaations:
0 Agency and City will work with Master Developer to form the Association and to insure
that all Automobile Dealerships within the City of Chula Vista are members.
0 Agency will pursue entering into an agreement, to take effect within six (6) months
from the Effective Date of the OPA, with a consultant to pursue Agency's installation of
an auto park directional sign.
'1- ;L
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: f
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
· Agency will use its best efforts to work with the City to couse CalT rans to erect a sign
at the intersection of future Interstate 125 and Rock Mountain Rood that identifies the
interchange with the inclusion of the name Auto Park Drive.
· Agency shall use its best efforts to work with City to consider providing the Dealership
Owners and the Association, with the opportunity to lease from City, a portion of the
80 acres of City's landfill for use os inventory and employee parking.
· Agency shall use its best efforts to work with City to assist in providing Dealership
Owners with the opportunity to establish within the Eastern Territories of City satellite
facilities to the dealerships located on the Property.
· Agency shall convene two meetings for Master Developer and Dealership Owners
within one (1) year of the commencement of operations of the first Dealership. These
meetings will serve to discuss the traffic control measures for Coors Amphitheatre
events to insure the Dealerships' desire to continue to conduct business uninterrupted.
Thereafter Agency will convene at least one such meeting each year, or as many as
may be needed to ensure that Dealership business is not interrupted by the events.
The Agency will represent the concerns of the Master Developer and Dealership
owners to the established Events Planning and Coordination Task Force as well as the
Zoning Administrator in charge of the Events Management Plan.
Enforceability: In addition to standard enforceability remedies, including termination rights, the
Master Developer has waived for itself and all subsequent individual dealership owners who do not
fulfill their development obligations any objections to the Agencýs right to take back the property for
itself.
Dealership Parcels: In further consideration of the need to market the properties, the OPA allows for
a significant number of automobile manufacturers to be "pre-approved" for inclusion in the Auto
Pork without the need for prior Agency approval. The "pre-approved" manufacturers are as follows:
Acura Mitsubishi
Audi Nissan
BMW Toyota
Chrysler Volkswagen
Ford Volvo
General Motors Kia
Honda Isuzu
Hyundai La nd Rover
Infiniti Suzuki
Jaguar Suboru
Lexus Saab
Mazda Am General
Mercedes Benz Porsche
Lj-3
,..---
PAGE 4, ITEM NO.: 'I
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
Consistency: Both the master developer and subsequent individual parcel developers will comply
with all guidelines, land uses, mitigations and requirements stated in the Specific Plan, MND, MMRP,
Tentative Parcel Map Conditions, Parcel Map Agreement, and Supplementol Parcel Mop Agreement.
Entitlements: The Specific Plan on the properly will remain in effect until on alternate Specific Plan or
the repeal of its enabling Ordinance is approved. Master Developer will submit an application to
the City to amend City's General Plan and the Specific Plan as they exist upon the Effective Date
and to rezone the Properly to add to the permitted land uses for the Properly all of those uses
allowed under City's Zone Classification CoT as it is in effect upon the Effective Date. These
parcels shall not be allowed to be marketed for these additional, non-auto park, uses until 2010.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the project once fully developed, the tax increment is expected to exceed $150,000 annually
and the anticipated annual sales tax receipts to the general fund from this project are estimated
at $1,200,000.
J:\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\2004\08·24·04\Auto Pork A-113-Sunrood.doc
¿j-tj
-.- -
Recording Requested Bv and
When Recorded Mail To:
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Linda Welch
(Space Abave This Line For Recorder)
This document is exempt from the payment of a
recording fee pursuant to Govenunent Code
Section 6103.
APN: 644-040-66 and 644-040-11
OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
This OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into between
the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a public body
corporate and politic ("Agency"), and Fred Borst, Borst Family Trust, Fask Land, Inc. ("Master
Developer"), dated and effective as of August 24, 2004 ("Effective Date").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, Master Developer is the owner of or will be the owner of the Property as
more particularly described below; and
WHEREAS, in consideration for the Initial Entitlement and other consideration set forth
herein, Master Developer agrees by this Agreement (for itself and each and all of its successors
in interest to the Property or any part thereof) to develop the Property in accordance with the
Auto Park East Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and the Initial Entitlement; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan for the Project has been approved by the Agency and the
City Council of the City (defined below); and
WHEREAS, Agency has determined it is of benefit to Agency and the City and its
citizens for the Property to be developed in accordance with the Specific Plan which constitutes a
valid public purpose and objective of Agency's Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area
(defined below), Master Developer (for itself and its successors and assigns of the Property or
any part thereof) is willing to enter into and be bound by this agreement; and
WHEREAS, Agency and Master Developer desire said Project be undertaken and
completed as soon as it is practicable in accordance with and subject to the terms of this
Agreement.
UT_DOCS_A#1133789 v5 '-/- 5
. -
NOW, THEREFORE, the above Recitals being a substantive part of this Agreement and
for good and valuable consideration Agency and Master Developer do hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINED TERMS
1.1 Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the following tenns shall have the meanings
respectively indicated:
1.1.1 "Automobile Dealerships" shall mean any franchises engaged in the sale
of new automobiles and trucks which are located within the City of Chula Vista.
1.1.2 "City" shall mean the City of Chula Vista.
1.1.3 "Community Development Director" shall mean the Community
Development Director of the Community Development Department of the City of Chula
Vista, California.
1.1.4 "Dealership Owner" shall mean the ultimate owner of a Dealership Parcel.
1.1.5 "Dealership Parcels" shall mean not less than which shall be sold to
Dealership Owners for operation of first class, fust quality automobile dealership
franchises as more particularly described herein.
1.1.6 "Initial Entitlement" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.1.1 of
this Agreement.
1.1.7 "Master Developer" shall mean, Borst, Borst Family Trust, Fask Land,
Inc. and any and all successors in interest of such entity, and any and all
Agency-approved assignees under this Agreement.
1.1.8 "Master Developer Initial Improvements" shall have the meaning set forth
in Section 2.2.1 of this Agreement.
1.1.9 "Project Area" shall mean the Otay Valley Redevelopment Project Area.
1.1.1 0 "Property" shall mean that certain real property situated within the Project
Area located at Main Street, in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California
(Assessors Parcel Numbers [APN] 644-040-66,644-040-11), more particularly described
(in a manner that predates recordation of the Parcel Map) in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and fully incorporated herein by this reference.
1.1.11 "Parcel Map" shall mean the Parcel Map identified as Exhibit A, Auto
Park East approved by the City for the parcelization of the Property into the Dealership
Parcels to be recorded with respect to the Property.
2
¿¡-ç.
1.1.12 "Project" shall mean the Chula Vista Auto Park East as more fully
identified in the Specific Plan.
1.1.13 "Specific Plan" shall mean the Auto Park East Specific Plan No. PCM-02-
10 adopted by ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on June 8, 2004
as Ordinance No. 2965 for development of the Project on the Property as may be
amended from time to time.
ARTICLE 2
MASTER DEVELOPER INITIAL ENTITLEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OBLIGATIONS
2.1 Securing Initial Entitlement. The obligation to initiate and process all applications to
obtain the Initial Entitlement and all other pennits or approvals in implementation thereof shall
be and remain Master Developer's (or its Agency-approved successor(s) and assignee(s)) in
accordance with this Section 2.1.
2.1.1 Definition of Initial Entitlement. The Initial Entitlement for the Project is
hereby defined to include each application and discretionary action of the City, its
Planning Commission, the Agency, and as applicable, the City's Resource Conservation
Committee ("RCC"), including without limitation, each discretionary action described
below and any and all conditions of approval related thereto, and any amendments,
supplements and modifications related thereto:
(a) Execution and recording of this Agreement by Master Developer and
Agency;
(b) Final approval of the Specific Plan for the Project in the Project Area;
(c) City Council consideration, action, making of findings, and
certification of the applicable environmental impact documentation, required
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including without
limitation the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was prepared and
circulated for this Project and Initial Entitlement, which was approved by
resolution of the City Council on June 8, 2004, Ordinance No. 2965;
(d) Approval of Parcel Map(s), including without limitation subdivision of
the Property into the Dealership Parcels, lot line adjustment(s), lot consolidation,
consolidation plates), and/or parcel map(s), pursuant to all City and state law
requirements, including without limitation the California Government Code,
Subdivision Map Act, Government Code §66410, et seq.; and
(e) One or more Parcel Map Improvement Agreement(s) and/or
Supplemental Parcel Map Improvement Agreement(s), and Grant of Easement
and Maintenance Agreement between the City and Master Developer.
(f) The Initial Entitlement shall not include required building pennits or
Design Review Committee approvals.
3
1/- ?
2.1.2 No Pre-Judgment of Discretion.
(a) Master Developer expressly acknowledges and agrees that Agency
cannot grant any such Initial Entitlement or cause any other governmental agency,
including the City, to grant any such Initial Entitlement, and that each action must
be applied for and processed by Master Developer with the applicable
government entities, boards, cornmissions, and committees. The foregoing
provisions relating to Master Developer obtaining the Initial Entitlement is an
express condition subsequent in this Agreement. Agency and Master Developer
understand and acknowledge that the City (and Agency) expressly and
intentionally reserve the right to exercise their discretion as to all matters which
they are, by law, entitled or required to exercise their discretion relating in any
respect to the Initial Entitlement. It is not the intent (nor shall it be deemed or
construed in any respect), by Agency's approval and execution of this Agreement
that City is granting approval of the Project or any aspect or item which comprises
the Initial Entitlement or that Agency or City have any future obligation to
approve the Project, the Initial Entitlement, or any pennit or approval required in
connection therewith. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Agency acknowledges that
it has reviewed and approved the Specific Plan and will cooperate with the Master
Developer and use good faith efforts to help the Master Developer process to
completion the Initial Entitlement from the City and any other applicable
governmental agencies. Nothing in this provision is meant to limit Master
Developer's right to challenge the City or Agency's decisions with regard to the
granting of entitlements, or to pursue remedies resulting from their failure to do
so.
(b) Except for intentional misconduct and a gross abuse of discretion by
an individual officer, employee, or agent, Master Developer on its own behalf,
and on behalf of each Dealership Owner to the extent allowed by law, hereby
knowingly and voluntarily releases City, Agency, and their officers, employees,
and agents from any liability based upon the Master Developer's and/or
Dealership Owner's failure to obtain the Initial Entitlement or any additional
pennits or approvals required, or any part thereof.
2.2 Implementation of Initial Entitlement. Master Developer covenants and agrees, by
and for itself, its heirs, executors, administrators and approved assignees, and all persons
lawfully claiming under or through them, to develop the Project in accordance with the Initial
Entitlement and to implement the Specific Plan as hereinafter more fully described and within
the timeframes hereinafter described.
2.2.1 Master Developer Initial Proiect Improvements. Master Developer shall
complete, the initial on-site and off-site improvements that are a part of the Project,
including grading and infrastructure improvements to the Dealership Parcels, (but
exclusive of construction of the ultimate building and landscaping improvements to be
constructed on the Dealership Parcels ("Master Developer Initial Project Improvements")
consistent with Phasing Plan (Exhibit 2). In connection with the completion of the
Master Developer Initial Project Improvements, Master Developer agrees to diligently
4
~-f
present the following actions in a timely manner in order to allow for the timely
completion of the Master Developer Initial Project Improvements.
(a) Permits and Approvals. Master Developer shall obtain all necessary
federal, state, and local governmental permits and approvals, abide by all
applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, policies and approvals in
connection with the Master Developer Initial Project Improvements, and pay any
and all fees in connection therewith and in connection with the overall
development of the Project. Agency agrees to provide Master Developer a
complete list of said fees, permits, and plan check review fees prior to the
execution of this Agreement. Agency agrees that it will, without obligation to
incur liability or expense therefor, use its reasonable and good faith efforts to
expedite the City's processing to completion of any applicable permits to the
Master Developer in connection with obtaining the Initial Entitlement.
(b) Parcel Map. Master Developer shall obtain approval of the final
Parcel Map for the Property and Project, including subdivision of the Property
into the Dealership Parcels, from the City in conformity with the Subdivision Map
Act, Government Code §66410, et seq. and applicable local laws and regulations.
(c) Grading of Propertv for Proiect. Master Developer shall submit for
review and approval grading plans for the Project. The grading plans shall be
prepared by a registered civil engineer. The grading plans for the Project shall be
consistent with the Initial Entitlement. Grading may not commence until City
approval of the tentative parcel map.
(d) Performance Bond. In connection with the Master Developer Initial
Project Improvements, Master Developer shall post a performance bond with the
City in an amount equal to one hundred and ten percent (110%) of the City
Engineer's good faith estimated cost of the grading and site improvement work
for the Project (inclusive of a 10% contingency amount.) The performance bond
shall be issued by a surety company admitted to do business in California, with a
Best's rating of A-V or better, and shall otherwise be in a form approved by the
City Attorney.
(e) Landscaping. Master Developer shall submit to City for review and
approval, the preliminary and final landscaping plans for the Master Developer
Initial Project Improvements within the public right-of-way in the Project and
within the Dealership (for both hardscape and softscape) with such plans
depicting and evidencing the first class, first quality improvements hereunder.
The Master Developer shall be responsible for the installation of public right-of-
way landscaping within the Project. The Master Developer shall not be
responsible for the installation of landscaping within the Dealership Parcels.
(i) The landscaping plans shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect.
5
~-1
(ii) Particular attention and detail shall be evidenced in the
landscaping plans relating to adjacent rights-of-way, other public
improvements, access ways, and such subrnittal(s) shall identify materials
to be used for hardscape and identification of all plant materials.
2.2.2 Letter of Approval: Certificate of Completion.
(a) Upon completion of the Master Developer Initial Project
Improvements set forth in Section 2.2.1, Agency shall issue a certificate of
completion stating that: (i) the Master Developer Initial Project Improvements
have been completed in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement; (ii)
the Master Developer Initial Project Improvements are acceptable to Agency and
(iii) the Master Developer Initial Project Improvements are consistent with the
Phasing Plan ("Certificate of Completion").
(b) Agency may issue a certificate of completion for individual parcels if
all of the Master Developer Initial Project Improvements related to that specific
parcel have been completed in accordance with this Agreement ("Certificate of
Completion").
2.2.3 Payment of Fees in Connection with Issuance of Each Permit. Master
Developer shall pay all applicable development impact fees, processing fees, and all other
fees associated with and/or imposed by governmental agencies in connection with
planning, construction and completion of the Master Developer Initial Project
Improvements and/or imposed or due under the Initial Entitlement and in connection with
issuance of each permit for the Master Developer Initial Project Improvements.
ARTICLE 3
ADDITIONAL MASTER DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS;
DEALERSHIP PARCELS, SALES AGREEMENTS
3.1 Purchase and Sale Agreements for Disposition of Dealership Parcels. Agency
acknowledges that Master Developer intends to sell off the Dealership Parcels to one or more
owners who will operate automobile dealerships, with such sales to be made pursuant to
purchase and sale agreements to be negotiated and entered into between Master Developer and
each owner of a Dealership Parcel ("Purchase Agreement").
3.2 Timing of Closing for Purchase Agreements. Master Developer may enter into
Purchase Agreements with one or more entities for disposition and development of each
Dealership Parcel and to close escrow pursuant to such Purchase Agreements. In order to
facilitate such transactions, in the event that a prospective Dealership Owner under contract with
Developer for the purchase of a Dealership Parcel requests financial assistance from the Agency,
Agency agrees to give consideration to such request.
3.3 Required Terms in Purchase Agreements. Master Developer agrees that each
Purchase Agreement entered into subsequent to this Agreement shall include terms and
provisions which obligate the ultimate owner of the Dealership Parcels to effect the following to
6
/f-/O
ensure the Dealership Parcels are constructed, developed, open for business and operating, and
that the Project is undertaken in conformity with this Agreement:
3.3.1 Participation in Association. Each Purchase Agreement shall contain a
provision requiring the ultimate owner of the Dealership Parcel to be a member of and
participate in the Association (defined below).
3.3.2 Development Time Frames. Each Purchase Agreement shall include the
specific development obligations set forth in Section 4.1 of this Agreement relating to
completion of improvements.
3.3.3 OP A. Each Purchase Agreement shall have attached to it a copy of this
Agreement and the Auto Park Declaration (defined below) as an exhibit.
3.4 Auto Park Declaration and Automobile Association for the Proiect. Master
Developer agrees to enter into and record prior to any transfer of a Dealership Parcel a
declaration of conditions, covenants, and restrictions (the "Auto Park Declaration") for
maintenance of the Dealership Parcel as a single integrated auto park on the Project. The Auto
Park Declaration shall first be submitted to and approved by the Community Development
Director to ensure the terms and provisions thereof meet the requirements and objectives of the
Initial Entitlement and this Agreement, the approval of which shall not be unreasonably
withheld. In connection with the Auto Park Declaration, Master Developer shall form one or
more mutual benefit corporations or other legal entities, by and among the Master Developer and
the ultimate owners of all Dealership Parcels at the Project and, if appropriate, other adjacent
property owners within the Project Area (the "Association"). The Association shall be duly
established prior to the closing of escrow for the first Dealership Parcel at the Project as
evidenced by a certificate issued from the Secretary of State of California showing such
corporation having been duly formed and in good standing. The Auto Park Declaration shall,
without limitation, include standards comparable to existing first class, first quality auto parks in
Chula Vista, California and include provisions for:
(a) maintenance standards for first class, first quality auto parks, for
landscaping, ingress/egress and other access ways, and lighting, including without
limitation:
(i) maintenance of all landscaping irrigation throughout the
Proj ect;
(ii) maintenance of permanent best management practices for
onsite private drainage systems and public drainage systems located in
adjacent public rights-of-way, if applicable, including without limitation
storm water and other runoff;
(iii) development and maintenance of common signage for the
Proj ect;
(iv) equitable allocation of costs for maintenance among the
members of the Association; and
7
'1--1/
(v) a program for joint marketing of the Dealership Parcels as
part of the Chula Vista Auto Park.
Agency agrees to assist the Master Developer in receiving whatever easements may be
reasonably required to perform the obligations set forth in this Section 3.4
Agency and City will work with Master Developer to form the Association and to insure
that all Automobile Dealerships within the City of Chula Vista are members.
ARTICLE 4
DEALERSHIP OWNER AND AUXILIARY OWNER OBLIGATIONS
4.1 Dealership Owner Development Obligations.
4.1.1 Permits. After the close of escrow of each Dealership Parcel by Master
Developer to a Dealership Owner, each Dealership Owner shall have 18 months to obtain
all permits necessary to cause construction of an automobile dealership on the Dealership
Parcel in accordance with the Specific Plan and this Agreement or within 90 days of the
close of escrow Dealership Owner shall submit to the Director for review and approval a
development schedule for the dealership to ensure a commercially reasonable timeframe,
in consideration of any unique circumstances, for construction of the dealership. The
City Engineer reserves the right to require additional grading permits in connection with
the Dealership Owner improvements. The performance obligations contained herein may
be extended pursuant to Section 9.11.1 of this Agreement.
4.1.2 Completion of Improvements. Each Dealership Owner shall have one (1)
year from the issuance of a building permit and such other permits required in Section
4.1.1 above, to (a) completion of construction of all improvements to its Dealership
Parcel, (b) obtaining all necessary approvals, (including Department of Motor Vehicle
approvals and manufacturer's approvals), and (c) opening for Business and operating a
Dealership Parcel, but in no event shall any Dealership Owner Open for Business later
than 18 months after obtaining all permits necessary to cause construction of an
automobile dealership.. The performance obligations contained herein may be extended
pursuant to Section 9.11.1. For purposes of this Agreement "Open for Business" shall
mean that the respective Dealership Owner shall have received a certificate of occupancy
by the City's building official and shall be offering new and used cars for sale at the
respective site.
4.2 Building Permit Approval Process for Dealership Parcels . Agency acknowledges
and agrees that once Master Developer obtains the Initial Entitlement and approval of the
Specific Plan, the Project will be entitled for Dealership Parcels, which are consistent with the
Initial Entitlement, and, as of the date of the Agreement, no additional entitlements are necessary
for the Dealership Parcels, provided, however, that Dealership Owners shall be obligated to
obtain approval from the City's Design Review Committee for the site plan, building elevations
and site landscape plan (all as more particularly provided in the Specific Plan) prior to
submitting working drawings to the City's Building Department for review and approval for the
issuance of a building permit.
8
~ -/2
4.2.1 Building Pennit. In connection with obtaining a building pennit for the
Dealership Parcels, each Dealership Owner shall submit to the City a detailed set of
construction drawings and related docwnents consistent with the Specific Plan and the
approval by the Design Review Committee. The construction drawings and related
docwnents submittal shall include identification and detail sufficient to review and verify
that the proposed improvements on the Dealership Parcels are consistent with the
Specific Plan, the Initial Entitlement, Design Review Committee approval and this
Agreement. Final drawings, plans, and specifications are hereby defined as those that are
in sufficient detail to obtain a building pennit, and shall be consistent with and confonn
to the Specific Plan and the Initial Entitlement. Agency agrees that the process for
review shall be limited to the approval by the Design Review Committee of the City and
the submittal and review of the construction drawings and related docwnents for the
issuance of a building pennit by the City's Building Department consistent with the
Specific Plan, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and the Agency shall
have no right to review such building plans and construction drawings.
4.2.2 Timing for Review. The Agency's, if applicable, review and approval of
submittals of building plans, specifications, construction drawings and related docwnents
shall be perfonned on a timely basis. Once construction drawings and related docwnents
are submitted, the Agency shall use its best efforts to cause City's Building Department
to complete its review and provide comments to the Dealership Owner or his designated
representative within thirty (30) days. Upon resubmittal of corrected construction
drawings and related docwnents, the Agency shall use its best efforts to cause City's
Building Department to complete its review and provide comments on the resubmitted
construction drawings and related docwnents within seven (7) days. Agency shall use its
best efforts to cause any disapproval of submittal(s) to state in writing the specific
reason(s) for disapproval. Upon receipt of a disapproval by Agency, if applicable, or the
City, Dealership Owner shall revise such portions of the plans, drawings or related
docwnents in a manner that satisfies the reasons for disapproval and, shall resubmit such
revised portions to the Agency, if applicable and the City as soon as possible after receipt
of the notice of disapproval. Agency, if applicable, shall approve or disapprove and shall
use its best efforts to cause City to approve or disapprove such revised portions in the
same manner and within the same times for approval or disapproval of plans, drawings,
and related docwnents initially submitted to the Agency and City. Agency shall use its
best efforts to cause the City Engineer to endeavor to ensure that no matter once
approved shall be subsequently disapproved; provided however, in no event shall any
submittal or portion thereof be deemed approved. Failure of Agency to act shall in no
event be deemed approval of any submittal or portion thereof.
4.3 Agencv Riclü to Take . Unless the times for perfonnance are extended by the
Agency pursuant to Section 9.11.1, in the event a Dealership Owner fails to meet the foregoing
perfonnance obligations, deadlines or approved development schedule for construction of the
improvements on the Dealership Parcels set forth in this Article 4, Agency may provide
Dealership Owner written notice of such default. Upon Dealership Owner's receipt of Agency's
written notice of default, Dealership Owner shall have ninety (90) days to cure such default
("Dealership Cure Period"). In addition to any and all rights available to Agency at law or in
equity, in the event Dealership owner fails to meet the perfonnance obligations under this Article
9
'1-/3
. -
4, and fails to cure such default within the Dealership Cure Period as provided herein, and
Agency subsequently determines to initiate an action in eminent domain, Master Developer
hereby waives for itself, and for all who succeed Master Developer in its role as Master
Developer under this Agreement and all future heirs, assignees, successors in interest, and
owners of Dealership Parcels, any and all objections to the Agency's right to take the property or
portion thereof.
ARTICLE 5
COVENANTS RUNNING WITH PROPERTY
5.1 Development and Use Covenant. Master Developer hereby covenants and agrees (for
itself and any and all successors in interest of the Master Developer entity, any and all
Agency-approved assignees under this Agreement or any part thereof) to develop the Project in
accordance with the Initial Entitlement, this Agreement and any and all applicable federal, state,
and local laws and regulations.
5.1.1 Agencv Approval of Initial Dealerships. The initial new car franchises
for each Dealership Parcel are subject to the written approval of the Agency, which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. In considering such
approval, the Agency shall take into account the reputation as to quality and sales tax
production of the proposed new franchise, the quality of any proposed combination of
franchises, the extent to which sales taxes may need to be shared with other jurisdictions,
and other relevant factors. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no such prior approval shall
be required for the Dealership Parcels with respect to any new car franchisee s)
representing makes by the following automobile manufacturers:
(a) Ford Motor Company;
(b) General Motors Corporation;
(c) Toyota Motor Company;
(d) Chrysler Corporation;
(e) Honda;
(f) Nissan;
(g) Mazda;
(h) Acura;
(i) Mercedes Benz;
(j) BMW;
(k) Jaguar;
10
1-/'1
(I) Audi;
(m)Infiniti;
(n) Mitsubishi;
(0) Volkswagen;
(P) Lexus;
(q) Volvo;
(r) Hyundai;
(s) Porsche;
(t) AM General (Hummer);
(u) Saab;
(v) Subaru;
(w)Suzuki;
(x) Land Rover;
(y) Isuzu;
(z) Kia;
(aa) Mini;
5.1.2 Agencv Approval of Additional or Subsequent Franchises. Subsequent to
Opening for Business, the Dealership Owner may request the written approval of Agency
for additional or substitute franchise(s) and Agency shall reasonably evaluate such
request; provided, however, no written approval from Agency will be required if the
franchises listed above are offered in combination.
5.2 Restrictive Covenants. Master Developer hereby covenants and agrees (for itself and
any and all successors in interest of the Master Developer entity, any and all Agency-approved
assignees under this Agreement or any part thereof) to the following covenants:
5.2.1 Governmental Compliance. Throughout the term of this Agreement, the
Project shall be maintained in accordance with all applicable laws, permits, licenses and
other governmental authorizations, rules, ordinances, orders, decrees and regulations now
or hereafter enacted, issued or promulgated by federal, state, county, municipal, and other
governmental agencies, bodies and courts having or claiming jurisdiction and all their
respective departments, bureaus, and officials ("Governmental Requirements").
11
~-/~
. -
5.2.2 Maintenance. Restoration and Repair. Dealership Owners covenant to
develop and maintain their respective Dealership Parcels and in First Quality First Class
Condition and Repair consistent with development, maintenance and operation standards
customary for first quality, first class auto parks and first class quality automobile
dealerships of comparable size within the San Diego California market region and in
conformity with the Initial Entitlement, and the covenants, conditions, maintenance
obligations and other restrictions therein during the term this Agreement. Additionally,
each Dealership Owner shall promptly and diligently repair, restore, alter, add to,
remove, and replace, as required, all improvements to maintain or comply as above, or to
remedy all damage to or destruction of all or any part of the improvements except
improvements dedicated to and accepted by the City. "First Quality, First Class
Condition and Repair," means an efficient and attractive condition, at least substantially
equal in quality to the condition which exists when the improvements on the respective
Dealership Parcels were completed, ordinary wear and tear excepted, in accordance with
all applicable laws and conditions.
5.2.3 Delegation of Repair Authoritv. In order to enforce all above maintenance
provisions, the parties agree the Community Development Director of the City of Chula
Vista is empowered to make reasonable determinations as to whether the Dealership
Parcel(s) is/are in a first class condition and repair.
(a) If the Community Development Director determines the Dealership
Parcel(s) appear materially different in terms of maintenance and upkeep than the
remainder of the Auto Park and the Dealership Parcel( s) is/are not in conformity
with the requirements of this Agreement regarding maintenance and upkeep of the
Project, the respective Dealership Owner shall be notified in writing and provided
a reasonable time to cure and/or to commence to cure and diligently and
continuously complete such cure.
(b) If a cure or substantial and ongoing progress to cure has not been
made, the Community Development Director is authorized to effectuate the cure
by City forces or otherwise, the cost of which will promptly be due from and
reimbursed by the respective defaulting Dealership Owner
(c) The Community Development Director or the City shall have the right
to enforce this lien by forwarding the amount to be collected to the San Diego Tax
Assessor who shall make it part of the tax bill for the Dealership Parcel
5.2.4 Used Car Sales. At all times, used automobile and light truck sales or
leasing on each Dealership Parcel shall be secondary to new car sales.
5.2.5 Designation as "Point of Sale". Dealership Owners shall at all times
designate their respective Dealership Parcel(s) as the point of sale for sales tax purposes
in all retail sales and lease contracts for vehicles whose sales and leases originate from
the Property.
12
'I-/~
5.2.6 Term of Covenants. The covenants contained in this Section shall
continue in effect trom the effective date of this Agreement until 2023.
5.3 Rights of Access. Agency, for itself and for the City, at their sole risk and expense,
reserves the right to enter the public right-of-way in the Project at all reasonable times for the
purpose of construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair or service of any public
improvements or public facilities located thereon, if any. Agency or such other public agency
exercising such right of entry shall take all reasonable measures to minimize interference with
the operation of the Dealership Parcels and shall promptly repair and restore any damage caused
by such entity to the Dealership Parcel(s) or portion thereof, or any of the improvements thereon.
Any such entry shall be made only after reasonable notice to and consent of the Dealership
Owner(s), and Agency shall indemnify, defend, and hold Master Developer, Dealership
Owner(s) harmless from any costs, claims, damages or liabilities pertaining to any entry.
Dealership Owners agree to cooperate with Agency in providing its consent and such access, and
acknowledge that Agency may obtain an administrative inspection warrant or other appropriate
legal or equitable remedies to enforce its rights hereunder. The foregoing shall not be deemed to
diminish any rights Agency, City, or any other public agencies may have without reference to
this section. The rights of access set forth herein shall remain in effect until the expiration of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area.
5.4 Non-Discrimination. Master Developer, Dealership Owners covenant by and for
themselves and any successors in interest, that there shall be no discrimination against or
segregation of any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex,
marital status, physical or mental disability or medical condition, national origin or ancestry in
the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Property, nor shall
Master Developer, itself or any person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such
practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location,
number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees of the Property.
The foregoing covenants shall nul with the land.
5.4.1 Deed. Lease and Contract Restrictions. All deeds, leases or contracts with
respect to the Dealership Parcels shall contain or be subject to substantially the following
nondiscrimination or nonsegregation clauses:
(a) In deeds: "The grantee herein covenants by and for himself or herself,
his or her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming
under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation
of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex,
marital status, physical or mental disability or medical condition, national origin
or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or
enjoyment of the land herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself or herself or
any person claiming under or through him or her, establish or permit any such
practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the
selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants,
sublessees or vendees in the land herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall
nul with the land."
13
tj-/1-
(b) In leases: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himself or herself,
his or her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming
under or through him or her, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject
to the following conditions:
There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or
group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status,
physical or mental disability or medical condition, ancestry or national origin in
the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the
premises herein leased nor shall the lessee himself or herself, or any person
claiming under or through him or her, establish or permit any such practice or
practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location,
number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants or vendees in
the premises herein leased."
(c) In contracts: "There shall be no discrimination against or segregation
of, any person, or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex,
marital status, physical or mental disability or medical condition, handicap,
ancestry or national origin, in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy,
tenure or enjoyment of the premises, nor shall the transferee himself or herself or
any person claiming under or through him or her, establish or permit any such
practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the
selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants,
sublessees or vendees of the premises."
5.5 Covenants Run with the Land. The terms, covenants, and obligations of Master
Developer, Dealership Owners pursuant to this Agreement shall run with and be binding upon all
lessees, successors and assigns to the Property. All such covenants shall be prior, superior and
non-subordinate to financing for the acquisition, construction, or permanent financing secured or
to be secured by Master Developer and each Dealership Owner.
5.5.! Sign. Agency shall pursue entering into an agreement to take effect within
six (6) months from the Effective Date of this Agreement with a consultant to pursue
Agency's installation, at its sole cost and expense, of an auto park directional sign to be
erected along Auto Park Drive in the vicinity of the eastern boundary of Interstate 805.
The sign may have a permanent display that includes space for a listing of each make of
auto dealership that constructs an auto dealership within the Chula Vista Auto Park. The
design of the sign will be decided in conjunction with the appropriate Association, or
with Master Developer, if Association has not yet been formed.
The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement does not bind the Agency
to enter into any agreement or to take any particular action related to said sign and that the
Agency's failure to enter an agreement with a consultant to pursue installation or construction of
said sign shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement. In this regard, the Agency undertakes
no obligation to Master Developer hereunder and retains its sole and unfettered discretion to
adopt any resolutions and does not prejudge or commit, in any respect whatsoever, to the Master
Developer, or any other person or entity, regarding said sign.
14
'1-/ 'I
5.5.2 Street Name. Agency shall use its best efforts to work with the City to
cause CaITrans to erect a sign at the intersection of future Interstate 125 and Rock Mountain
Road that identifies the interchange with the inclusion of the name Auto Park Drive.
5.5.3 Landfill Parking. Agency shall use its best efforts to work with City to
consider in good faith providing the Dealership Owners and the Association, including Master
Developer, with the opportunity to lease from City on a long-tenn basis at fair market value a
portion of the 80 acres of City's landfill that have been closed for further deposit of solid waste
materials for use for inventory and employee parking.
5.5.4 Satellite Facility. Agency shall use its best efforts to work with City to
assist in providing Dealership Owners with the opportunity to establish within the Eastern
Territories of City satellite facilities to the dealerships located on the Property.
5.5.5 Coors Amphitheatre Traffic Control. Agency shall convene two meetings
for Master Developer and Dealership Owners within one (I) year of the commencement of
operations of the fust Dealership. These meetings will serve to discuss the traffic control
measures for Coors Amphitheatre events to insure the Dealerships' desire to continue to conduct
business uninterrupted. Thereafter Agency will convene at least one such meeting each year, or
as many as may be needed to ensure that Dealership business is not interrupted by the events.
The Agency will represent the concerns of the Master Developer and Dealership owners to the
established Events Planning and Coordination Task Force as well as the Zoning Administrator in
charge of the Events Management Plan.
5.6. Amendment of Initial Specific Plan. City and Agency acknowledge that Master
Developer is purchasing the Property in reliance upon: (a) the covenants and obligations
assumed by Agency pursuant to this Agreement, and in particular, assumed pursuant to
this Section 5.6; and (b) the rights obtained by Master Developer pursuant to this
Agreement, and in particular, this Section 5.6. Master Developer hereby covenants to use
its commercially reasonable best efforts to market and obtain auto dealerships to purchase
the Dealership Parcels from Master Developer and to develop them for auto dealership
use, it being in the best interests of Master Developer as the proposed operator of the first
auto dealership proposed for the Property to do so. However, City and Agency
acknowledge that Master Developer does not have the ability to compel persons to
purchase Dealership Parcels and to develop and operate them as auto dealerships. Upon
purchase of the Property, Master Developer will submit an application to the City to
amend City's General Plan and the Specific Plan as they exist upon the Effective Date
and to rezone the Property to add to the pennitted land uses for the Property all of those
uses allowed under City's Zone Classification C-T (the "Additional Uses") as it is in
effect upon the Effective Date ("Master Developer's Application"). Agency hereby
covenants to use its best efforts to cause City to expedite processing of Master
Developer's Application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and not withstanding City's
approval of Master Developer's Application if such should occur, Master Developer or
any of its assignees or successors in interest shall not be: (m) relieved of Master
Developer's covenant under the second sentence of this Section 5.6; and (n) entitled to
submit an application to City for any approval or pennit that would implement any of the
Additional Uses until six (6) years after the Effective Date. Notwithstanding the
15
tj-/'j
foregoing, Master Developer shall be relieved of its covenant under the second sentence
of this Section 5.6 and allowed to proceed with any of the Additional Uses at any time
that at least eighty percent (80%) of the 22 acres of the Property designated under the
existing Specific Plan for auto dealership use have been sold or developed by Master
Developer for auto dealership uses.
ARTICLE 6
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION
6.1 Pennitted Assignment. The person or entities comprising Master Developer (and
each successor entity) hereunder may each transfer or assign its interests in the Property,
including its rights and obligations under this Agreement, without the approval or consent from
the Agency, to (a) Sunroad CV Land Partners, LP; or to (b) any of the following persons or
entities ("Pennitted Assignee"), provided said Pennitted Assignee has adequate fmancial
capacity to fulfill all obligations of this Agreement: (i) an entity that controls, is controlled by or
is under common control with Master Developer; or (ii) a partnership or limited liability
company in which Master Developer is the sole general partner or sole managing member,
respectively; or (iii) an entity that simultaneously grants an option to Master Developer to
purchase the Property from such entity of Master Developer agrees to exercise such option at
Agency's reasonable request.
6.2 Agencv Consent Required for All other Assignments of Agreement or Transfer of
Anv Interest in Propertv bv Master Developer. If Master Developer desires to transfer and/or
assign its interests in the Property or this Agreement to any person or entity other than a
Pennitted Assignee, the consent of Agency (which shall not be unreasonably withheld,
conditioned or delayed) shall be required for each such assignment or transfer.
6.2.1 Conditions to Consent. Agency consent will be granted if:
(a) the proposed assignee/transferee expressly assumes, in writing, Master
Developer's obligations hereunder as to times following the effective date of the
assignment or transfer;
(b) the proposed assignee/transferee has demonstrated to the reasonable
satisfaction of Agency that such person or entity has adequate financial capacity
to fulfill all obligations of this Agreement.
6.2.2 Tenn of Consent. Subject to Agency's ongoing approval rights under
section 6.1 hereof, Agency's consent rights to assignment of this Agreement and/or
transfer of the Property or any part, portion, or parcel thereof by Master Developer, under
this Agreement shall expire, tenninate and be of no further force upon Master
Developer's satisfaction of its obligations hereunder.
6.3 No Consent Requirements for Dealership Parcels. Subject to Agency's continuing
approval rights set forth in Section 6.1 above, the person or entities comprising Dealership
16
'1-).0
Owners (and each successor entity) hereunder may each transfer or assign their interests in the
Property, including their rights and obligations under this Agreement, without the approval or
consent from the Agency.
6.4 Contracting for Performance Not Prohibited. Nothing herein shall prohibit Master
Developer from contracting with or causing any third party or parties to perform any of Master
Developer's obligations hereunder, provided that in such event Master Developer shall remain
fully responsible to Agency for the performance and compliance under this Agreement.
6.5 Effect of Permitted Assignment or Transfer. Effective upon the date of any
assignment by Master Developer to a third party in which Master Developer holds no interest
where such assignment was, permitted hereunder or consented to in writing by Agency, Master
Developer shall have no further liability for obligations under this Agreement that arise from and
after the date of such assignment or that have been expressly assumed by the assignee.
ARTICLE 7
AGENCY RIGHT OF TERMINATION
7.1 Agencv Right of Termination for Default. If Master Developer fails to fulfill its
obligations hereunder after due written notice and reasonable opportunity to cure, Master
Developer shall be in default hereunder, and in addition to any and all other rights and remedies
Agency may have, at law or in equity, Agency shall have the right to terminate this Agreement,
to terminate its approval of the Project, and/or to terminate the Initial Entitlement as to the then
undeveloped portions of the Project. In the event of such Agency termination, Master Developer
acknowledges and agrees neither party shall have any further obligation to the other under this
Agreement, excepting those legal rights for performance that have accrued prior to such
termination. Nothing in the foregoing right of termination shall affect or modify Agency's rights
under Section 4.3, above.
ARTICLE 8
INDEMNIFICATION
8.1 Master Developer Indemnification. To the maximum allowed by law Master
Developer shall protect, defend, indemnify, assume all responsibility for, pay all costs, hold
hannless, and provide a defense for the Agency and the City and their elective and appointive
boards, officers, boards, agents and employees, from any and all claims, suits, liabilities,
expenses or damages of any nature, and judgments for damages to property and injuries to
persons, including death (including attorneys' fees and litigation costs) (collectively, "Costs"),
incurred or otherwise suffered by the Agency or the City, which arise out of or relate to: (a)
Master Developer's (or any of Master Developer's officers, employees, agents, contractors,
subcontractors, invitees, patrons) activities under this Agreement or related in any respect
whatsoever to the preparation, design, and construction of the Master Developer Initial Project
Improvements; or (b) Master Developer's ownership or possession of the Property, regardless of
whether such actions or inactions or performance thereof be by the Master Developer or anyone
directly or indirectly employed or contracted with by the Master Developer, excluding those
costs that directly arise out of the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of Agency or City.
17 ~-;21
Master Developer's obligations under this section shall survive the termination of this
Agreement; provided, however, upon a permitted transfer of all or any portion of the Property,
with respect to the transferred portion, provided the transferee has assumed. substantially similar
obligations, Master Developer's obligations under this section shall terminate three (3) years
following the effective date of Master Developer's conveyance of title.
8.2 Dealership Owner Indemnification. To the maximum extent allowed by law each
Dealership Owner shall protect, defend, indemnify, assume all responsibility for, pay all costs,
hold harmless, and provide a defense for the Agency and the City and their elective and
appointive boards, officers, boards, agents and employees, from any and all claims, suits,
liabilities, expenses or damages of any nature, and judgments for damages to property and
injuries to persons, including death (including attorneys' fees and litigation costs) and any other
damages, including consequential damages, incurred or otherwise suffered by the Agency or the
City, which arise out of or relate to Dealership Owner's (or any of their officers, employees,
agents, contractors, subcontractors, invitees, patrons) activities under this Agreement or related
in any respect whatsoever to the preparation, design, and construction of the ultimate
improvements to be constructed on the Property by them (but expressly excluding the Master
Developer Initial Project Improvements), or Dealership Owner's ownership or possession of the
property regardless of whether such actions or inactions or performance thereof be by such
Dealership Owner or anyone directly or indirectly employed or contracted with by them and
regardless of whether such damage shall accrue or be discovered before or after termination of
this Agreement excluding those costs that directly arise out of the sole negligence or sole willful
misconduct of Agency or City.
8.3 Further Indemnities. Any successor Master Developer, Dealership Owner, or future
Dealership Owner agrees to indemnify the Agency and the City from all claims, liabilities,
damages, losses, fines, penalties, judgments, awards, costs, and expenses incurred or otherwise
suffered which arise out of the existence or release of hazardous materials brought to the
Property after such party's acquisition of all or a portion thereof. The indemnity obligations set
forth in this Section 8.3 shall terminate and expire three (3) years following the respective
owner's conveyance of title to the respective parcel of Property to a third party purchaser.
ARTICLE 9
MISCELLANEOUS
9.1 Recording. Agency and Master Developer agree this Agreement may be recorded
against the Property by Agency in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
California.
9.2 Attornevs Fees. In the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to the
obligations under this Agreement that results in litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
recover its reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, expert fees, and litigation expenses, including
all such fees, costs and expenses incurred in any appellate proceedings from the non-prevailing
party.
9.3 Time Of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every obligation hereunder.
18 1/-;2;>
.. .
9.4 Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be given in writing by personal
delivery, or by certified mail or registered United States Mail, return receipt requested, postage
prepaid, or by recognized commercial overnight courier and shall be deemed communicated
when received if given by personal delivery or upon receipt or rejection if mailed as provided
above on a business day during business hours in the location where received, and if not then on
the next business day, as the case may be. Mailed notices shall be addressed as set forth below,
but either party may change its address by giving written notice thereof to the other in
accordance with the provisions of this article:
AGENCY: Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
476 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Attn: Executive Director
cc: City Attorney/ Agency General Counsel
DEVELOPER:
With a Copy to
9.5 Integration. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings
written and oral. This Agreement may not be modified or amended except in a writing signed by
all parties hereto.
9.6 Force Maieure. Time for performance hereunder shall be extended by any period of
delay caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the party claiming the delay
despite the party's diligent efforts other than financial ability, provided the party claiming the
delay, provides written notice to the other party within a reasonable period following
commencement of any such circumstances which circumstances shall include, without limitation,
fire/casualty losses; dealer protests; strikes; litigation; local, regional or national economic
conditions; unusually severe weather; inability to secure necessary labor, materials, or tools;
environmental remediation, including govemmental review and processing of environmental
remediation; delays of any contractor, subcontractor, or supplier; delay caused by the other party,
and acts of God (collectively, "force majeure").
9.7 Interpretation. In this Agreement the neuter gender includes the feminine and
masculine, and singular number includes the plural, and the words "person" and "party" include
corporation, partnership, firm, trust, or association where the context so requires.
9.8 Authoritv to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of
Master Developer warrant and represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement
on behalf of their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrant and represent that they
have the authority to bind the Master Developer to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
9.9 Warrantv Against Pavment of Consideration for Agreement. Master Developer
warrants that it has not paid or given, and will not payor give, to any third person, any money or
other consideration for obtaining this Agreement, other than normal costs of conducting business
and costs of professional services such as architects, engineers and attorneys.
19 1-;<3
. -
9.10 Agencv and City Intended Beneficiaries. Agency and City are deemed intended
beneficiaries of the tenns and provisions of this Agreement and of the covenants running with
the land, for and in its own rights and for the purposes of protecting. the interests of the
community and other parties, public or private, in whose favor and for whose benefit this
Agreement and the covenants running with the land have been provided. The Agreement and the
covenants herein shall run in favor of Agency and City, without regard to whether the Agency or
City has been or is an owner of any land or interest in the Property, the Dealership Parcels.
Agency and City shall have the right, if the Agreement or the covenants, tenns, and obligations
herein are breached, to exercise all rights and remedies, and to maintain any actions or suits at
law or in equity or other proper proceedings to enforce the curing of such breaches to which it or
any other beneficiaries of this Agreement and covenants may be entitled.
9.11 Amendments to this Agreement. Master Developer and Agency agree to mutually
consider reasonable requests for amendments to this Agreement which may be made by lending
institutions, a Dealership Owner's counsel, provided such requests are consistent with this
Agreement and would not substantially alter the basic business tenns included herein. The
Executive Director of Agency shall have the authority to issue interpretations, waive provisions
and enter into amendments of this Agreement on behalf of Agency so long as such actions do not
substantially change the uses pennitted for the Project or the tenns and provisions specified
herein and as agreed to by Agency. All other waivers or amendments shall require the
consideration and written consent of the Agency Board.
9.11.1 Extensions of Time for Perfonnance: Schedule.
(a) It is understood the schedule and outside dates for perfonnance under
this Agreement are subject to all of the tenns and conditions set forth in the text of
this Agreement. Agency vest in the Executive Director the sole and complete
discretion to authorize extensions to the outside dates set forth herein; provided,
however, that in no event shall any extension of any outside date or all extensions
together exceed 18 months. Additionally, each and every extension is also subject
to the following provisions:
(i) Each extension shall be mutually agreed upon in writing
between Master Developer (or a successor) (or a Dealership Owner, if
applicable) and the Executive Director based on extensions necessary due
to changes in circumstances, market conditions relating to operation of
first class, first quality automobile dealerships and franchises in Chula
Vista, California, or other factors not known by the parties as of the date
of Agreement. Each request for an extension from Master Developer (or a
successor) or Dealership Owner of an outside date shall be in writing
stating the requested extension period, the reasons for such extension, the
facts and circumstances related to the need for such extension, and other
infonnation reasonably necessary for the Executive Director to understand
the basis for such request and the circumstances that did not exist as of the
date of Agreement that necessitate such requested extension. The
Executive Director is authorized to agree to make such revisions as he/she
deems reasonably necessary based on changes in circumstances or other
20 '1-;2 ~
factors not known as of the date of Agreement. In the event an extension
is granted by the Executive Director, then the perfonnance tasks hereunder
shall be extended by such period and any corresponding extension
necessary to correlate the times for performance hereunder are also
reasonably extended to correlate with the approved extension, as
detennined by the Executive Director in hislher sole and absolute
discretion.
9.12 Counteroarts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and may be
delivered by facsimile or otherwise.
9.13 Waivers. The waiver by the Agency or Master Developer (or any successor) of
any breach by the other party of any tenn, covenant, or condition in this Agreement contained
shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such tenn, covenant, or condition or any subsequent breach
of the same or any other tenn, covenant, or condition herein contained. Any party's acceptance
of any perfonnance by the other party after the due date of such perfonnance shall not be
deemed to be a waiver by any party of any preceding breach by the other party of any tenn,
covenant, or condition of this Agreement, regardless of such party's knowledge of such
preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such perfonnance.
9.14 Reasonableness of Actions. In any circumstance where under this Agreement any
party is required to approve or disapprove any matter, approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld, conditioned, or delayed.
9.15 Affinnative Covenants of Agencv and Master Developer to Use Good Faith in
Perfonnance under the Agreement. Each party affinnatively covenants to and for the benefit of
the other party to exercise good faith and to use commercially reasonable efforts to perform and
carry out all obligations and satisfy all conditions under this Agreement for the benefit of the
party entitled to perfonnance of each obligation and action required hereunder.
9.16 Headings. The headings to the paragraphs of this Agreement have been inserted
for convenience reference only and shall not to any extent have the effect of modifying,
amending or changing the expressed terms and provisions of this Agreement.
9.17 Venue. In the event of any litigation under this Agreement, all such actions shall
be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, or in an
appropriate municipal court in the County of San Diego, State of California, or in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.
9.18 Applicable Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern the
interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement.
9.19 No Joint Venture. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to
render Agency in any way or for any purpose a partner, joint venture, or associated in any
relationship with Master Developer (or a successor), nor shall this Agreement be construed to
authorize any party to act as agent for the other.
21 'I-;2~
..--
9.20 Mortgage Protection. Whenever Agency delivers any notice or demand to Master
Developer (or a successor) with respect to any breach or default by Master Developer (or a
successor), Agency shall at the same time deliver to each holder of record of any mortgage, deed
of trust or other security interest ("Mortgagee") a copy of such notice or demand, provided that
the Mortgagee has given prior written notice of its name and address to Agency, or such address
is set forth in a recorded instrument. Each Mortgagee shall have the right, at its option, within
thirty (30) days after the receipt of the notice, to cure or remedy (or commence to cure or
remedy) any such default. If such default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the
Mortgagee shall have such additional period as may be reasonably required within which to cure
the same, provided that the Mortgagee shall deliver written notice to Agency of its intention to
cure and shall have commenced to cure such default within fifteen (15) days, and shall thereafter
diligently prosecute such cure to completion. Agency shall not terminate this Agreement or any
of Master Developer's (or successor's) rights hereunder by reason of the Master Developer's (or
successor's) default without first serving the Mortgagee with notice of default and allowing the
Mortgagee the cure period described above and such further period to foreclose or otherwise
acquire the property so long as the Mortgagee notifies Agency that it will commence foreclosure
or other proceedings to acquire the Property, and thereafter diligently prosecute the same to
completion. If a default by Master Developer (or a successor) shall be cured by the Mortgagee,
the Mortgagee shall not be obligated to continue any foreclosure, possession or other
proceedings which it may have instituted. Should the Mortgagee or any party claiming through
the Mortgagee succeed to the interest of the Master Developer (or a successor) in the Property, or
any portion thereof inclusive of Dealership Parcels , such Mortgagee or other party shall
expressly assume, in writing, Master Developer's (or successor's) obligations hereunder and
Agency shall recognize such a party as Master Developer and shall not disturb its use and
enjoyment of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to this Agreement, provided that such
party cures any default by Master Developer (or a successor) which may be satisfied by the
payment of money and performs all of the obligations of Master Developer (or a successor) set
forth in this Agreement, which accrue thereafter. A breach of any covenants or restrictions
contained in this Agreement shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of
trust made in good faith and for value as to the Property or any part thereof or any interest
therein, whether or not said mortgage or deed of trust is subordinated to this Agreement; but
unless otherwise provided herein, the terms, conditions, covenants, restrictions and reservations
of this Agreement shall be binding and effective against the holder of any such mortgage or deed
of trust and any owner of the Property or any part thereof, whose title thereto is acquired by
foreclosure, trustee sale or otherwise.
9.21 Relationship to Other Documents. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to, or
shall have the effect of altering the terms and conditions of the Specific Plan,. To the extent of
any conflict between this Agreement and the terms of the Specific Plan" as the case may be the
terms of those documents shall govern, and this Agreement is hereby modified to the extent
necessary to be consistent therewith. .
9.22 Release of Agencv/City Officials. No member, official, agent, employee, or
attorney of the Agency or City shall be personally liable to Master Developer, or any successor
in interest of the Master Developer, including each Dealership Owner, to the maximum extent
allowed by law, in the event of any default or breach by Agency or on any obligations under the
terms of this Agreement. Master Developer hereby waives and releases any claim it may have
22 lj-;2~
personally against the members, officials, agents, employees consultants, or attorneys of Agency
with respect to any default or breach hereunder by Agency. Master Developer makes such
release with full knowledge of Civil Code Section 1542, and hereby waives any and all rights
thereunder to the extent of this release, if such Section 1542 is applicable California Civil Code
Section 1542 provides as follows:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not
know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if
known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor."
[Signature Page Follows]
23 Lj-;¿?
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Agency and Master Developer have entered into this Agreement
effective as of the date first written above.
"AGENCY"
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, a public body corporate and
politic
DATED: By:
Stephen C. Padilla, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Ann Moore
Agency Attorney
"DEVELOPER"
Fred Borst, Borst Family Trust, and Fask Land Inc.
DATED: o.¡ 1.{) ZoDL ~\,~ Eoßl:1 ~t]:= I tÇ;
Its: Manager
NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card.
J:\Attomey\EHull\Agreements\OPA Sunroad 8-19-04 - redline strikeout.doc
24 f-;l fj'
Exhibit A
to
Owner Participation Agreement
Property Description
25 '1'-;2 7
08/18/2004 !~:05 FAX Ii!I 018/021
! --
.- ->-
. . .
, . .
18826
EXIDBIT 'A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL A
Those portions ofParccls I and 2 ofPaICel Map No. 18372, in the City of Chula Vista, County
of San Diego, Stale of California. according to Map thcreof Filcd in the Office of the San Diego
CoUì1ty Recorder Novemher 12, 1999 described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the Westerly linc on uidParcel Map No. 18372. said point bean
South 00"18'44" Wçst, 421.72 feet ftom rhe Northwest c:orner of said PaICe1 Map No. 18372 said
point bcing the beginning of a non-tangent curvc concave to the South having a radius of25.00
feet, to which a radial bears North 21"02'23" West; thence leaving said Westerly boundary,
Easterly 20.32 feet along said curve through a central angle of 46"34'17"; thence South 64"28'06"
East, 6.54 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 25.00 feet;
thence Easterly 9.91 feet along said curve through a central angle of 24"42'54" to the beginning
of a compound curvc concave to the Northwest having a radius of215.00 feet to which a radial
bears South 02"49'00" West; thence Northeasterly 205.04 feet along said curve through a central
angle of 54"38'27" to the beginnJng of a reversc curve concave to the South having a radius of
48.00 fcet to which a radial bears North 51"49'27" West; thence Northeasterly. Easterly and
Southeasterly 113.13 feet along said curve through a eentralllllgle of 135"02'02" to the beginrñng
of a reverse curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 150.00 feet to which a radial bean
South 83"12'35" West; thence Southeasterly 196.17 feet along said Çurv1: through a central angle
of 74"55'56"; thcnce South 81"43'21" East. 449.82 fect to thc beginning ofa curve concave to the
Nor-chwest having a radius of 100.00 feet; thence Northeasterly 111.75 fect along said curve
through a ccntrnl angle of 64"0 I '35" to the beginning ofa reverse curve concave to the Southeast
having a radius of55.00 fcet to which a radial bears North 55"44'56" West; thence Northeaster]y
and Easterly 69.82 feet along said curve through a central angle ofn"43'46"; thence South
73·01 '10" East. ]97,02 feet; 10 the beginning ofa Don-tangent curve concave to the North having
a nulius of 300.00 feet to which a radial bears South 16"31 '40" West; thence Easterly 113_67 feet
along said curve through a central angle of21"42'33" to the beginning of a ¡even<: curve concave
to the Southwest having a radius of 115.00 feet, to whieh a radial bears North 05"10'53" West;
thence Easterly and Southeaaterly 129.64 fcort through a central angle of 64835'20" to the
beginning of a reverse curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 1 00.00 feet to which a
radial bean South 59"24'27" West; thence Southeasterly 91-43 rcct along said curve through a
central angle 0£S2"23'04"; thencc South 82"58'37" East. 308.20 feet to the beginning ofa curve
concave to the Southwest having a radius of 550.00 feet; thence Southeasterly 163.80 feet ¡¡Jong
said curvc tluuugh a central angle of 17"03'50" to the beginning of a reverse curve concave to the
Northeast having a nldius of 100.00 feet, to whieh a radial bears South 24"05'13" West; thence
Southeasterly 30.73 feet along said curve through a centra! angle of 17"36'24"; thence South
83"31'11" East, 349.85 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the North having a radius of
I OC.OO feet; thence Easterly 31 .22 feet along said curve through a çentral angle of 17"53'14" to
the beginning of a reverse curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of 390.00 feet to which
a radial bean North 11 "24'25" West; thl:llCe Northeasterly 66.19 feet along said curve through "-
central angle of 09"43'26" to the beginning of a reverse curve concave to the Northwcst baving a
d:\ldDØ'6IX1\O\\¡cpI dCIC p-..z.1..dac
De:ilcr.iptioû: San. Diego/CA DOc:u.etlC-rear.DoCZ.c 2004.2Q&S4.7 Rap: .. of T '/-30
order, Q8-~8-~004 O~-41-3Q ~M commen~: SAN.Dr
08/18/2004 14:06 FAX I4i 019/021
-- - --
.,.
, . . .
1882.7
radius of 100_00 feet to wlrieh a radial bealS South 01°40'551" East; thence Northeasterly 91-98
fcct along said curve through a central angle oC 51°42'05" to thc bcginning of a compound curve
concave to the West having a Iadius of 50.00 fcet to which a radial bears South 54"23'04" East;
thence Northerly 53_08 feel along said curve through a central angle of60"49'37" to the
. beginning of a reverse curve com::ave to tbe Southeast having a radius of 5 1.00 feet 10 which a
radial bear.¡ South 64847'19" West; thence Northerly, Northeasterly and Easterly 123.60 feel
along said curve thtQugh a ccntnll angle of 138"S I '46"; thence South 66"20'5S" East, 651.88 feet
to the beginning of a curve conCllve 10 the North having a radius of 50.00 feet; thence Eastcrly
25.18 feet along said curve through a central angle of2s058'14" to the beginning of a comp'ound
C\IIVe concave to the Northwest having a radius ofI51.00 feet 10 which a Tadial bears SoUíh
05"19'051" East; thence Northeasterly 132.93 fcct along said curve 1hrough a central angle of
50"26'11" to the beginning of a compound curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of
50.00 feet; thence Northeasterly 14.26 reet along said curve through a central angle ofI6"20'33";
thence North 17·53'57" East, 122.20 feet to Ihe Northerly line ofsaid Parcel Map No. 18372
being also the Southerly line of Main Street; thence along the Northerly line ofsaid Parcel Map
No. 18372 and said South line of Main Street North .72·S6'4S" West, 261.64 fecI; thence North
72"07'02" West, 43S.71 fect; thence North 71"06'16" West, 417.74 feet to the beginning ofa
curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 1929.49 feet; thence Northwesterly 305.24
feet along said curve thTough a central angle of 09"03'50"; thence leaving said Southedy line of
Main Street and continuing along said Northerly line of Parcel Map No. 18372 South 00"21'47"
West, 136_01 fect; thence North 89"38'13" West, 208.71 feet; thence North 00"21 '47" East,
1551.23 feet to said Southerly line of Main Street being a point on a curve concave to the South
having a radius of 1929.49 feel; thence continuing along said Northerly line of Parcel Map No.
18372 and said Southerly line of Main Street Westerly 85.85 reet along said curv" through a
centra! angle 0[02°31'58"; thence North 88"S7':25w West, 1193_36 to said Northwest Comer of
Parcel Map No. 18372; thence leaving said Southerly line of Main SII'Cet and along the Westerly
lil'l",ofsaid Parcel Map No. 18372 South 00"18'44" West, 421.72 feet to the point of
BEGINNING.
Prepared By:
NoUe A$sociales, Inc.
t:) f!..t' c-I7----'L. Iz./ø,/Þ~
.
Ronald C. Parker
Director of Survey
",_11Iqa1 .... .....1.-
DsscriptlQn: san Diegc,CA DQcumøne-Ysar.DQcIÞ 'DD4.2D6647 page, 5 QL 7 1-3/ -.'---
Order: 08-18-2004 O~-47-3D g.w ~~.Dt= SAND~
File No: 03204050
EXHIBIT "A"
All that certain real property situated in the County of San Diego; State of
California, described as follows:
A portion of Section 19, Township 18 South, Range 1 West, San Bernardino
Meridian Base Line according to Government Survey in the City of Chula Vista,
County of San Diego, State of California, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter of said Section 19, according to Record of Survey Map No. 612 filed
October 22, 1937 in the Office of the County Recorder, San Diego County;
Thence Southerly along the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter 233.71 feet;
Thence Westerly at right angles with said line and parallel with the Northerly line
of said Southeast Quarter of Northwest Quarter 208.71 feet;
Thence Northerly and parallel with the said Easterly line of said Southeast
Quarter of Northwest Quarter 208.71 feet to the Southerly line of Otay Valley
Road as shown on San Diego County Survey NS164;
Thence Easterly along said Southerly line 208.71 feet to the said Easterly line of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
Thence Northerly along said line 25 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Page 3 L/ -3;2
--
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A 22 ACRES EXPANSION ON SITE (APN #644-040-066 AND
APN #644040011) IN THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (FRED
BORST, BORST FAMILY TRUST AND FASK LAND, INC)
WHEREAS. Fred Borst, Borst Family Trust and Fask Land, Inc. ("Borst") is proposing to develop the property
located South of Main Street ("Property") for purposes of developing multiple dealerships east of the Chula Vista
Auto Park ("Project"); and
WHERAS, an application for a Specific Plan (PCM-02-10) has been adopted allowing the development of the
Project as automobile dealerships, inventory parking and auxiliary uses; and
WHEREAS, the Property is located in the Merged Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed project was adequately covered in
the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-02-010 (Council Resolution #2004-182); thus, no further
environmental review or documentation is necessary; and
WHEREAS. the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has been presented an Owner
Participation Agreement, said agreement being on file with the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency approving
the redevelopment of the site for purposes of establishing terms and conditions for developing the Project on the
Property.
NOW. THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
find, order, determine. and resolve as follows:
1. The proposed Project was adequately covered in the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-
02-010 (Council Resolution #2004-182); thus, no further environmental review or documentation is
necessary.
2. The Project is consistent with the Merged Redevelopment Plan and implements the purpose thereof; the
Project will through the redevelop the property with a coordinated land use, encourage promote and assist in
the development of local commerce and shall assist in the elimination of blight in the Project Area.
3. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the Owner Participation Agreement
with Fred Borst, Borst Family Trust and Fask Land, Inc. to allOW the development of the Project on the
Property on the terms presented in accordance with the Specific Pian (PCM-02-10) and subject to conditions
listed in the Owner Participation Agreement with such minor modifications as may be required or approved
by the City Attorney.
PRESENTED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
~¿+Jj,d/
Laurie Madigan nn ore
Director of Community Development cy Attorney
J :\COMMDEVlRESOS\2004\OB-24-04\Sunroad Reso.doc
1-33
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item S-
Meeting Date 8/24/04
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Amending the fiscal year 2003-04 budget in
accordance with the Budget Transfer Policy and appropriating
funds therefore
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance~
REVIEWED BY: tf (4/5ths Vote: Yes .lLNo_)
City Manage '7.. o.o¡v
The Council Policy on Financial Reporting and Transfer Authority requires that all
departments complete the fiscal year with a positive balance in each budget summary
category (Personnel Services, Supplies and Services, Other Expenses and Capital). In
order to comply with the intent of this policy, the transfers are listed on Attachment A and
discussed below. All recommended General Fund transfers can be done using existing
appropriations. Appropriations from the SR 125 Fund, Southwest Pass-Through Funds,
Salt Creek DIF and Cypress Creek Fund are recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council amend the fiscal year 2003-04 budget by
approving additional appropriations or transferring existing appropriations to ensure that all
departments end the fiscal year without exceeding the budget summary as required by
Council Policy.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
As part of the budget process, all departments projected their total expenditures for the
fiscal year. In the Third Quarter Status report, Council was advised of a projected general
fund savings of $1.0 million. While the total savings is very positive to the City's financial
picture, that total includes a combination of both positive and negative expenditure account
variances in all departments. The Council Policy established in January of 1996, stated
that no department shall end the fiscal year with a negative balance in any summary
account.
As mentioned in the Third Quarter Status report, the Fire Department has exceed their
budget allocation by $359,000, primarily due to the overtime costs related fighting the 2003
Firestorm Disaster, which impacted the entire San Diego County Region. It is
recommended that a transfer from Police Department budgetary savings be used to offset
the overage in the Fire Department.
Other departments which has a budgetary impact related to the Fire Storm included the
s- (
.. .
-
Page 2, Item :5
Meeting Date 8/24/04
Police Department and Public Works Department. Savings within the supplies and
services categories will be transferred to the personnel categories within each of these
departments. To date, the City has been approved for reimbursements of approximately
$280,000 from the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and the Federal Emergency
Management Act Agency (FEMA), which offset some of the costs incurred related to the
October 2003 fires.
Appropriations from Salt Creek DIF ($52,740), Southwest Pass Through Funds ($11,230)
and Cypress Creek Fund ($4,970) are necessary to account for underestimated
expenditures related to an inter-fund loan repayment, pass through payments of tax
increment revenues and sales tax revenues. Appropriations from the SR-125 Fund
($1,414,500) are necessary to account for the SR-125 litigation settlement, which was
budgeted in fiscal year 2003 but actually paid for in fiscal year 2004. Attachment A,
included herein, details the fund, department, category and brief description of each
transfer or appropriation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommended transfers between the General Fund departments will be covered by
savings achieved within existing budgets. The net fiscal impact in the remaining funds will
be $1,483,440, which in all cases will be funded by available fund balances.
S-d-.
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO.
AND
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
JOINT RESOLUTION OF ruE CITY COUNCIL AND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003/2004 BUDGET
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUDGET TRANSFER POLICY
AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE
WHEREAS, Council Policy (established in January, 1996) and Financial Reporting
and Transfer Authority requires that all departments complete the fiscal year with a positive balance
in each budget summary category (personnel Services, Supplies and Services, Other Expenses and
Capital); and
WHEREAS, in order for all departments to comply with the intent of said Council
Policy, specific transfers are recommended for approval; and
WHEREAS, all recommended transfers can be accomplished within existing total
General Fund appropriations; and
WHEREAS, staffrecommends that Council/Agency amend the fiscal year 2004-
04 budget by transferring appropriations to ensure that all departments end the fiscal year
without exceeding any budget summary as required by Council policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council and
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista do hereby amend the fiscal year 2003-04
budget in accordance with the Budget Transfer Policy, as set forth in Attachment A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
.:u Gi {. f--f.:-.-
Maria Kachadoorian Ann Moore
Director of Finance City Attorney
J:\attorney\reso\finance\amend FY 2003-04 budget
$-3
:eZ -I ()cn::Jcn Z::::o :::0 (j) G)"'T1
:0 0 '< <-~ CD 0 0 Q; CD c::
-- S' "C<~_ "':þ » en ::J:::I
tT~ - roïJ3-'() 3- r I -i 1I>c.
CD » (l W""'I ¡..;:; Q; i.»
_ :e c. (J (J (/) CD I~ 0 0 X _
iiJ ~ c. O~:;;c~ ~ ~ ~ ." ."
:::J CD ;::::¡.: ..,:J"'... ... CJ _. c:: c:
(I}:::I -. CD a \.)O :J:J::J ::I
_ 0 <ÐCCJ'l::::¡; a. co a. c..
CD ~ :::I '" co ~"1J
=I I» !!. Z::r º 5" a
~~ » gCll~ a. (Q
_:::I ~ CD __ @
aCD "C ø w 3
~ 1J ~
0; 0 Q) ~ _
~CD "C '< 0 w
fJ (') ::::!. Q) - ~
_::r !. E: 0
~ ~ õ' CD -9
II> - "
o _ rn
< =r
II> II>
~'C
" 0
'" rn
mæ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~Q~
~ < ::J ::J :J ::J :J C'" C" =: CD -. -. '< '< =: -< rn
<(I) Coc.a.a. , == (') o0::þ> O(')m
~m mœ~CJ'I 0 00 CD roCD ~~ CDO~
03 "'....<Co. .¡1¡:::::: 00 c3
:To CXlNNW Q) 00 33::1eD
m c: I ~ * * CD CD Q. :J
(iI::J (j) 3 men '<'<-C::
fii -....J (1) it
CiJ - .þ.. :J c:
- -. - ::J
ã)~ ~ c.
o II>
¡þc.
c.a
" ::!!
UI~....Jo~'" __ _ __ » :::u
i: ~ "'~CJ'I NN WW ~~ ~~ NN ~~ ~.þ.. ~.þ.. ~...3 ~
CD::r W .þ......þ..N .þ...þ........ (j)CJ'I CJ'ICJ'I ~~ ~~ CJ'ICJ'I 00 (j)(j)g c:
m( ) ~ ~N~~ ~~ 00 ~~ ~~ 00 00 00 00 aO:J CD
~- ~ ~wO.þ.. ...... 00 œœ œ(j) 00 00 00 00 00_ ~
CDS 0 0000 O~CJ'I 80 sO') sœ Sa 80 80 90 Sa CD
c.
"3~ 0000 CfJO ()O -i-i -i-i CfJ1J CfJ1J CfJ1J CfJ1J CfJ1JO m
... ~~~~ ~~ ~~ @@ @@ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ c::
o ::T CD ( ) (t) CD "'C CD -. ro :J:J ::J:J "C en "C (f,I "'C en "'C (J "'C (J) CD C.
51» ..,..,......... =..... w..., ~~ ~~ =§ =g =§ =§ =gtc (,Q
~- mmmm» rom -m 00 0-' CD:J CD:J CD:J CD~ ro~~ m
en XXXX ~ (/ x x ec e~ (/ ro (/ ro (/ ro tnro tnCD ...
~~~~ ~~ ~ -- -- ~- œ- œ- œ- œ- ~
CD ro ro CD ::;¡ CD CD _ _ _ 0 ~,... :::J'^ :::J,^ ::;¡,^ ~,^ ..,
::;¡::;¡::;¡::;¡ 0.., ~:::J ::;¡ 00 0GJ ~VJ ~VJ ~VJ ~VJ ~VJ ~
(/ (f (f (f -= (f tn ro CD (I) CD CD ::::I
mro (I) CD ~ 00(1) ro OQ Oro 00< m< 00< 00< m< en
(J enentn~. rotn (J mCD (I)~ ro-" ro-- (1)-" (1)-- ro-" _
æ. < 5?::J 5?:1l <£ <£ <£ <£ <£ (D
õ' (=) mil me (1" en (1" (I) (1- (J (1" (I) (1- (J UJ
::I ([I CD § (I) 5.. CD ro CD ro CD m
(II (I) <~:< (f en (f (f (f 5.
>
'C
r"'1J"'1J:J Q C) 0 0 "'1J "'1J "'1J 0 >c ~
°mCD_ ~ I ([I CD ~" ~. ~ e ~~ 0
~~~~ m"'1J 5?: g 3 3 3 CD ~n ~
" c:: - Q) m m - -. c ..,
~=<_ CD 0- 00 ~ ~. ~ ~ 0 of/) ~
"'....0.... ~ CD... - - - < :J
~aw~ - tu .., .., '< '< '< m m!!!. =:!.
me r :::T:J <: <: ..., .... .... (":I -0 0
~~~o m _ (1" 5" ~ ~ ~ m ~:J :J
3:::TCDm :J Q ([I ([I m m m =: 3 en
~~~::;¡ m ([I m m ~ ro ~ g ~
_m~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
~'<__ 0_" 0 c c _ _ _ m ....
..... 3 õ" CD -- (f (f f. ) 0 0 0 ::;¡ m
3CD:Jœ ~ ~ 3 3 11 "T1 "T1 ~ ~
g a I\J !2. æ- ([I CD ([I ;;¡" ;;¡- ;;¡" ~" fJ)
:JO ~ ~:J ".... '" (") Q)
-go C) ~ ~ ~ !2. ~ ~ ~
r:r fJ) 'fJ !2.;:;: Q Q Q (j) 5
~CDN ~ '< 3 33m ~
CD~O - 5' < ....
~O~ -" __ ~ ~ ~ ([I CD
0:J 3 § 0 0 0 -æ -ê
:J :::T ([I _" W W W '< _"
:::T cC' CD Q 0 0 0 0 CD
cõ" ~ 3" -- CiŠ CiŠ CiŠ s. ~
:::T .... CT CD ;:J. ;:J. ;:J. (J
CD - c::;¡ _" __ _" ....
~~ .... ~ 3 3 3 ~
:::T (J 0 CD ([I CD ...
m ::;¡ ([I en '" ro
:J m 3 =: ~
CD ::;¡ CD 0 _
x =: ~:J 0
~ Q" ur.... (J
CD~ "CD _
(":I m (I) m
-.... c ::::s:
CD ([I ~ ....
c. ~ 5" c
en S" ~ 3
~ x 5' 0
CD _" <
tn :J::;¡ CÐ
S" Q 0 :"'
X CÐ ~ .....
. 3" y
II> '< =:
a. :if ~I ~
~ S-7 ¡
II>
"
-
>
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: Ce
MEETING DATE: 8-24-04
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPLICANTS APPEAL
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMlnEE'S DECISION TO
REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER ELEMENT OF THE
PROPOSED TOYOTA DEALERSHIP PROJECT TO BE
LOCATED IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING APPLICANT'S
APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMlnEE'S
DECISION TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER
ELEMENT OF THE PROPOSED TOYOTA DEALERSHIP
PROJECT TO BE LOCATED IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
SUBMlnED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOP F':f-"
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
4/5THS VOlE: YES CJ NO ~
BACKGROUND
In June 2004, the Auto Park East Specific Plan was conditionally approved by the City
Council. The Auto Pork East Specific Pion site is located on the south side of Main Street
between Brondywine ond Maxwell Road within the Otay Volley Rood Redevelopment Areo.
Sunroad Enterprises is proposing to build a Toyota automobile dealership on 7.6 acres of
the larger 29-acre Auto Park. Pursuant to Section VII (C) of the Auto Park East Specific Pion,
development plans for individual parcels are required to be submitted to the Design Review
Committee (DRC) for review ond approvol prior to the issuance of building permits. The
decision of the DRC is final unless appeoled to the Redevelopment Agency.
On August 2, 2004, the DRC reviewed and unonimously approved the overoll design plans
for the project but modified Condition # 1 of the Notice of Decision regarding the proposed
1 DO-foot high tower element. The DRC concluded thot the tower element was too high and
added a condition that the height of the tower be lowered. The Applicant considers that the
tower height is adequate and necessary for the project and therefore has oppeoled the
modification to Condition # 1. The appeal has been noticed as a public hearing before the
Redevelopment Agency consistent with CVMC 19.14.583.
ro - f
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: ~
MEETING DATE: 8-24-04
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed Project
wos adequotely covered in previously adopted Mitigated Negotive Declaration 15-02-010.
Thus, no further environmentol review or documentation is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency grant the Applicant's appeal and
approve the tower ot the proposed height.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
At its meeting of August 2, 2004 the DRC reviewed the proposed design plans ond
approved the overall project, except the tower element. The DRC indicated the tower was
too high and modified Condition # 1 to require a reduction in the height of the tower
element (see droft minutes of DRC - Attachment D).
DISCUSSION
Proiect Description
The site for the proposed dealership is 7.6 ocres in areo ond is located on the south side of
Main Street immediately east of the existing Auto Park dealerships (see Locator Map
attached to resolution). The Auto Park East Specific Plan was prepared to plan and
implement the easterly expansion of the Chula Vista Auto Park. The Specific Pion was
conditionally approved by the City Council in June. That action provided that the Specific
Plan only becomes effective thirty (30) days ofter the execution of an Owner Porticipation
Agreement (OPA) with the landowner. For this reason, any action by the Agency resulting in
on approval of 011 or port of the proposed project will be conditioned to be itself effective on
the effective date date of the Specific Plan. The ottached resolution reflects this as a
condition of approvol. The necessary OPA is on the same Agency agena as this report.
Assuming opproval of the OPA on this evening's ogenda prior to the hearing on this item,
the effective dote for both the Specific Plan ond any opprovals per this item would be thirty
(30) days from todoy.
The conditionally adopted Specific Pion establishes the permitted uses ond development
standords for the easterly exponsion of the Chula Vista Auto Park. The Chula Vista Toyota
Dealership is the first project to be proposed os port of the implementation of the Auto Park
East Specific Plan.
The proposed project consists of the construction of a 52, 923-square foot building, which
includes auto showrooms, administrative and sales personnel offices, a service area with
28 service bays, on auto parts soles counter and parts storoge space, ond other ancillary
spaces, as well as a service reception area for automobiles to check in for service (see
c.-~
- -
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: to
MEETING DATE: 8-24-04
design plans attached). Two ancillary buildings associated with the dealership include a
lube center (l,640 sq. ft.) located to the east of the carport and a carwash facility (1,109
sq. ft.) located to the southeast of the service area of the main building. The proposed
dealership building, with the exception of a 100-foot high tower element, would range in
height from 20 feet to a maximum height of 32 feet.
The proposed Chula Vista Toyota dealership project complies with the development
standards of the Auto Park East Specific Plan. A more detailed description and analysis
of the project is provided in the attached DRC Report, as well as the Notice of Decision
that contoins a list of conditions for the project.
The Tower Element
A significont element of the project design is the 100-foot high tower located on the east
side of the main building ond carport, next to the south side of the lube center. The lower
port of the tower is proposed to house 0 customer lounge and 0 cashier. The tower is a
freestanding structure ond the lorger portion obove the lounge room would be designed
as a unique architectural feature of the overall project design. The tower would be built
of non-combustible materials, such as steel, and finished in stucco and glass. The top of
the tower will be composed of translucent white gloss ponels, which are lighted from
within the tower.
Consideration of Appeal of the DRC Action
The conditionally-odopted Auto Park Eost Specific Plan Section III. C. Height states that
"the maximum height of buildings and other structures shall not exceed 45 feet, except
for architectural feotures and other exceptions as provided in the Chula Vista Municipal
Code." The proposed tower would consist of one floor used for customer woiting and
cash ier. The remainder of the tower would be non-habitable and is considered a
significont architectural feature unique to this proposed dealership. The tower, designed
as on architectural feature, is appropriote to the use ond is in scale and proportion to the
proposed dealership building. In addition, the tower would fit within the context of the
adjacent Auto Park uses, the surrounding hills to the north and south and the Otay River
Valley to the south.
On August 2, 2004 the DRC reviewed the project's design plans. The DRC expressed
support of the project's overall design and architecture, which was reflected in a
unanimous 4-0 approval of the project's design plans. The only major issue raised was
with regard to the height and scale of the proposed tower element. The DRC stoted that
the tower was too high and modified Condition # 1 of the DRC Notice of Decision by
adding a sentence that requires the height of the tower element be lowered. A specific
height reduction was not indicated.
C -3
_·U -
PAGE 4, ITEM NO.: (q
MEETING DATE: 8-24-04
The Applicant has appealed the modified condition because they consider that the height
of the tower is adequate for the project and the surrounding area of the Otay River
Volley. The tower element is considered necessary in order to provide visibility and
uniqueness for the dealership, and for the success of the Toyota dealership, as well as the
Auto Park. Attoched as Exhibit C is a stotement from the Applicant providing odditionol
information and justification on the tower at its proposed height. The Applicant indicates
that the dealership will be built in a difficult location with a significant lack of appropriate
access and visibility. The Applicant also stotes that the topographical feotures and the
existing uses in the Otoy Valley area further decrease the visibility of the dealership and
the Chula Vista Auto Park. An additional point that is made in the Applicant's statement
is related to the requirements imposed by Toyoto, which proposes to build a nationally
recognized pilot progrom.
The applicont has conducted an assessment of the tower element in the context of the
surrounding environment; in particular it's visibility from adjacent areos. A photo
simulation of various lines of sight hove been prepored to iIIustrote the tower's context to
the surrounding environment. No changes to the proposed height of the tower hove been
made. The Applicont has indicated that a reduction to the tower height would diminish its
intended effect and has thus appealed the decision of the DRC, more specifically the
modified condition that relates to lowering the tower element.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated valuation of the proposed project is opproximately $12 million, which will
generate onnuol gross tox increment in the omount of $120,000. This amount would be
distributed as follows: 20% ($24,000) will be allocoted to the Housing Set Aside Fund; of
the remaining $96,000, 47% ($45,120) will be ollocated to other taxing entities as port
of the requirements of SB 1290; the remaining 53% ($50,880) will accrue to the Merged
Redevelopment Project Area fund. The operation of the proposed dealership will also
generate a significant amount of sales tax revenues for the City's General Fund.
AnACHMENTS
A - DRC Report and Notice of Decision
B - Design Plans
C - Applicont Statement Justifying the Tower Height
D - Draft DRC Minutes - August 2, 2004
J,\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\2004\08-24-04\Chula V;sta Toyota DRC Appeal - Rev;sed 08-1 0-04jbh2-Clean.dac
ro-c./
ATTACHMENT A
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Summary Staff Report
CASE NO. DRC-04-66 MEETING DATE: August 2. 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO. -
DESCRIPTION: New automobile dealership - Chula Vista Toyota
LOCATION: Main Street (South Side) between Brandywine and Maxwell Rd.
ASSESSOR PARCEL: 644-040-66
APPLICANT: Sunroad Enterprises (Developer)
OWNER: Borst Properties II, Inc.
ARCHITECT: Thomas A. Walker
Walker / Rancourt + Associates
ZONE: Auto Park East Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN: Limited Industrial
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area
ENVIRONMENTAL: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (lS-02- 010) was adopted for
the Auto Park East Specific Plan pursuant to CEQA
RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to conditions listed in the Notice of Decision
BACKGROUND
The site for the proposed dealership is 7.6 acres in area and is located on the south side of Main
Street between Brandywine and Maxwell Road, just east of the existing Auto Park dealerships.
The site encompasses the western-most portion of the 29-acre property located just east of the
existing Auto Park, and which was the subject of the Auto Park East Specific Plan approved in
June 2004 by the City Council. The Specific Plan was prepared to plan and implement the
easterly expansion of the Chula Vista Auto Park and ensure the orderly and viable development
of the site and the implementation of the policies of the General Plan and the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area. The Specific Plan established the permitted uses and development
standards for the easterly expansion of the Chula Vista Auto Park. Pursuant to Section VILC. of
the Auto Park East Specific Plan, development plans for individual parcels are required to be
submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits for the parcel. The decision of the Design Review Committee is final unless
appealed to the City Council.
{p -s-
DRC-04-66 August 2, 2004
The Chula Vista Auto Park is intended to be a regional automobile sales and service destination
located within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. The existing 24-acre Auto
Park was constructed in 1991-1995. The Auto Park North expansion was approved in June 2003
and adds approximately 39 acres to the Auto Park. The Auto Park East expansion will add
approximately 29 acres to the Auto Park for a total of approximately 92 acres.
The Auto Park East Specific Plan allows new car dealerships on at least 75 percent of the 29-acre
site. The Specific Plan allows the construction of at least 200,000 square feet of dealership
building, not including parking structures. The floor area for these buildings would vary
depending on the development proposal submitted for individual dealerships. These building
would typically include showrooms, offices, service station, and part departments. Up to 25
percent of the site could be developed with supporting uses such as automotive repair and
supply, service stations, car wash, and restaurants. The construction of the Chula Vista Toyota
Dealership is the first project to be developed as part of the implementation of the Auto Park
East expansion.
The proposed site's surrounding land uses include the currently-vacant site to be developed with
the McCune Auto Dealership on the north side of Main Street; undeveloped acreage that is part
of the future Auto Park East expansion to the east; the Otay River Valley and Regional Park to
the south; and the existing Chula Vista Auto Park to the west. The lands to the north, east, and
west are zoned Limited Industrial and designated Research and Limited Industrial in the General
Plan; the properties to the south are zoned FIoodway and designated Open Space in the General
Plan.
A Tentative Parcel Map and mass-grading permit for the 29-acre Auto Park East is currently
under review by the Engineering Division of the General Services Department. The grading
plans will address the overall grading of the entire Auto Park East site, including the 7.6-acre
parcel proposed for Chula Vista Toyota. The engineered design of the keystone wall along the
southern boundary and associated landscape treatment will be evaluated as part of these
submittals. The Tentative Parcel Map and grading permit will be required prior to issuance of
building permits on the site.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to develop a new auto dealership on the 7.6-acre site located just east
of the end of the existing People's Chevrolet dealership. The proposed dealership building
consists of about 55,672 square feet of space and contains most of the space for the activities
related to the dealership. This building includes showrooms for approximately 20 automobiles,
offices for administrative and sales personnel, a training room, a service area with 28 service
bays, an auto parts sales counter and parts storage space, a customer lounge with a coffee area
and kid's room, several bathrooms and equipment and storage rooms. Attached to the east side
of the building is a carport that serves as the service reception area and has three lanes for
automobiles to queue as they arrive for service. Two ancillary building associated with the
dealership include a lube center (1,640 sq. ft.) located to the east of the carport and a carwash
facility (1,109 sq. ft.) located to the southeast of the service area of the main building.
~ -c.ø Page 2 of6
.....- .
DRC-04-66 August 2, 2004
The proposed dealership buildings would range in height from 20 feet to a maximum height of
32 feet. Another element of the proposed project design is a 100-foot tower located on the east
side of the carport and south of the lube center. The bottom area of the tower is proposed to
house a customer lounge and a cashier. The tower is a fteestanding structure and the portion
above the lounge room would be designed as a unique architectural feature of the overall project
design.
The proposal also includes approximately 578 parking spaces for a variety of dealership's
parking needs, including auto inventory and display, customer and employee parking, and
service parking. Landscaped areas cover approximately 49,600 square feet, which are equivalent
to about 15% of the site.
ANALYSIS
Development Standards
The Auto Park East Specific Plan establishes the development standards and guidelines for the
development of the 7.6 site, as well as the remaining sites to be developed in the future. The
proposed Chula Vista Toyota dealership project complies with the development standards of the
Auto Park East Specific Plan, as shown in the table below.
Re uired Pro osed
10,000 s . ft. 330,071 s . ft.
50% 17%
200,000 sq. ft. 55,672 sq. ft.
45 ft. 32 ft.
30 ft. 159 ft.
10 ft. 355 ft.
10 ft. 50 ft.
60 ft. 95 ft.
A sign program and lighting plan are required by the specific plan; however the applicant has not
completed these documents at this time. Consequently, as a condition of approval, a sign
program and a lighting plan will be required to be submitted for review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The lighting plan must be consistent with the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the Auto Park East Specific Plan.
Parking Requirement
The parking required for the proposed dealership is based on the Zoning Ordinance (Section
19.51.05A (2)), which requires one customer parking space for every 10 display and inventory
vehicle spaces. The project proposes a total of 578 parking spaces. A total of 305 spaces are
provided for vehicle display and inventory, which results in a requirement for 31 customer
parking spaces. The proposed project exceeds the requirement by providing 39 spaces. The
balance of the additional parking spaces provided are devoted to incidental or accessory uses,
such as employee (66 spaces) and service (154 spaces) parking; other spaces are not considered
~-7 Page30f6
DRC-04·66 August 2, 2004
devoted "parking" spaces, such as the in-door display areas, service reception area and the
service bays.
Circulation and Access
Circulation and access to the subject property is in substantial conformance with the Auto Park
East Specific Plan. The proposed plans show a signalized entrance ITom Main Street directly
aligned with Delniso Court on the north side of Main Street. An additional driveway is located
approximately 430 feet west from the signalized entrance. The plans include street
improvements to provide for deceleration and acceleration lanes at both entrances. The main
signalized entrance provides direct access to the dealership building. Circulation from this
entrance is designed to provide access to all sides of the building for automobiles as well as fire
trucks. All aisles between parking areas have a width of at least 25 feet and provide adequate
access and circulation throughout the site.
Internal circulation between the proposed dealership and the future dealerships to the east is
provided by the aisles and a 26-foot access point at the northeast comer of the site. Up to three
stacking lanes for vehicle service are provided with a capacity of approximately 2 I cars at one
time. Adequate stacking and circulation is aJso provided for the lube and carwash services.
Customer parking in front of the main building is easily accessible from the signalized entrance.
Design and Architecture
The Auto Park East Specific Plan requires development to be consistent with the City's Design
and Landscape Manuals as well as the existing Auto Park. In the overall context of the Auto
Park, the buildings would be compatible and appropriate based on their design and use of
materials. The proposed building consists primarily of concrete block with stucco finish,
anodized aluminum trim, and black and gray glass storefront systems. These elements are used
to create articulated elevations, especially along the most visible north, west and east elevations.
The buildings are consistent with the scale of existing buildings in this segment of the Main
Street corridor, including the existing Auto Park buildings immediately to the west of the site,
the recently approved McCune-Chrysler-Jeep·Dodge dealership located within the Auto Park
North Specific Plan and other surrounding industrial buildings to the north of Main Street. The
building provides a finished appearance on all elevations, especially on the elevations most
visible from Main Street. The placement of the building and the overall site design address the
practical needs of an automobile dealership while providing a high level of architecture and
design quality.
As indicated above, an additional element of the proposal is the 100-foot tower, which was
originally shown at the northwest comer of the main building but has since been moved to the
east side of the dealership building between the auto service carport and the lube center. The
tower appears as a set of cube-like structures stacked on top of each, each cube decreasing in
width as one moves from the bottom to the top. At the base, the tower has a width of 68 feet on
all four sides and 52 feet in width at the top. The top portion of the tower will be finished in
glass with the lighted Toyota logo.
~ -<1 Page40f6
DRC-04-66 August 2, 2004
The Auto Park East Specific Plan Section III. C. Height states that "the maximum height of
buildings and other structures shall not exceed 45 feet, except for architectural features and other
exception as provided in the Chula Vista Municipal Code." The proposed tower would consist of
one floor used for customer waiting and cashier. The remainder of the tower would be non-
habitable and is considered a significant architectural feature unique to this proposed dealership.
The tower designed as an architectural feature, is appropriate to the use and is in scale and
proportion to the proposed dealership building. In addition, the tower would fit within the
context of the adjacent Auto Park uses, the surrounding hills to the north and south and the Otay
River Valley to the south.
On July 19, 2004, the Design Review Committee reviewed a preliminary concept of the project.
Committee Members Aguilar, MestIer and Alberdi were present at this meeting. On July 27,
2004 the Applicant met with the two other members of the Committee, members Araiza and
Drake. At both meetings the only major issue raised was with regard to the height and scale of
the proposed tower element. The Committee felt that the tower is too high and requested that it
be reduced or that additional information be provided to show the view of the tower from various
lines of sight. The applicant has prepared various perspectives of the proposed project and is
prepared to present this information to the DRC.
Landscaping
The Auto Park East Specific Plan requires that at least 15 percent of the site be landscaped and
that lots be landscaped to a depth of at least 10- feet along property lines, except for approved
driveways, parking areas, display areas, loading areas and other approved facilities. The
proposed landscape plan has been revised since the preliminary DRC meeting to incorporate 15
percent of the site area to be landscaped with a combination a landscaping materials and
hardscaped areas. The plan shows a 10- foot landscaped strip along the Main Street frontage and
a 5- foot strip along the east and west boundaries next to vehicle display and parking. The
landscape treatment at the two entrances to the site from Main Street show a landscaped pattern
similar to that of the street landscape pattern across the street (at the entrance to Auto Park
North) specifically at the intersection of Main Street and Delniso Court.
The landscaped treatment on the east side of the site (which is the closest and most visible from
the service areas) would be supplemented by landscape islands placed perpendicularly to break
the continuous pattern of parking spaces. This landscape treatment is proposed on the west side
to a lesser extent. Most vehicle display and parking areas on the west side of the parcel are
framed by landscaped islands and smaller landscaped pockets. Staff recommends that the
landscape plan be further modified to incorporate more substantial landscape islands in this area.
The landscaping materials include a variety of tree species, shrubs and vines. Among the trees
are the Brisbane Box, Carrot Wood, Canary Islands Date Palm and Mexican Fan Palm.
Enhanced paving is also used at the entrances to the site, at the service carport, and west entrance
to the building.
The Auto Park East Specific Plan requires the installation and maintenance of non-invasive
and/or native landscaping materials along the southern boundary line on all manufactured slopes
and walls. A keystone wall is proposed to be built along the southern boundary of the site. A
typical concept plan for the keystone wall will be provided. As indicated previously, the
engineering design of the wall and landscaping treatment are being reviewed as part of the
~ -9 Page 5 of6
DRC-04-66 August 2, 2004
Tentative Parcel Map and grading plans for this site and the larger Auto Park East project area.
The landscape treatment is required to consist of non-invasive, native plant materials to provide
an appropriate transition to the adjacent habitats within the Otay River Valley. The Applicant
has indicated further information on this matter will be provided to the Committee at its meeting.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development would be consistent with the development standards and design
guidelines of the Auto Park East Specific Plan and the City's Design and Landscape Manuals.
The Design Review Committee's action will be final unless appealed within 10 days to the
Redevelopment Agency.
Attachments:
I. Locator Map
2. Application
3. Notice of Decision
4. Proposed Plans
~ _ I 0 Page 6 of6
~'f? Design Review Committee
-.-
"- ----
......~-<:;;~
- - -
CllY OF NOTICE OF DECISION
CHUIA VISTA DRC-04-66
Notice is hereby given that the City Of Chula Vista Design Review Committee has considered
the application DRC-04-66 for the 7.6-acre parcel, which is the western-most portion of the Auto
Park East expansion area, located on the south side of Main Street between Brandywine and
Maxwell Road, within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. The applicant
(Sunroad EnterpriseslBorst Family Trust) is proposing to develop a new automobile dealership--
Chula Vista Toyota.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-02-
010) were adopted for the Auto Park East Specific Plan pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act.
The Design Review Committee has conditionally approved said request based upon the
following findings of fact:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the development regulations of the Auto Park
East Specific Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The proposed project is consistent with the permitted land use of the site pursuant to the Auto
Park East Specific Plan, which is consistent with the Research and Limited Manufacturing
land use designation of the General Plan, as well as the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment
Plan, 2000-2004 Five Year Implementation Plan, which includes the expansion of the Auto
Park as an adopted program.
The proposed project complies with the development standards of the Auto Park East
Specific Plan, including floor area, lot coverage, height, setbacks, parking, and landscaping.
The proposed project is consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted
for the Auto Park East Specific Plan.
2. The design features of the proposed project are consistent with the Auto Park East
Specific Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the Auto Park East Specific Plan, including
compatibility within the context of the Chula Vista Auto Park and the Main Street corridor
through its design, scale, landscaping, and use of materials.
&,_11
NOTICE OF DECISION
PAGE 2
The Design Review Committee hereby approves the design of DRC-04-66, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The subject property shall be developed and maintained in substantial confonnance with the
approved application, plans, and color and material board, except as modified herein. Prior
to the issuance of anv building pennits. the Applicant shall submit plans for review and
approval showing a lower tower element.
2. The design treatment for the carwash building shall be consistent with the design treatment of
the main building.
3. A planned sign program and lighting plans shall be submitted to for review and approval
prior to the issuance of building pennits, per the Auto Park East Specific Plan.
4. Utilities and equipment shall be architecturally screened and/or located out of public view.
5. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces and shall be
noted on all building and wall plans prior to issuance of building pennits.
6. Customer parking spaces shall be provided for the dealership and associated uses, as per the
approved plans.
Planning and Building Department Conditions:
7. Applicant shall comply with the conditions and mitigation measures of the approved
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program issued under IS-02-01O, specifically those
conditions required to be complied with prior to the issuance of building pennits.
8. Prior to issuance of building pennits, Applicant shall prepare a Water Conservation Plan in
confonnance with the City's Water Conservation Plan Guidelines and submit for review and
approval by the Planning and Building Director.
9. Prior to the issuance of building pennits, Applicant shall prepare an Air Quality
Improvement Plan in confonnance with the City's Air Quality Improvement Plan Guidelines
and submit for review and approval by the Planning and Building Director.
10. Applicant shall comply with requirements of Section III. F. and H. of the Auto Park East
Specific Plan related to landscape treatment along the southern project boundary. More
specifically:
a. The use of non-invasive and/or native plant materials, including trees, shrubs, and
ground covers on the keystone wall; and
b. The installation of a post and rail fence (per city standards) along the top of the
keystone wall.
II. Prior to the issuance of building pennits, Applicant shall submit samples of enhanced paving
style and materials for all enhanced hardscaped areas to the Landscape Architect for review
and approval.
fs:, - r 2-
NOTICE OF DECISION
PAGE 3
12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the landscape concept plan shall be revised to provide
reconfigured and enhanced planting areas within the western vehicle display areas and shall
be submitted for review and approval by the City's Landscape Architect.
13. The project shall comply with applicable codes and requirements, including but not limited to
CBC, CFC, CMC, CPC, CEC, ADA requirements, Title 24, Seismic Zone 4, wind speed 70
MPH exposure C, and other codes in effect at the time of issuance of any permit.
14. Plans shall comply with the requirements of California Building Code Section 506 related to
towers. The proposed tower shall be constructed of non-combustible material, such as steel
or concrete, and shall be fully separated ITOm the habitable section.
Engineering Department Conditions
15. The following fees will be required based on the final building plans submitted:
a) Sewer Connection and Capacities fees
b) Development Impact Fees
c) Otay Valley Road Fee Recovery District Fee
d) Traffic Signal Fees
16. The Engineering Division will require the applicant to submit improvement plans in
accordance with the City's Subdivision Manual and obtain a construction permit to perform
any work in the City's right of way, which may include, but not limited to:
a) Street widening for deceleration/acceleration lanes at project entrances, traffic
signal and median improvements in accordance with Tentative Parcel Map 01-08.
b) Construct sewer main in accordance with Tentative Parcel Map 01-08.
17. A grading permit will be required for final pad grading prior to issuance of a building permit.
A drainage study and geotechnical/soils study are required with the first submittal of grading
plans and calculations for the proposed drainage system.
18. Comply with all applicable conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map 01-08.
19. The applicant is required to complete the applicable Storm Water Compliance Forms and
comply with the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Standards Requirements
Manual.
20. The applicant is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent
pollution of the storm water conveyance systems, both during and after construction.
Permanent storm water requirements shall be incorporated into the project design, and shall
be shown on the plans. Any construction and non-structural BMPs requirements that cannot
be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled on the plans.
21. The City of Chula Vista requires that all new development and significant redevelopment
projects comply with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01.
According to said Permit, all projects falling under the Priority Development Project
, -(3
NOTICE OF DECISION
PAGE 4
Categories are required to comply with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans
(SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria.
22. Development of the 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 runoff and
storm water discharge, and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to
the NPDES regulations and requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent
(NO!) with the State Water Resource Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall
implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the
commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post-
construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures, and shall identify funding
mechanisms for the maintenance of post -construction control measures.
23. The applicant is required to identify storm water pollutants that are potentially generated at
the facility, and propose Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented to
prevent such pollutants from entering the storm drainage systems.
24. A water quality study will be required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction and Municipal
Permits, including Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric
Sizing Criteria requirements, with the first submittal of grading/improvement plans, in
accordance with the City's Manual.
Fire Department Conditions
25.The Applicant shall comply with the following conditions:
a) Submit complete and separate plans for fire sprinkler system.
b) Submit complete and separate plans for fire alarm system.
c) Submit plans for underground fire service. Fire hydrants to be located as determined by
Fire Department.
d) Provide marked fire lanes per policy.
e) Automatic gates shall be provided with Knox key switches and opticom system.
f) Fire Department access and water supply to be in and operational prior to the delivery of
combustibles.
g) Building shall be provided with a Knox box, which is to be located by Fire Department.
h) Call 409-5843 for appointment to locate all other fire department devices.
i) A sprinkler riser room will be required.
j) Plans shall be prepared pursuant to Fire Department policies and details. Provide notes
or details where appropriate on any plans submitted for the project.
Conservation and Environmental Services Conditions:
fo-f,-/
NOTICE OF DECISION
PAGES
26. Prior to issuance of building permits, Applicant shall develop and submit a "Recycling and
Solid Waste Management Plan" to the Conservation Coordinator for review and approval.
The Plan shall demonstrate those steps the applicant will take to comply with MlU1icipal
Code, including but not limited to Sections 8.24 and 8.25 and meet the State mandate to
reduce or divert at least 50% of the waste generated by all residential, commercial and
industrial developments. The applicant shall contract with the City's franchise hauler
throughout the construction and occupancy phase of the project.
27. Trash Enclosures for the site shall accommodate two four-yard bins, one for recycling mixed
paper/cardboard and one for trash. Metal bins should also be planned for the body shop and
servIce area.
Police Department Conditions
28. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Applicant shall prepare a security plan to the
satisfaction of the Police Department.
Other Conditions
29. The applicant/owner shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements,
and in any case where it does not comply, this permit is subject to modification or
revocation.
30. This permit shall become void and ineffective if not used or extended within one year from
the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.600 of the MlU1icipal Code.
31. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed
after approval of this permit to protect the public from a specific condition dangerous to its
health or safety or both due to the project, which condition(s) the City shall impose after
advance written notice to the permittee and after the City has given the permittee the right to
be heard with regard thereto. However, the City in exercising this reserved right/condition,
may not impose a substantial expense or deprive permittee of a substantial revenue source
which the permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to
economically recover.
32. The applicant shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless
the City, its COlU1cil members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives from and
against all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims, and costs, including court costs and
attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising directly or indirectly
from a) City's approval and issuance of this permit, b) City's approval or issuance of any
other permit or action, whether discretionary or non discretionary, in connection with the use
contemplated herein, and without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the operation
of the facility. Applicant shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a
~ -/~
NOTICE OF DECISION
PAGE 6
copy of this permit where indicated below. The applicant's compliance with this provision
is an express condition of this permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of the
applicant's successors and assigns.
(;.-1(.,
NOTICE OF DECISION
PAGE 7
EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and developer shall execute this document by signing the lines provided
below, said execution indicating that the property owner and developer have read, understood
and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded
with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and
developer, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City Clerk and Planning and Building
Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten
days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the property owner's and developer's desire
that the project, and the corresponding application for building pennits and/or a business license,
be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk'
Office and known as Document No.
Signature of Property Owner Date
Signature of Developer Date
to -/ (
NOTICE OF DECISION
PAGE 8
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, the 2nd day of August, 2004, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
John Schmitz, Zoning Administrator
Rosemarie Rice, Design Review Committee Secretary
¿ -I?
ATTACHMENT B
"'-'"
"'-'-
z
0
~
m
~
0
z
"'.....
,......
n
G,-(9
. - -
~~-" II I
,
m. ",0
"-
om
!~
¡~
!~
¡,
Ii
'8 ¡
'. !
I~
.. ,
~
~
-
~
en
....
:0
I'T1
I'T1
....
DtLN/50
COURT
ill!!! SHlIUBI! AND """ TKDS ,
I···.·.·.I~ ,
I
I",i!
, ,.
,I î I " r , ~ I I I I I ~
*!¡ I I i ! I
...
I 'I ¡ ..
C) n I I ! I I I:
! ~ J: II I
¡Q@ç I f I r I z
I ! ..
10 < I ¡
~ - '1
> rn I ! ¡ i . . . . I
-I ,
> , i I ! !
r; - 2.0 r
ATTACHMENT C
Design Considerations:
Auto Park:
The Chula Vista Auto Park is considered by manufacturers to be in a C location within
the City of Chula Vista due to several factors, including its distance from households,
lack of roads giving access to the eastern developments, traffic from Coors Amphitheater,
signage, and freeway visibility. Addressing this last point, in an ideal layout the
dealerships would all be laid out parallel and along the freeway. In Chula Vista, the Auto
Park runs perpendicular to the 1-805 and none of the dealerships are adjacent to the
freeway. In addition, the dealerships in the Auto Park have under performed the market
for much of their existence.
Surroundings:
The Auto Park is located in an industrial area of Chula Vista. Main Street has varied
industrial uses, from manufacturing to warehouse. West of the proposed Toyota
Dealership are the current dealerships in the Auto Park, the Pacific Bell site, a junkyard,
and manufacturing buildings. East of the site will be the continuation of the Auto Park
and the Otay Valley Industrial Park. North of the site is the Auto Park North expansion.
South of the site is the Otay River Valley and the City of San Diego. The topography of
the site is such that the hillside north of the site rises well over 100 feet, with the
buildings surrounding the site being standard industrial buildings with heights between
35 feet and 50 feet.
Dealership:
The Toyota dealership has been designed as a Pilot in Toyota's new Image USA II. It
will be one of only 2 Pilot stores in the nation. Combined with the factory being built
across the border in Baja California, it will be a significant draw for dealers and
executives from across the country and internationally. The dealership has been designed
by Walker Rancourt with input from Gensler and Toyota to comply with the
requirements of the Pilot program. Given the size of the dealership as well as the
proportions, a tower element of 100 feet is appropriate. This element fits well with the
frontal elevation of the building and integrates well into the design. Additionally, it fits
in within the surrounding buildings and topography. The materials are the same materials
that will be used in the walls and portal of the dealership. We intend for the tower
structure to serve as an architectural icon, helping customers identify the autopark, adding
to the success of the new Toyota dealership and the Chula Vista Autopark as a whole.
Uri Feldman
Sunroad Enterprises
4445 Eastgate Mall, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 362-8500
ufeldman@sunroadenterorises.com
J:COMMDEV/AUTO PARKJDesign Considerations from Sunroad Enterprises
to - ;).. f
ATTACHMENT D
Design Review Committee -2-
Minutes AUQust 2. 2004
2. DRC-04-66 Sunroad Enterprises
Main Street (south side) between Brandywine and
Maxwell Rd.
New automobile dealershiD- Chula Vista
Staff Presentation:
Mr. Miguel Tapia, Sr. Community Development Specialist gave a presentation of the
proposed Chula Vista Toyota dealership. The site for the dealership is 7.6 acres in area
and is located on the south side of Main Street between Brandywine and Maxwell Road
just east of the existing Auto Park dealerships. The site encompasses the western-most
portion of the 29-acre property located just east of the exi Auto Park, and which was
the subject of the Auto Park East Specific Plan approve Jun 2004 by the City Council.
The proposed dealership would consist of approxima 72 square feet of space and
contains most of the space for the activities relat to th dealership. Some of the
amenities include showrooms, offices, a custo ou ge, se c reas, and auto part
sales. Two additional ancillary buildings as late with the d ership would include a
four-stall quick lube service facility and ca h.
ent is being proposed located on
uly th meeting, the committee had reviewed the project as a
rs Aguilar, Alberdi and Mestler were present at that meeting
strong preference for the design of the building, however, there
was discussion a e height and scale of the tower. On July 2ih the applicant met
with the other two ommittee Members Araiza and Drake who also had issues with the
height of the tower element. The committee felt that the tower is too high and requested
that it be reduced or that additional information be provided to show the view of the tower
from various sight lines. The applicant has prepared various perspectives of the proposed
project and is prepared to present this information to the DRC.
Staff Recommendation:
That the Design Review Committee approves the project subject to the condition noted in
the draft Notice of Decision.
~-.;¡;;l...
J:\HOMEIPLANNING\ROSEMARIElDRCIMIN-8-2-04
Design Review Committee -3-
Minutes Auaust 2. 2004
Applicant Presentation:
Mr. Rick Van, Executive Vice President, with Sunroad Enterprises camplimented staff an
their comprehensive presentation and said it has been a pleasure dealing with city staff
they've been very cooperative. They believed that the Toyota dealership, coming to Chula
Vista and this auto park, is going to be a great catalyst for the auto park that will help our
neighbors by bringing more custamers to the auto, park.
Mr. Tom Walker, Architect, with Walker Rancourt & Assaciates brought illustrations of the
portal as well as a sample of the material for the committee to review. The partal material
was white and would be illuminated internally. This same material wauld also be used far
the top of the tower element. A materials board far the rest af the project was also
discussed and reviewed.
Mr. Van explained that most af the materials were dic ed " Toyota Motors because they
have an image program that they were very sensitive ,out. ~dealershiP was going to,
be one of the newest Tayota dealerships, being ~e 'In theJ~¢f States, and they are
going to benefit from it by being what is caU~ a Pilot Progran;Íj" Mr. Walker has been
working closely with an architectural f~hat ~yota has 'hired to, work with local
architects, in arder that they achieve the i ag~, the buying experience that Tayata is
wishing them to have. This dealership will be z tate of the art dealership in the United
States. They expect they will have, lot of people ,o,¡;¡'t"Toyota headquarters visiting this
In TIJuana. " 7'
COMMITTEE OISCUSS!~
Chair Araiza asked ~'e h . .'" n a ~Iutian, since the subcommittee, to, reducing the
height of the tower. ~, .
Mr. Walker p~'~~",at ~ad reviewed a couple of possibilities but had decided to,
stay with ~ anginal pr ; osaÞ?
Mr. Van remar , th~fhe tower was an important element to the project not only far
Toyota, but also fO;~ auto, park as it wauld act as a beacan and draw pea pie to the site.
He was aware of ,¡¡f e committee's concerns with respect to the tower and they had
conducted a study in order to see how the height of the tower would fit into this
environment. They had superimposed the building onto slides of the project from different
vantage paints in order to show the committee the relativity of the tower and it's
surroundings. Mr. Van also braught photos of the Kearney Mesa Ford dealership that
they had remodeled and added a tower structure, which was seen from the 1-805 and was
a very big plus for the store as well as the other auto dealerships on that street. They
wanted to, show the committee those views in order to give them a different perspective to
shaw them how that element fits within it's environmental. He believed that the tower for
the Tayota dealership fits very well in its environment and would ask for the committee's
support to see it their way.
Member Alberdi stated that the overall architecture was very nice and will be a great asset
to Chula Vista; however, he would nat be able to, approve a 100-ft. taWer.
c:, - .;2..3
J:IHOMEIPLANNINGIROSEMARIEIDRCIMIN-8-2-Q4
Design Review Committee -4-
Minutes AUQust 2. 2004
Member Mestler commented that her feelings were the same from the last meeting. She
would not be able to approve the height of the tower. In her view, it was overbearing and it
would be setting a precedent for others dealers to ask for the same consideration. She did
like the architecture of the buildings, as well as the color selection and materials.
Member Drake concurred with her colleagues. At the subcommittee meeting she had
voiced her opinion that 75-feet would be the maximum height that she would approve.
She noted that she was fine with the portion of the sign that would be illuminated, as it
would enhance the tower. Member Drake said that she did want to follow up on the
retaining wall, that faces into the back of the Otay River Valley, as far as the plant
selection. She wanted to make sure that those plants were in fact, going to be
representative of the native plant material and not exotics.
Chair Araiza commented that they had a subcommittee 'ng last Tuesday, July 27th
where they stated the same thing. The design of the ding as beautiful they ha~
issues with that. The concern that they had was . t height of the tower. At tha
meeting, they asked that the applicant take another ~ at r ucing the height, however,
no change has been made. At this point the f . m ittee . rs are in agreement
that 1 DO-ft. is too high. He was not sure if t ' project would ~pproved as presented
and asked if the applicant wanted to comm .
Mr. Van said that he was sorry that the commi members had this opinion, but at this
juncture given their time frame, the ould ask tha mmitte~ote on it. He did not
know if the committee could jUS¡; r he buildi and disapprove the tower but either
way they needed a vote.
to just approve the project with the exception of
ve to be appealed to the appropriate body.
e Co ittee could add a condition of approval to the draft
rep that would recommend a lower height, or having the project
alo eight for the tower and the applicant can appeal that.
Ms. Mary La . na, Pia ing and Housing Manager just wanted to clarify with Mr. Van
whether they w ed a ecision this evening so that they could move forward and have it
decided as an app with a recommendation that it be changed.
Mr. Van replied that given their time frame which is very fast tracked they need to have
some kind of a decision that they could move forward if they choose to appeal it. He
asked if they would appeal it to the City Council if they do not get their approval?
Ms. Ladiana replied because this project is in a redevelopment area they would have to go
through the City Council Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Schmitz said it was his understanding that the DRC did not want to deny this project
they wanted to approve it with one particular condition related to the tower element, and
the applicant could still appeal that decision on to the Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Van remarked if that were the process and if they go to the Redevelopment Agency
the only issue with the project would be the current height of the tower. If this were to be
the DRC's recommendation then he would be fine with it.
c,-~'¡
J:\HOMEIPLANNING\ROSEMARIEIDRCIMIN-8-2-04
Design Review Committee -5-
Minutes Auaust 2. 2004
Member Mestler asked if there was any consideration to reducing the height or was the
applicant just flat out opposed to it?
Mr. Van answered that they strongly believed that 1 DO-feet was the height that they need
to have any impact and visibility from the freeway.
Member Mestler asked what the height of the Kearney Mesa Ford dealership tower is?
Mr. Van replied that he believed it was aD-feet.
Member Mestler asked why it was aD-feet for the Kearney Mesa location versus 1 DO-feet
for the Toyota dealership?
Mr. Van remarked that it was a totally different buildin
setting for that dealership.
Member Mestler asked if the tower was being uf .
Mr. Van answered that there was no use
beacon for the auto park.
Member Mestler asked if there was r inside or on top of the tower?
Mr. Van said except for the sig ,w e lluminated on top, there would really be
no use in the tower.
Mr. Tapia noted a slig , s do show the use of the tower for a customer
lounge area at the v
Mr. Van expla' at ituld be just at the foot of the tower, which is adjacent to the
quick lube ding. tho~hat the question was if there was anything inside tower
like office ce or stora e.
MSC (Alberdi/A (4-0-0-1) to approve DRC-04-66 project subject to the
conditions of the otice of Decision with the recommendation to reduce the height
of the sign tower. Motion carried.
¿. ~ ..z. S-
J:\HOME\PLANNI NG\ROSEMARIE\ORC\MIN-B-2-Q4
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING APPLICANT'S APPEAL OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO REDUCE THE
HEIGHT OF THE TOWER ELEMENT OF THE PROPOSED TOYOTA
DEALERSHIP PROJECT TO BE LOCATED IN THE OTAY VALLEY
ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS, Sunroad Enterprises, Inc. proposes to develop the property located on the
south side of Main Street between Brandywine and Maxwell Road, which is diagrammatically
shown in the Locator Map attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the site for the proposed Chula Vista Toyota Automobile Dealership ("Project")
is located within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area under the jurisdiction and
control of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the site for the proposed Project is located within the boundaries of the Auto
Park East Specific Plan (PCM-02-10) approved by the City Council in June 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council placed a condition upon the Auto Park East Specific that it
becomes effective thirty (30) days after the execution of an Owner Participation Agreement
between the property owner and the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency ("Agency"); and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2004, the Agency entered into an Owner Participation
Agreement as required by the condition within the Auto Park East Specific Plan action; and,
WHEREAS, the Auto Park East Specific Plan Section VII (C) requires that development
plans for individual parcels be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits; and
WHEREAS, the decision of the Design Review Committee is final unless appealed to the
Redevelopment Agency; and
WHEREAS, Sunroad Enterprises, Inc. presented development plans to the Design Review
Committee for the development of the Project at the subject site; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2004 the Design Review Committee reviewed and
approved the proposed Project, subject to the conditions listed in the Notice of Decision for said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee's Condition # 1 of the Notice of Decision states
that "prior to the issuance of anv buildina permits. the Applicant shall submit plans for review and
approval showina a lower tower element"; and
WHEREAS, Sunroad Enterprises, Inc. considers the tower height to be appropriate and
necessary for the project and has submitted an appeal to the Redevelopment Agency of the
Design Review Committee's modified Condition # 1, which requires a lower tower element; and
G:. - ::LCo
WHEREAS, the tower element at the Applicant's proposed height is necessary in order to
provide visibility and uniqueness for the dealership, and for the success of the proposed
dealership, as well as the Chula Vista Auto Park; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed
Project was adequately covered in previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-02-010 by
the City Council of the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has considered said
appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows:
1. The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that in the exercise of their independent
review and judgment, the proposed Project was adequately covered in Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IS-02-010 prepared for the
Auto Park East Specific Plan and approved by the City Council in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Thus, no further environmental
review or documentation is necessary.
2. The proposed Project is consistent with the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan and
shall implement the purpose thereof; the project shall assist with the elimination of blight in
the Project Area.
3. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the proposed tower element, as an architectural
feature unique to this dealership, is in substantial conformance with the requirements of the
conditionally approved Auto Park East Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, by the
addition of Condition #33 to the Design Review Committee Notice of Decision reading in its
entirety: "This approval shall itself become effective upon the effective date of the Auto
Park East Specific Plan (PCM-02-10) as set forth in Section IV and V of Ordinance 2965".
4. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby grants the appeal from
Sun road Enterprises and approves the Project without the modification to Condition # 1 of
the Design Review Committee Notice of Decision thus maintaining the tower element at 100
feet.
Presented by Approved as to form by
d
Laurie Madigan Ann M re
Community Development Director Age y Attorney
J:\COMMOEVlRESOSI2004\08-24-04\Chula Vista Toyota Appeal Resojbh-clean.doc
~-2-7
...
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.: L
Meeting Date: 11/24/04
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of the Final Environmental hnpact Report
(EIR 04-03) for the Crossings Commercial Retail Project and Conceptual
Tentative Map (TM).
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista certifying the
Final Environmental hnpact Report (EIR 04-03) for the Crossings
Commercial Retail Project and Conceptual Tentative Map; making certain
Findings of Fact; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and BUildin~
{'- .
REVIEWED BY: City Managert90J 9í"" (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No~)
In accordance with the requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act, the EIR has been
prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed Crossings Commercial Retail
Project. This staff report discusses the general content of the Final EIR. CEQA Findings of Fact,
and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), have been prepared that reflect the
conclusions of the Final EIR. The Final EIR also contains a summary of the comments and
responses to the comments received during the public review period.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt:
. Resolution certifying Crossings Commercial Retail Final Environmental hnpact Report
(EIR 04-03) has been prepared in accordance wit the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City
of Chula Vista; making certain findings of fact; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Rp"::'Ollrc.p, r()n~P.r\T~tl()n r()mml~~l()n
The Resource Conservation Commission (RCe) reviewed the Draft EIR on June 7, 2004. The
majority of the RCC comments generally focused on concerns related to the onsite fill material,
water quality impacts, impacts to adj acent biological resources, access to the future Otay Valley
Regional Park (OVRP), and traffic/circulation (Attachment 4). After reviewing and discussing
the document, the RCC found the document to be adequate and in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and voted 6-0-0-1 to recommend the
7-(
Page 2, Item No.: ~
Meeting Date: 11/24/04
certification of the Final EIR by the City Council. Specific responses to the RCC comments are
provided in the Final EIR.
Pl~nnin£ rommi~~i()n
The public comment period for EIR-02-04 was closed at the Planning Commission meeting of July
7,2004, at which time three comments were received from the public. The Planning Commission
will conduct a public hearing on the Crossings Project and consider certifYing and recommending
certification by the City Council of the Final EIR on August 18, 2004. Staff will provide the
Planning Commission recommendation at the City Council meeting of August 24, 2004.
DISCUSSION:
The Crossings Commercial Project EIR evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed
project and the Conceptual Tentative Map (TM). The project proposes the construction of
approximately 188,860 square-feet of retaillcommercial uses on the l7.2-acre project site.
Allowable uses pursuant to the proposed Central Commercial designation include retail sales,
restaurants, offices, and other general commercial type uses. The EIR identified three
alternatives, the no project/no development alternative, construction of an industrial facility and a
reduced density alternative. The first alternative would not permit redevelopment of the project
site. The latter two alternatives would require the same or more additional construction as the
proposed project.
Summary ofF.nvironmpntal Impac.ts and Pllhlil' Cnmmpnts.
The Crossings EIR evaluated several issue areas and determined that potentially significant
impacts could result in the following categories:
· Air Quality
· Landform Alteration and Aesthetics
· Noise
· Water QualitylHydrology
· Geology/Soils Agricultural Resources
· CulturallPaleontological Resources
· Hazards & Hazardous Materials
· Traffic/Circulation and Access
· Biological Resources
As documented in the Final EIR, all impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level
with the implementation of the required mitigation measures.
7-,2.
Page 3, Item No.: 1-
Meeting Date: 11/24104
Comment. on the Oraft RTR
During the public review period for the DEIR, several comment letters were received from various
local environmental organizations, agencies and individuals. Letters of comment were received on
the Draft EIR from the following agencies and individuals:
State of California, Department of Transportation - District II
State of California, Department ofFish & Game
State of California, Department of Conservation
State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control
U.S. Department ofFish & Wildlife
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health
County of San Diego Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency
City of San Diego
Chula Vista Elementary School District
San Diego County Archaeological Society
Native American Heritage Commission
Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee (Mr. John Willet & Frank
Ohrmund)
Otay Water District
California Native Plant Society
Environmental Health Coalition
SBC
San Diego Baykeepers
Sierra Club
Resource Conservation Commission
The project site's proximity to the Otay River Valley and its past history involving deposits of
undocumented fill over the southerly half of the site resulted in numerous comments. Three
general themes were prevalent in the letters received: I) concern for the potential hazards from
onsite fill material found in the southerly portion of the project site; 2) concern for project edge
effects on adjacent sensitive biological resources and the future Otay Valley Regional Park; 3)
and water quality impacts to the Otay River Valley. The following is a general summary of the
major concerns expressed in the comments received and responses provided to these major areas
of concern. Detailed responses for each comment letter were prepared and are included in the
Final EIR.
W;1~tp.fillm;1tp.rl;11:
The Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments for the project identified existing
onsite fill consisting mainly of construction debris such as wood, plastic, concrete, steel and with
a very small portion consisting of shipyard sandblast grit. Soil testing indicated that the fill
7-3
Page 4, Item No.: ?-
Meeting Date: R124104
contained low levels of heavy metals such as copper, zinc and lead. The comment letters
expressed concerns related to the potential hazards that could result from the fill previously
imported to the project site. Specific concerns related to the potential for these elements to leach
into the soil and end up in the Otay River.
The undocumented fill will be completely removed ITom the building pad areas. This will be
necessary due to the lack of compaction testing done when the fill was imported to the site. A
minimum of 5 feet of removal and recompaction will be required within the parking and
driveway areas. The existing fill material within the parking lot and driveway areas will be
recompacted.
The EIR analysis found that there were no pockets of heavy metals of potential concern within
the project site. The EIR reports concluded that the metals found were not leaching into the soil
or groundwater under present conditions. Similar results have been found in the area along the
south side of the Otay River where greater concentrations of sandblast grit was found. In that
situation, the Regional Water Quality Control Board detennined that the fill material was
unlikely to adversely impact the water resources and beneficial uses of the Otay River.
The applicant has continued to work with the local responsible agencies to infonn them of the
conditions of the site and to develop an acceptable workplan for handling of the onsite fill
material. The Final EIR contains mitigation measures requiring the need for special handling of
the sandblast grit and proper characterization for disposal as well as stonn water and erosion
management. The Final EIR also requires that a qualified hazardous materials specialist be
present during all grading activities to monitor for potential hazards of concern. As documented
in the Final EIR, these mitigation measures will fully mitigate potential impacts related to the
onsite fill material.
PrigI' Pfff'd Tmp"~t. on Arlj"cp.nt S"n.itiv" Riologk"l R",ollr~". "nrl Ot"y V"ll"y R"gion"l P"rk
(OVRP)'
Several comment letters expressed concerns that the Draft EIR did not sufficiently address
screening for light and glare, construction noise impacts, control of invasive plant species,
stonnwater runoff, and encroachment into the river valley. Comments also suggested that that
there was not enough separation between the development area and adjacent sensitive habitat
within the Otay Valley River area
As discussed in the Biological Resources section of the Final EIR, the proposed project does not
directly impact any sensitive biological resources. The Final EIR does, however, identifY
significant indirect effects to adjacent biological resources resulting from the potential increase of
runoff and erosion, potential light/glare impacts, invasive plants, impacts of construction noise
on adjacent biological resources, and potential impacts ITom human encroachment into the river
valley. The Final EIR has incorporated several measures to mitigate for these potential edge
effect impacts. These include implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), required
7-L.j
Page 5, Item No.: 7-
Meeting Date: 11/24/04
light shielding, management strategies for pest and weed control, construction noise attenuation
measures, and fencing to prevent unauthorized encroachment into the Otay River Valley. The
Final EIR also requires that a biological monitor be periodically present onsite during grading
and site preparation activities to ensure that construction activities do not encroach into nearby
sensitive areas. Appropriate building setbacks and dedication of a 6.8-acre parcel adjacent to the
river valley have also been incorporated into the project to provide adequate separation trom the
project uses and the Otay River.
W"teT Qll"lity Tmp""t<·
Numerous public comments focused around the potential impacts generated by storm water
runoff. The majority of concerns pertained to the potential for the project to increase stormwater
runoff that would be generated trom the site and the resulting potential erosion problems. A
concern that oil/gasoline based pollutants could wash down into the Otay River area was also
expressed.
The Final EIR includes mitigation measures for preventing impacts generated from runoff and
potential impacts to the Otay River Valley. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Construction Permit requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) be prepared and available at the construction site concurrent with the start of grading or
construction activities. The City has required the applicant to submit the SWPPP along with a
drainage study and Water Quality Technical Report to identifY and mitigate construction and
post-construction project impacts on receiving waters and sensitive areas. The SWPPP will also
be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to commencement of
construction in compliance with the NPDES Municipal Permit.
The proposed project provides three areas where runoff will be "bio-filtered" through landscaped
areas prior to entering the storm drain system. Onsite catch basins will also be equipped with
filter inserts that have oil-absorbing capacity to eliminate contaminants into the adjacent
preserve. Additionally, the outfall of the stormwater drainage conveyance system will have an
energy-dissipating device to prevent erosion impacts. The Final EIR also requires that additional
BMP's be implemented to further reduce the potential for water quality impacts. These BMPs
consist of the following: capture all off-site runoff before it reaches the site, provision of covered
trash receptacles and ensure regular trash collection, installation of an efficient landscape
irrigation system and providing appropriate instruction on the proper application of fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides. As identified in the Final EIR, implementation of the SWPP
requirements and BMP mitigation measures will reduce the identified water quality impacts to a
less than significant level.
Additional Revisions to Draft EIR
Revisions to the EIR made as a result of public comment are indicated in underline and strikeout
format as indicated on the Preface page of the FEIR. Minor typographical corrections have been
7-S-
-
Page 6, Item No.: 1-
Meeting Date: 11/24104
made to information contained in the Draft EIR; the Final EIR reflects the corrected information.
None of the corrections made to the document have resulted in modifications to conclusions
regarding the significance of impacts.
Finrling. nfthp Fin..' FTR-04-01
The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that would result from the proposed Project and TM. All of these significant effects
can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. These conclusions are
presented in the CEQA Findings of Fact for Final EIR-04-03.
Conrlll~ion~·
Mitigation measures for the Crossings Commercial Retail Project have been included in the Final
EIR MMRP. The Crossings Commercial Project will not result in any impacts that would remain
significant after the application of these measures.
The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, other than the
proposed project described in the Final ErR. Based on this examination, the City has determined
that neither of the alternatives meets the project objectives, or is environmentally superior to the
project (see Section XI of the CEQA Findings).
Staff believes that the Final EIR meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act and, therefore, recommends that the City Council find that the Final EIR has been completed in
compliance with CEQA and adopt the Draft Findings of Fact, and MMRP attached to this staff
report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The preparation and processing of the ErR is covered by the applicant's deposit account.
A tt~(':hment~
1. Final ErR 04-03 (copy on file in the office of the Environmental Review Coordinator)
2. CEQA Findings of Fact
3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4. RCC Minutes - (June 7, 2004)
5. Planning Commission Minutes - (July 7, 2004)
7-~
.----
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR # 04-03)
CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
August 6, 2004
7-7
-- -
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
II. DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................1
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................2
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .......................................................................................4
V. TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA..........................5
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS.................................................................................... 7
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM .................................................................8
VIII. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES....................8
A. Landform Alteration and Aesthetics..............................................................................8
B. Biological Resources ........... .................... ..... ......................................................... ......10
C. Cultural Resources ...... ............. ..................... ...................................................... ........ .15
D. Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................16
E. Paleontological Resources .... ................. ..... ................... ....... ............ ..... ................... ...20
F. Water Quality and Hydrology .....................................................................................21
G. Transportation, Circulation, and Access......................................................................25
H. Air Quality....................................... ..................................... ................. ....... .......... .....31
1. Public Services and Utilities ........................................................................................34
J. HazardslRisk of Upset...... ........ ........ .............. ............. ................ ................................38
IX. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES...........42
A. Biological Resources ................ .......................................................... ............ .......... ..42
B. Water Quality and Hydrology......................................................................................45
C. Transportation, Circulation, and Access ......................................................................48
X. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ..............................49
A. No Project! No Development Alternative....................................................................51
B. Existing Zoning! General Plan Designation Alternative.............................................52
C. Reduced Density Alternative .......................................................................................52
7-Y
8/9/2004 i
,..-- .
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
RE: City of Chula Vista;
Environmental Impact Report EIR SCH #2004031002; EIR # 04-03
7-'1
8/9/2004 ii
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared for the Chula Vista Crossings
(Project) addressed the potential environmental effects of the proposed Chula Vista Crossings
commercial retail development located at the southeast comer of I-80S and Main Street as a
commercial retail use.
In addition, the Final EIR evaluated three alternatives to the proposed project: (1) The no
project/no development alternative, which assumes that the project site would not be redeveloped
and the existing automobile storage facility would remain and continue operation and; (2) An
alternative that would involve construction of an industrial facility consistent with existing
zoning and General Plan designations and; 3) A reduced density option.
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista
Environmental Review Guidelines. These findings have been prepared to comply with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000
et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, 15000 et seq.).
II. DEFINITIONS
"APCD" means San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
"BMPs" means best management practices.
"CEQA" means California Environmental Quality Act.
"City" means City ofChula Vista.
"CNEL" means community noise equivalent level.
"dB (A)" means A-weighted decibels
"LOS" means Level of Service.
"MSCP" means Multiple Species Conservation Program.
"NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
"OWD" means Otay Water District.
"RAQS" means Regional Air Quality Standards.
"RWQCB" means Regional Water Quality Control Board.
"EIR" means Environmental Impact Report.
"SWPPP" means Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
7-/tJ
8/9/2004 1
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project would consist ofredevelopment of an existing outdoor storage facility located at the
southeast corner of 1-805 and Main Street to a commercial retail use. The proposed proj ect
would involve the construction of seven buildings with an approximate totalleaseable building
area of 188,038 square feet. The proposed project would include two free-standing restaurants, a
main department store anchor and additional retail spaces. Shipping/receiving bays will be
located along the south and west sides of the retail buildings. The project would include parking
spaces consistent with City requirements and standards. Due to the site's visibility from 1-805,
the project will include an illuminated sign feature along the project's western edge. The project
will include construction of a segment of the Auto Park Trunk Sewer (analyzed under a previous
CEQA document) and other public infrastructure facilities such as water and gas lines. The
project site is 24 acres, the southern 6.8 acres (consisting of the Otay River and associated
riparian habitats) of which will be dedicated to the Otay Valley Regional Park for conservation
and/or recreation purposes.
Discretionary Actions
In order to implement the project as described above, the City Council and/or Redevelopment
Agency will need to take the following actions:
· General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site from I-L
(Limited Industrial) to C-R (Commercial Retail)
· Zoning Code Amendment to rezone the site from ILP (Limited Industrial - Precise
Plan) to C-C (Central Commercial). The southern portion of the project site is F-I
Floodway which would not change.
· Tentative Parcel Map Approval
· Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Permit Issuance may be required (if MSCP permit
is issued by the wildlife agencies prior to project approval)
· Design Review Committee Approval
· Owner Participation Agreement
The following additional permits/approval may be required of other Responsible Agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board: Storm Water Discharge Permit
and approval of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for any
applicable requirements related to the non-native fill materials.
7-//
8/9/2004 2
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
· California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): Decertification for the drainage
easement at the southwest comer of the site.
· City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department: Approval related to
relocation of an existing sewer line at the southwest comer of the site:
· Otay Water District: Approval of water system improvement plans.
Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to achieve some of the following objectives identified in the Otay Valley
Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan:
· The elimination of existing blighted conditions, and the prevention of recurring blight
in and about the Project Area.
· The encouragement, promotion, and assistance in the development and expansion of
local commerce and needed commercial and industrial facilities, increasing local
employment prosperity, and improving the economic climate within the Project Area,
and the various other isolated vacant and/or underdeveloped properties within the
Project Area.
· The creation of a more cohesive and unified community by strengthening the
physical, social, and economic ties between residential, commercial, industrial and
recreational land uses within the community and the Project Area.
· The development of a more efficient and effective circulation corridor system free
from hazardous vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interferences.
In addition, specific objectives for the proposed project include the following:
· Removal of outdoor storage uses from the site and redevelopment into a productive
commercial center providing jobs, property tax revenue and sales tax revenue.
· Dedication of land to the MSCP Preserve and Otay Valley Regional Park to promote
the goals of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and Otay Valley Regional Park
Concept Plan related to conservation of sensitive species and habitats and park
expenence. This will also assist the City in the Otay Valley Regional Park and
Greenbelt System.
· Establish a freeway-oriented commercial center to provide commercial uses that are
easily accessible to the surrounding community.
7 -/?-
8/912004 3
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City
Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall consist of the following:
· The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in
conjunction with the Project;
· The Draft and Final EIR for the project (EIR # 04-03), including the appendices and
technical reports;
· All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day
public comment period on the Draft EIR;
· All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project, in
addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;
· The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project;
· All findings and resolutions adopted by City decisionmakers in connection with the
Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
· All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or
trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and with respect to the City's actions on the Project;
· All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the
public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the public hearing on
July 7, 2004;
· All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in connection
with the EIR on the project;
· Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings held by the City of Chula Vista, or videotapes where transcripts are not
available or adequate;
· Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and
public hearings; and
· Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which they consider,
including but not limited to the following:
- Chula Vista General Plan
- Relevant portions of the Zoning Codes of the City ofChula Vista
- The Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan
- MSCP Subarea Plan
7-/3
8/9/2004 4
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
- Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan
- Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above;
and
- Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk to
the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, 91910.
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council or City Staff as
part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Without exception, any
documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of two categories. Many of
them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City was aware in approving
the Chula Vista Crossings Project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agencv Formation
Commission (1978) 76 CaLApp.3d 381, 391-392 [142 CaLRptr. 873]; Dominev v. Department
of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 CaLApp.3d 729, 738, fu. 6 [252 CaLRptr. 620].) Other
documents influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided
advice to the City. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for
the City's decisions relating to the adoption of Project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6,
subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. Citv Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181
CaLApp.3d 852, 866 [226 CaLRptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of
Stanislaus (1995) 33 CaLAppAth 144, 153, 155 [39 CaLRptr.2d 54].)
V. TERMINOLOGYITHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Emphasis
added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist
public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and
the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen
such significant effects." (Emphasis added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event
[that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or
such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more
significant effects."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a);
7-/1
8/9/2004 5
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an
EIR for a proposed proj ect, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or
more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding 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." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091,
subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible 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." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that
"[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final ErR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).)
Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364
adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Vallev v. Board of
Supervisors ("Goleta II") (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].)
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar
v. Citv of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal.Rptr. 898].) '" [F]easibility'
under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see
also SequoYah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29
Cal.Rptr.2d 182].)
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms fÌom the other contexts in which the terms are used.
Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses
the tenn "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate
"mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory tenn is
consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In
contrast, the tenn "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures
7-15"'"
8/9/2004 6
,..~..
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less
than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills
Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr.
842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to
substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not
all of which rendered the significant impacts in question (e.g., the "regional traffic problem") less
than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a
particular significant effect is "avoid[ ed] or substantially lessen[ ed]," these findings, for purposes
of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less than
significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings
will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise
occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened
either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior
alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project
if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific
reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable
adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub.
Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he
wisdom of approving. . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of
interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents
who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that
those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Ca1.3d 553, 576.)
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIR
are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista
("City" or "decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, to implement
7 -If,
8/9/2004 7
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely infonnational or hortatory, but
constitute a binding set of obligations that will corne into effect when the City adopts the
resolution(s) approving the project.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are
referenced in the mitigation monitoring reporting program adopted concurrently with these
findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project.
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(l), the City ofChula Vista, in
adopting these [mdings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared
by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to
ensure that during proj ect implementation, the applicant and any other responsible parties
comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described in the
document titled Chula Vista Crossings Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.
VIII. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that the project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible
mitigation measures, while others cannot be avoided.
The project will result in significant environmental changes to the following issues: landfonn
alteration and aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
paleontological resources, water quality and hydrology, transportation, circulation, and access,
air quality, public services and utilities, and hazards/risk of upset as a result of the Chula Vista
Crossings proj ect. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in EIR #
04-03 (City ill #) in Table ES-1 on pages 1-3 through 1-18 and in Chapter 5.0, pages 5.1-12
through 5.12-6.
A. Landform Alteration And Aesthetics
Standards of Significance:
. The proj ect will have a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista.
. Substantially damage of scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
7-(7
8/9/2004 8
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surrounding.
. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
Significant Impact: The project would introduce light and glare within the project vici~ty.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The project would introduce additional night lighting within the project
vicinity. The proposed project includes design features to direct lighting to the project
site and avoid spillover lighting into adjacent areas. The project will be required through
the Design Review Process to demonstrate application of these design features. To
ensure that spillover lighting would not result, mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to approval of the Tentative Parcel map, the applicant shall submit a lighting
plan as a part of the Design Review application for the project. The lighting plan
shall demonstrate that project lighting is shielded from surrounding properties and
that only the minimum amount of lighting required for safety purposes is provided to
avoid adverse effects on surrounding areas. In general, lighting fixtures shall be
shielded downward and away from the adjacent Otay River riparian corridor (see
additional discussion in Section 5.3.5, Mitigation Measures, Biological Resources)
and away from residences north of Main Street.
Significance After Mitigation: With the application of the proposed mitigation measure, project
impacts related to light and glare would be reduced to levels below significance.
7-11
8/9/2004 9
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
B. Biological Resources
Standards of Significance:
· Substantial effect, including indirect effects such as habitat fragmentation, on a rare or
endangered species of plant or animal or habitat of that species.
· Substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species
· Substantial reduction of habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants.
· Impacts considered adverse to the assemblage of a preserve design.
Significant Impact: Short-term indirect impacts include construction noise impacts to sensitive
nesting bird species. For areas where construction is proposed outside ofthe breeding season, no
significant indirect impacts to these species are anticipated. However, should grading occur
within the breeding season, a significant, but mitigable impact would occur.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Short-term indirect impacts include construction noise impacts to sensitive
nesting bird species. Species anticipated to be affected by such activities include the least
Bell's vireo, the southwestern willow flycatcher, the yellow warbler and nesting raptors.
According to the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (pg. 7-26), where noise associated
with clearing, grading, or grubbing will negatively impact, as determined by the City's
biologist, an occupied nest for the least Bell's vireo during the breeding season from
March 15 to September 15, noise levels should not exceed 60 Leq. For areas where
construction is proposed outside of the breeding season, no significant indirect impacts to
these species are anticipated. However, should work occur during the breeding season,
mitigation is provided (see Section 5.3.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure fa]).
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
)-/"'/
8/9/2004 10
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
. Prior to issuance of grading pennits, the applicant shall demonstrate that noise
attenuation features (such as benns or walls) shall be implemented during
construction should sensitive wildlife species be present. Implementation of any
required measures will be verified by the City during construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Long-tenn, indirect impacts could occur due to the proposed development's
proximity to biological open space. This impact was identified as significant but mitigable.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Long-tenn, indirect impacts associated with the proposed development's
proximity to biological open space may include lighting, noise, invasives, toxic
substances and general human presence.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Per mitigation measure 5.2.5 [a], light shielding to protect the Preserve from spill-
over when deemed appropriate from a public safety standpoint shall be implemented.
Low sodium lighting shall also be utilized.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Short-tenn and long-tenn indirect impacts to waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, associated with construction and general site drainage would be considered significant
but mitigable
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
7- ;Ltl
8/9/2004 11
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings afFact
Explanation: Short-term and long-term, indirect impacts associated with the proposed
development's proximity to waters of the U.S. may include lighting, noise, invasives,
toxic substances and general human presence.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Although extensive landscaping is not anticipated next to the preserve, any
landscaping shall utilize native vegetation. Prior to issuance of grading permits,
landscape plans demonstrating that invasive plant species are not used in areas that
could potentially result in impacts to the Preserve shall be submitted and approved by
the City.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The habitat linkage/wildlife corridor would be subject to the same edge
effects described above for wildlife. Further, long-term indirect impacts to the habitat
linkagelregional corridor including lighting and noise are possible. Therefore a significant, but
mitigable impact would occur.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Long-term, indirect impacts associated with the proposed development's
proximity to biological open space that includes habitat linkages and wildlife corridors,
may include lighting, noise; invasives, toxic substances and general human presence.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Pollution reduction measures, such as oil and water separators, shall be installed in all
drainage systems at the property line to eliminate introduction of contaminants into
the Preserve. Such measures shall be indicated on grading plans and approved by the
7-;2;
8/9/2004 12
Chufa Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
City prior to issuance of grading pennits, and installation of such measures shall be
verified by the City during project construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The introduction of potential toxic substances during construction as well as
during proj ect operation as a result of run-off would result in a significant but mitigable impact.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Urban runoff containing contaminants that are harmful to sensitive species
and habitats has the potential to impact adj acent habitat areas.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. If the project is to be constructed during the least Bell's vireo breeding season (March
15 to September 15), a pre-construction survey shall occur prior to issuance of
grading pennits. If an occupied nest of least Bell's vireo is discovered, and if noise
associated with clearing, grading, or grubbing will negatively impact the nest, noise
levels shall not be pennitted to exceed 60 Leq as determined through construction
monitoring by the City's mitigation monitor.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The introduction of new light sources within the project development area
could potentially impact wildlife and sensitive ecological resources within the Otay River
ValleylMSCP Preserve. This impact is considered significant but mitigable.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
7- ;2,2
8/9/2004 13
Chu/a Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings ofF act
Explanation: New light sources are considered to be an adverse indirect effect within
Preserve areas because they have the potential to disrupt wildlife behavioral patterns.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. A pre-construction survey for nesting raptors shall also occur prior to issuance of
grading permits, if proj ect construction is to occur during the raptor breeding season
(January 15 to July 31). In areas potentially affecting nesting raptor sites, noise levels
will be modified, if necessary, to prevent noise fÌom negatively impacting the
breeding success of any detected pair during the breeding season. Compliance with
this measure will be verified through field monitoring by the City's biologist. For
areas where construction is proposed outside of the breeding season( s), no additional
mitigation measures are required.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Although the project does not propose uses that are anticipated to result in
long-term noise impacts that would have an adverse effect on adjacent breeding areas, however,
construction noise impacts are potentially significant but mitigable
Finding: Pursuant to section l509l(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant enviromnental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: High noise levels in preserve areas are considered to be an adverse indirect
effect within Preserve areas because they have the potential to disrupt wildlife behavioral
patterns.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Any trimming of willow canopies extending into construction areas will be done
under the supervision of the City's biologist.
7-;23
8/9/2004 14
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Potential impacts to biological resources could occur as a result of
introduction of invasive species.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Invasive species represent an adverse indirect effect because they have the
potential to displace native species in areas of sensitive habitat.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. A biological monitor shall be present onsite periodically during grading and site
preparation to ensure that grading and disturbance activities do not encroach into
sensitive areas.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will also preserve regional wildlife corridor
functions of the Otay River Valley.
Significance After Mitigation: Impacts to biological resources can be mitigated to less than
significant levels by incorporating mitigation measures as described in the EIR.
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance:
· Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5
· Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5
· Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries
7-;2 ¡
8/9/2004 15
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Significant Impact: Due to the presence of recorded archaeological sites just east of the project
and potential for buried cultural materials on-site, potential impacts could occur.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The record search conducted for the project identified several prehistoric
sites in the vicinity, most of which were located in the Otay River Valley east of the
property. After a field reconnaissance, no resources were identified on the property
although much of the site had been leveled and covered with gravel. However, due to the
proximity of resources offsite, there is the potential for buried resources to occur.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to issuance of grading permits, an archaeological monitor shall be retained to
provide monitoring of grading work. The archaeological monitor shall monitor
grading of any previously undisturbed soil. If any archaeological features or deposits
are encountered during monitoring, the archaeological monitor shall halt grading at
that location and notify the City. Subsequently, any resource identified during
grading should be evaluated for significance and, if found to be important, mitigation
measures should be implemented to reduce potential impacts below a level of
significance.
Significance After Mitigation: Should cultural resources be encountered during grading, the
monitoring program will prevent impacts to these resources from occurring. Therefore, due to
the preventative mitigation measure, impacts to cultural resources would be mitigated to a level
below significance.
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Standards of Significance:
. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk or
loss, injury or death involving:
- Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
7 -;2.:5-
8/9/2004 16
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
- Strong seismic ground shaking.
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
- Landslides.
· Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
· Location on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
· Location on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
· Soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
Significant Impact: The existing undocumented fill is not suitable for support of additional fill
and/or structural support in its existing state.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: As outlined in the significance criteria, location of a structure on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the project would be a
significant impact. Therefore, the impact is considered to be significant.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the proj ect applicant shall demonstrate that
appropriate remedial measures to provide adequate support of additional fill and/or
structural loads within areas of existing undocumented fill will be taken.
Remediation shall include grading in the form of complete removal and compaction
beneath building pads and removal in parking areas sufficient to create a 5-foot
compacted fill mat, in accordance with the recommendations on pages 7-18 of the
Geotechnical Report contained in Appendix D of the Final EIR. Because the existing
'1-;2{,
8/9/2004 17
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
fill contains an abundant amount of oversized concrete chunks (approximately 20,000
cubic yards) and trash and debris, spreading out and cleaning of this material prior to
reuse as compacted fill will be required. Additional engineering treatment related to
structural stability of the site will be required. The work shall be conducted in
accordance with the engineering specifications included in the July 2003 GeoCon
Report (GeoCon, July 2003, pg. 7).
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Due to the presence of a shallow groundwater table near the southern edge
of the proposed development area, impacts associated with groundwater could occur. In order to
mitigate for these potential impacts, mitigation is required.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Presence of shallow groundwater has the potential to result in impacts
associated with liquefaction. Therefore, this condition represents a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to issuance of grading pennits, the proj ect applicant shall demonstrate that
appropriate remedial measures will be taken to remove and recompact alluvium
beneath undocumented fill to within approximately 3 feet of the water table.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Ground shaking may occur as a result of the project's location near active
faults. In order to mitigate for potential impacts associated with seismic ground shaking,
mitigation is required.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
7-;r}
8/9/2004 18
Chu/a Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Explanation: Seismic activity is well documented in causing damage to structures,
therefore design standards have been established to reduce risks associated with structural
failure.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings.
. The 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBe) summarizes seismic design criteria for the
Rose Canyon Fault System. These standards shall be applied during project design
and construction. These standards include seismic zone factor, seismic coefficient
and near source factor. Demonstration of compliance with UBC requirements shall
be provided prior to issuance of building permits.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Existing drainages along the southeastern and western margins of the site
are subject to erosion that may affect the stability of the fill slopes.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Erosion at existing drainage locations could pose a hazard to future
development on the site by eroding soil that supports proposed structures.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these fmdings.
. To prevent continued erosion of southeastern and western portions of the slope areas,
grading to redirect surface runoff trom these drainages or placement of drainage
control devices is required. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall
demonstrate that building pads are properly finished so that the drainage water trom
the buildings, lots and adjacent properties is directed off the lots and away from
foundations and the top of the slopes toward the project storm water system.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
7-;1. Y
8/9/2004 19
. -
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
E. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Standards of Significance:
. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature
Significant Impact: Since the proposed project lies within a geologic formation with high
resources bearing potential, and the project would necessitate recompaction of potential fossil
bearing alluvium, impacts to paleontological resources are considered to be significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Impacts to paleontological resources could occur during excavation and
site development when geologic formations that have resource bearing potential are
disturbed. Impacts would occur when fossils are physically destroyed by such activities.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the City through these findings.
· Prior to beginning any excavation work, the City or its contractor shall demonstrate
that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out a paleontological
resources mitigation program.
· A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during construction activities
that disturb non- fill soils or formations.
· If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall have the
authority to halt construction until such a time that a complete assessment of the
resources can be conducted. If resources are found that are determined to be
significant, the paleontological monitor shall direct activities to recover the resources.
· Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos and maps shall
be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections, such as the
San Diego Natural History Museum.
7-;1'7
8/9/2004 20
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Significance After Mitigation: With the implementation of the construction monitoring
program (outlined in Mitigation Measures a ~ d above), impacts to paleontological resources
would not be significant.
F. WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY
Standards of Significance:
· Violates any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
· Substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted).
· Substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
· Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources or polluted runoff.
· Places housing within a IOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
· Places within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows.
· Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
· Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Significant Impact: Potential impacts to groundwater quality that could result from increased
pollutant load resulting from the project are considered significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
7 -3D
8/9/2004 21
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Explanation: The Otay River, as the principal drainage channel in the Otay River Valley,
would receive runoff from the project which could potentially recharge groundwater
supply. Since runoff from the project would still reach the Otay River, groundwater
recharge within the Otay River would not be affected by the proposed project. However,
contaminants from urban runoff could affect groundwater quality.
Mitigation Measure: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant
demonstrate compliance 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 runoff and storm
water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the
NPDES regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent
(NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both
construction and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures
and shall identify funding mechanisms for post-construction control measures. The
applicant will also be required to comply with the City's Development and
Redevelopment Storm Water Management Requirements Manual and fill out all
applicable forms associated with the Manual. Finally, due to the project's size of over
100,000 square feet, it is a Priority Development Project and hence subject to the
requirements of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and
Numeric Sizing Criteria.
The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required:
· Soil Sediments: all landscaped areas will be self-contained due to the gentle slope of
the site.
· Fertilizers: All fertilizers shall be applied by professionals in order to avoid over
application. Proper wetting and other management techniques will help eliminate
blowoff or other non-absorption problems.
· Pesticides: All pesticides shall be applied by professionals in order to avoid over
application. As much as possible, pesticides that decompose into non-harmful
elements within short periods of time shall be used.
· Metals: Application techniques such as coating shall be utilized in order to reduce
potential contamination.
· Organic Compounds: Hydrocarbons and other organic compounds shall not be
utilized.
)-3/
8/9/2004 22
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
· Trash and Debris: Trash shall be contained in covered receptacles and collected
regularly to avoid exceeding container capacity. Containers will be placed on-site for
tenants and patrons. Any escaping trash will be picked up during regularly scheduled
parking lot sweeping.
· Petroleum Products: The parking areas will be swept regularly and steam cleaned to
remove accumulated soils and greases.
· General Site Runoff. During and after construction, slope protection/erosion control
measures will be required.
The following site design treatments are required:
· All runoff generated at the site will be captured and treated in an acceptable BMP
facility before reaching the storm drain outlet at the Otay River.
· Pervious surfaces, including large planted areas adjacent to buildings and beneath
roof gutter outfalls shall be used as much as possible in order to allow for more onsite
percolation.
· Large planted areas, where feasible, where runoff can collect before entering the
storm drain shall be located around buildings.
· Where feasible the roof drains shall discharge into the landscaped areas prior to
entering the storm drain system
All Source Control BMPs identified in the November 2003 Stuart Engineering Report
shall be implemented.
The following best management practices shall be adhered to during construction:
· Gravel bags, silt fences, etc. shall be placed along the edge of the project site in order
to contain particulate prior to contact with the Otay River area.
· All concrete washing and spoils dumping will occur in a designated location.
· Construction stockpiles, uncovered material and dumpsters will be covered in order to
prevent blow-off or runoff during weather events.
· A pollution control education plan shall be developed by the General Contractor and
implemented throughout all phases of development and construction.
· Severe weather event erosion control facilities shall be stored onsite for use as
needed.
Significance After Mitigation: The proposed mitigation measures and project design would
mitigate all significant impacts related to water resources and water quality to a less than
significant level. As a condition of issuing the grading permit, the hydrology/drainage report
shall address pre-development flows versus post-development flows.
)-3;L
8/9/2004 23
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings afFact
Significant Impact: Site preparation and grading, including excavation and recompaction of
unconsolidated materials would result in exposure of soils to erosion potential. Increased
sediment-laden or contaminant-laden runoff would result in potentially significant, but mitigable
water quality impacts.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Sedimentation could adversely affect water quality and sensitive biological
resources within the Otay River. Additional contamination hazards are related to the use
of hazardous materials in the construction process, including fuel and motor vehicle
fluids. The SWPPP that is required for the proposed project will address erosion control
and accident contingencies to address these issues.
Mitigation Measure: (see EIR, Section 5.7.5, Mitigation Measure, specifically Mitigation
Measure [a]).
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: An increase in surface runoff and introduction of urban uses would increase
pollution levels in receiving water bodies such as the Otay River and San Diego Bay.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Pollutants that typically become mobile fÌ'om this type of project include
automobile oils, fertilizers and other commercial fuels. Introduction of these pollutants
into the Otay River would cause significant impacts to surface water quality.
Mitigation Measure: (see ErR, Section 5.7.5, Mitigation Measure, specifically Mitigation
Measure [a]).
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
7-a3
8/9/2004 24
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
G. TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS
Standards of Significance:
· The City of Chula Vista has developed traffic standards to evaluate the potential traffic
impacts of projects within its jurisdiction. The significance thresholds depend upon
whether intersections, street segments, or freeways are being analyzed and whether the
analysis addresses the short- or long-term. The project significance criterion then
determines whether the project impact is direct or cumulative. These thresholds are
consistent with the intent of CEQA and in effect, provide more specific direction for
significance findings.
· Project impacts will be defined as either project specific impacts or cumulative impacts.
Project specific impacts are those impacts for which the addition of project trips results in
an identifiable degradation in level of service on freeway segments, roadway segments,
or intersections, triggering the need for specific project-related improvement strategies.
Cumulative impacts are those in which the proj ect trips contribute to a poor level of
service, at a nominal level.
· Study horizon year as used herein is intended to describe a future period of time in the
traffic studies, which corresponds to traffic model years developed by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG), and are meant to synchronize study impacts to
be in line with typical study years of2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020.
· Criteria for determining whether the project results in either project specific or
cumulative impacts on freeway segments, roadway segments, or intersections are as
follows:
Short-Term (Studv Horizon Year 0 To 4)
For purposes of the short-term analysis, roadway sections may be defined as either links
or segments. A link is typically that section of roadway between two adjacent
Circulation Element intersections and a segment is defined as that combination of
contiguous links used in the Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program.
Analysis of roadway links under short-term conditions may require a more detailed
analysis using the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) methodology if
the typical planning analysis using volume to capacity ratios on an individual link
indicates a potential impact to that link. The GMOC analysis uses the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) methodology of average travel speed based on actual measurements on
the segments as listed in the Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program.
)-3Y
8/9/2004 25
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings afFact
Intersections
a. Project specific impact ifboth the following criteria are met:
l. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F.
11. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Street Links/Segments
If the planning analysis using the volume to capacity ratio indicates LOS C or better,
there is no impact. If the planning analysis indicates LOS D, E, or F, the GMOC method
should be utilized. The following criteria would then be utilized.
a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met: 1.
Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS ElF for I hour. ii. Project
trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume. 111. Project adds
greater than 800 ADT to the segment.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Freeways
a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
1. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F
ii. Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway
segment.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Lone-Term (Studv Horizon Year 5 And Later)
Intersections
a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
1. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F.
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
Street Links/Segments
For street links/segments, the planning analysis using the volume to capacity ratio
methodology only is employed, since the GMOC analysis methodology is not applicable
beyond a four-year horizon.
a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
1. Level of service is LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F.
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of total segment volume.
iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment.
7 -3S-
8/9/2004 26
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D
or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is
considered not significant since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual
roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If segment Level of
Service is LOS F, impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS.
c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the impact identified in paragraph a. above
occurs at study horizon year 10 or later, and is offsite and not adjacent to the
project, the impact is considered cumulative. Study year 10 may be that typical
SANDAG model year which is between 8 and 13 years in the future. In this case
a traffic study is perfonned in the period of 2000 to 2002, because the typical
model will only evaluate traffic at years divisible by 5 (i.e. 2005, 2010, 2015 and
2020). Study horizon year 10 would correspond to the SANDAG model for year
2010 and would be 8 years in the future. If the model year is less than 7 years in
the future, study horizon year 10 would be 13 years in the future.
d. In the event a direct identified project specific impact in paragraph a. above
occurs at study horizon year 5 or earlier and the impact is offsite and not adjacent
to this project, but the property immediately adjacent to the identified project
specific impact is also proposed to be developed in approximately the same time
rrame, an additional analysis may be required to detennine whether or not the
identified project specific impact would still occur if the development of the
adj acent property does not take place.
If the additional analysis concludes that the identified project specific impact is no longer
a direct impact, then the impact shall be considered cumulative.
Freeways
For rreeways, published guidelines developed by the San Diego Traffic Engineers'
Council/Institute of Traffic Engineers (SANTEC) are used as the significance criteria.
The SANTEC Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego
Region (2000) was developed by local traffic experts, Caltrans, SANDAG, local cities,
and the County of San Diego as a region-wide guideline for detennining traffic impacts
in environmental reports. The SANTEC Guidelines are stated in Table 5.8-4.
TABLE 5.8-4. Measurement of Significant Project Traffic Impacts
7-,3'-
8/9/2004 27
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Notes:
* All level of service measurements are based upon HCM procedures for peak-hour
conditions. However, v/c ratios for Roadway Segments may be estimated on an ADT/24-
hour traffic volume basis (using Table 2 or a similar LOS chart for each jurisdiction).
The acceptable LOS for freeways, roadways, and intersections is generally "D" ("C" for
undeveloped or not densely developed locations per jurisdiction definitions). For
metered freeway ramps, LOS does not apply. However, ramp meter delays above 15
minutes are considered excessive.
** If a proposed project's traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the
impacts are determined to be significant. These impact changes may be measured from
appropriate computer programs or expanded manual spreadsheets. The project applicant
shall then identify feasible mitigation (within the Traffic Impact Study [TIS] report) that
will maintain the traffic facility at an acceptable LOS. If the LOS with the proposed
project becomes unacceptable (see above * note), or if the project adds a significant
amount of peak-hour trips to cause any traffic queues to exceed on-or off-ramp storage
capacities, the proj ect applicant shall be responsible for mitigating significant impact
changes.
KEY:
V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio (capacity at LOS E should be used)
Speed = Arterial speed measured in miles per hour for Congestion
Management Program (CMP) analyses
Delay = Average stopped delay per vehicle measured in seconds
LOS = Level of Service
Significant Impact: Impacts would be cumulatively significant at the Main StreetlI-805 SB
ramps since the LOS meets the significance criterion in the short-term (LOS E or F). The impact
is not considered to be a project-specific impact, however it is still considered significant.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Impacts would be cumulatively significant at the Main StreetlI-805 SB
ramps since the LOS meets the significance criterion in the short-term (LOS E or F). The
impact is not considered to be a project-specific impact because, as noted in the EIR, the
intersection would already operate at LOS E without the project, and project trips would
not comprise 5 percent of the entering volume.
7-a}
81912004 28
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Mitigation Measure: For the significant cumulative impact at the Main Stll-805
interchange, southbound ramps, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute a fair share, as
determined by the City, towards adding a second westbound left-turn lane on Main
Street fì:om the I-80S southbound off-ramp. The second westbound left-turn lane is
included in the City's existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The funding
source for the second westbound left turn lane is included in the City's Transportation
Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The City of Chula Vista anticipates that
improvements to address this cumulative impact will begin late 2005 and will include
lane re-striping and signal modification.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Significant Impact: Short-term impacts along Main Street between 1-805 and the project
driveway would be significant but mitigable.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: As stated in the significance thresholds, when a street segment is calculated
to result in LOS D or worse, the GMOC method is to be utilized to determine whether the
impact is significant in the short-term. The GMOC method is thus applied to the segment
of Main Street between I-80S and the project driveway since the project would cause this
segment to operate at LOS D. As seen in Table 5.8.8 for Main Street between I-80S and
the project driveway, the project is calculated to add 7,800 ADT to this segment (50,800
total) over the existing + cumulative projects and growth scenario (43,000 ADT). Based
on the GMOC significance criteria identified in Section 5.8.3, the project would exceed
the threshold of 800 ADT. Next, the project would be LOS D for more than 2 hours,
since the calculations for LOS presented in Table 5.8.8 was calculated on a 24-hour basis.
Lastly, as shown in the table, the 7,800 project trips would comprise 15 percent of the
segment volume (7,800 divided by 50,800 equals 0.15), exceeding the GMOC 5 percent
threshold. All three GMOC significance criteria are met, and in conclusion, short-term
impacts along Main Street between 1-805 and the project driveway would be significant.
Mitigation Measure: For the short-term significant impact along Main Street between the
easterly edge of the Caltrans right-of-way at the 1-805 and the project driveway, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
7-3%
8/9/2004 29
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
. Prior to issuance of building pennits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to
design and construct a raised median on Main Street between 1-805 and the project
driveway. No median breaks will be allowed.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: At the Main Street westbound left-turn at the project driveway, impacts
resulting ITom queue lengths are considered to be significant, as this would result in inefficient
intersection functionality and an increase in delay.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: At the project driveway there will be 640 feet of storage available in the
eastbound direction, 220 feet in the westbound direction, and 200 feet in the northbound
direction. The maximum queue is calculated to extend 421 feet in the eastbound
direction, 356 feet in the westbound direction, and 194 feet in the northbound direction.
The 356-foot westbound queue length is for the one-lane left-turn into the project
driveway and exceeds the storage capacity available and therefore would result in a
significant impact. All other queues for the project do not exceed the available storage.
That is, queues at the new project driveway or the Oleander AvenuelMain Street
intersection are calculated to not extend across adjacent intersections with the exception
of the westbound left-turn at the project driveway. Impacts would be significant at the
westbound left-turn at the project driveway.
Mitigation Measure: For the significant impact resulting ITom queuing on westbound
Main Street at the project driveway intersection, the following mitigation measures are
provided:
. Prior to issuance of building pennits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to
design, construct, and secure new traffic signal equipment at the project driveway.
The westbound approach on Main Street shall be designed with two left-turn lanes
at the Main StreetlProj ect Driveway intersection. The provision of two left turn
lanes would result in the need to widen Main Street to the south, east of the project
driveway.
Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the effects of a
mitigation measure shall be discussed in a CEQA document, but in less detail than
7-3 <j
8/9/2004 30
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
the effect of the proposed proj ect. The widening of Main Street discussed in
mitigation measure (c) above would result in the loss of 5 parking spaces on the
adjacent SBC property, and the loss of some landscaping on the Fuller property east
of SBC. The total size of the existing SBC parking lot is 50 spaces. The City
Municipal Zoning Code (September 1998), per Section 19.62.050, defines the
number of parking spaces required for designated land uses and structures. While
no exact match is found in the Zoning Code for the limited industrial use of the
SBC facility, the Zoning Code does define parking requirements for service and
maintenance centers, and business and professional offices. Service and
maintenance centers require one parking space for each one thousand square feet.
The building square footage for the facility is estimated at 8,200 square feet.
Therefore, under the one space per 1,000 square feet criterion, a total of 8.2 parking
spaces would be required. Using the business and professional offices designation,
one parking space per each 300 square feet would be required, or 27.3 spaces.
Therefore, with the 45 parking space that would remain with implementation of the
project, the SBC facility would still meet City parking standards, and parking
impacts would be less than significant.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
H. AIR QUALITY
Standards of Significance:
Criteria for determining significance is based upon the Chula Vista General Plan and Section
15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines as well as the Initial Study Checklist (Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines). For this section, the following criteria are used to determine the significance
of an impact:
· Conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of an applicable air quality plan.
· Result in the release of substantial concentrations of pollutants such as ozone or
respirable particulates (PM-I0).
· Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors).
7 -¿¡'O
8/9/2004 31
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Specific thresholds of significance for regional air pollution emissions have not been adopted by
the City of Chula Vista or by any responsible or commenting agency such as the SDAPCD. The
City of San Diego has recently updated its CEQA Assessment guidelines for air quality, and has
included emissions levels that should be considered "substantial" even if there is no means to
directly correlate these emissions to ambient air quality. In the absence of any other guidelines,
use of the City of San Diego thresholds (similarly used by San Diego County DPLU staff for all
pollutants except ROG) are recommended in order to determine if the project would have an
impact on the regional air quality plan or contribute substantial amounts of dangerous
particulates. Table 5.9-3, City of San Diego Thresholds for Determining Impacts summarizes
these thresholds.
TABLE 5.9-3
City of San Diego Thresholds for Determining Impacts
(Recommended for use in the City of Chula Vista)
Recommended Screening Guidelines
Source: Giroux and Associates, February 2004, pg. II.
Significant Impact: Contribution to the San Diego Air Basin's non-attainment status ofPM-IO
emissions would constitute a significant impact.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: In total, PM-IO emISSIOns resulting from project construction and site
preparation would total 37.5 pounds per day. Despite the project's commitment to
incorporate minimum dust abatement measures, contribution to the San Diego Air
Basin's non-attainment status of PM-IO emissions would constitute a significant but
mitigable impact.
7-1"/
8/9/2004 32
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Mitigation Measure: In order to control impacts related to temporary PMlO emissions,
the following best available control mechanisms shall be implemented during
construction:
· Limit simultaneous disturbance to as small an area as possible.
· Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment.
· Use electrical construction equipment as practical.
· Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment.
· Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment.
· Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust.
· Stabilize (for example, hydroseed) graded areas as quickly as possible to
minimize fugitive dust.
· Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible.
· Use electricity ftom power poles instead of temporary generators during building
construction.
· Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of fteeboard to reduce blowoff
during hauling.
· Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25
mph.
Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above
would reduce residual impacts below a level of significance.
Significant Impact: Ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) will have a significant
cumulative impact even if individual thresholds are not exceeded.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: All pollutants will be below significance thresholds during grading
activities. But because of the non-attainment status for the air basin, ozone precursor
emissions would contribute to significant cumulative effects.
Mitigation Measure: During construction, equipment exhaust emissions shall be
mitigated by employing control measures. These measures include:
· mandatory periodic 10w-NOx tune-ups for on-site diesel equipment and;
7-¥;2
8/9/2004 33
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
. restrictions on idling times (not to exceed 10 minutes) during breaks or while
trucks unload.
Significance After Mitigation: Cumulative contributions to the non-attainment status of the
regional air basin would be mitigated through the incorporation ofthis mitigation measure.
I. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Standards of Significance:
Appendix G ofthe CEQA Guidelines states the following: would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire or police
protection, schools, parks or other public facilities? Instead of simply including this broad
question as a significance threshold, the City has adopted Growth Management Thresholds
specific to the needs of the City. These thresholds are consistent with the intent of CEQA and in
effect, provide more specific direction for significance findings.
These thresholds are therefore used. The project would result in a significant impact if:
· Adequate water storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are not constructed
concurrently with planned growth and water quality standards are jeopardized during
growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time
of building permit issuance.
· Sewage flows and volumes exceed City Engineering standards. Individual projects will
provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering standards.
· A total of3 acres of park land per 1,000 residents is not established east ofI-805.
· Police units are not able to respond to 84% of Priority I calls within seven minutes or less
or maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police
units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within seven minutes or less and
maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of seven minutes or less.
· Fire and medical units are not able to respond to calls within seven minutes or less in
85% of the cases and within five minutes or less in 75% of the cases.
ì-"/3
8/9/2004 34
,..-
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings afFact
. Other public facility capacities and/or service levels are compromised as a result of the
project.
Significant Impact: Because the project lacks interior water infrastructure, the Otay Water
District would not have the ability to adequately service the development without connections
from the street to the planned buildings.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The Otay District stated that the project could be adequately serviced rrom
the l2-inch potable main located within Main Street. However, without the proper
District-approved inrrastructure onsite, the ability to adequately serve the project could be
impaired.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to issuance of grading pennits, the applicant shall submit water facility
improvement plans to the Otay Water District in order to ensure adequate interior
project laterals. If it is detennined that additional laterals are necessary, the
applicant shall be required to install them or pay for their installation.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Development of the project without relocation of an existing sewer line
would cause significant impacts to the pipeline.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The development includes placement of a structure in the location of an
existing City of San Diego sewer line. Relocation of the line will be necessary and will
require approval by the City of San Diego.
?-~'
8/9/2004 35
--- -
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
City Engineer that the proposed segment of the Auto Park Sewer and the City of
San Diego Sewer serving the project have adequate capacity to handle projected
flows
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The development of the project would increase demand for police services
and contribute to the cumulative need for additional officers and equipment.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The Chula Vista Police Department has indicated they wìll provide service
to the proj ect. However, development of the proposed project would result in an
incremental increase in police service calls, which would contribute to a potential failure
to meet Growth Management standards.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall be required to pay
the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as determined by the City Engineer,
to offset impacts on City fire, police, emergency services and other services. The
applicant wìll also be required to pay the Fee Recovery District Fee, as
determined by the City Engineer, to help further offset impacts to City fire, police,
emergency and other services.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire service
demand throughout the City.
Finding: Pursuant to section l5091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
7-4S-
8/9/2004 36
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: As the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista continues to develop, and
redevelop as is the case for this project, additional fire protection services will be
necessary. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the
project, the project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire service demand
throughout the City.
Mitigation Measure: see Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measures [c]
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The proposed project could contribute to increased demand on school
facilities resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Although the project would not involve additional residential units which
could in turn result in a strain on local school facilities, construction of commercial land
uses never the less indirectly contributes to population growth. Overall population
growth results in the need for new schools.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these [mdings.
. Prior to issuance of building permits, in order to offset indirect impacts to local
school facilities, the proj ect applicant will contribute to a state-mandated fund in
the amount of $0.36 per square foot. A portion of this fee will be transferred back
to the Chula Vista Elementary School District and/or Sweetwater Union High
School District.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
7 - ~(,
8/9/2004 37
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings afFact
J. HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Standards of Significance:
Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts would be considered significant if the
project would:
· Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
· Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment· through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment.
· Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
· Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
· For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
· For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
· Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan.
· Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, lllJury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intennixed with wildlands.
Significant Impact: Because the project is planned on a site known to support potentially
hazardous materials such as sandblast grit, involving exposure of the public to harmful
conditions, could result in significant impacts during construction/grading activities.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
7-¥7
8/9/2004 38
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Based on information contained in San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health files, between 1978 and 1981, approximately 2,000 truckloads of
sandblast grit from shipyards were used as fill material along the north and south banks
of the Otay River. A preliminary characterization of the sandblast grit at the southern
storage facility was conducted in 1986. This study concluded that the material consisted
of waste sand from the blasting of boat bottoms included toxins typically found in paints,
mainly consisting of heavy metals, including copper, lead and zinc. These constituents
have the potential to result in significant impacts to human health if not properly handled
and contained.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. In order to safely contain sandblast grit from the project site, special handling of
the fill material is warranted. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a health and
safety plan shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be reviewed by the
appropriate agency. The plan shall not be limited to worker health and safety but
shall include hazardous material handling specifications, proper waste
characterization for disposal and storm water and erosion management.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: Development ofthe site has the potential for PCE exposure.
Finding: Pursuant to section l509l(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: PCE was detected in a single sample at an elevated concentration. Follow-
up soil vapor sampling around the sample location did not detect the presence ofPCE or
other VOCs suggesting that this is a very localized condition. However, location of a
structure on a site that contains potentially hannful materials, that when disturbed could
result in exposure of the public to hannful conditions results in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
7-¥%
8/9/2004 39
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
. In order to reduce risks from PCE exposure, removal of localized concentrations
must occur before or during site redevelopment. During grading, a qualified
hazardous materials specialist shall monitor grading activities within the areas of
potential PCE contamination. Soils shall be excavated and sampled using a
mobile laboratory onsite. If elevated levels of PCE are detected, the impacted
soils shall be removed, handled and disposed of in accordance with existing state
and local regulations. Sampling in the area of impacted soils shall continue until
contaminant levels reach acceptable risk based levels.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Significant Impact: The oily stained soil observed throughout the site could be a potential
hazard during site redevelopment.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the proj ect that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: Potentially exposing the public or surrounding environment to a hazardous
substance, such as is evidenced by oily stained soil, is considered significant.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. In order to mitigate for spilled oils or other automobile or equipment residue,
proper cleanup of soils is required. A qualified hazardous materials specialist shall
monitor grading activities within the areas of potential petroleum hydrocarbons
contamination. Soils shall be excavated, sampled and properly analyzed. If
elevated levels of PCE are detected, the impacted soils shall be reused onsite or
removed, handled and disposed of in accordance with existing state and local
regulations. Sampling in the area of impacted soils shall continue until
contaminant levels reach acceptable risk based levels.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Significant Impact: Containment of hazardous materials onsite, as opposed to removal of the
materials could result in exposure of people to hazardous conditions.
7-¥ý
8/9/2004 40
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Finding:,Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the ErR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The proposed project will result in a site that continues to contain "inert
solid wastes" on a property located adjacent to the Otay River. Therefore, the project may
be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to enroll in a
maintenance and monitoring order pursuant to Section 13264 of the California Water
Code.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. Should the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) decide to add the
project site to its inactive landfill list, the property owner shall comply with the
RWQCB's requirements with respect to monitoring and maintenance of an
inactive landfill site on an ongoing basis.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Significant Impact: Redevelopment of the site could expose the public to hazards associated
with abandoned septic systems.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen
or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, below a level of
significance.
Explanation: The existing residences onsite are serviced by septic systems, which could
contain hazards to future users of the site. Potentially exposing the public or surrounding
environment to a hazardous substance is considered significant
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a
condition of approval and is made binding on the City through these findings.
. In order to mitigate for potential hazards associated with existing septic tanks
onsite, the construction contractor shall fill in the septic units. Filling the units
prevents contamination during the decommissioned state (San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health, April 2, 2004, pers. comm.). The project
7-5'0
819/2004 41
Chala Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
applicant will then be required to provide proof of septic tank filling to the City
prior to issuance of building permits.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
IX. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
In many cases, the impact of a single project may not be significant, but when combined with
other projects, the "cumulative" impact may be significant. Section 15355 of the CEQA
Guidelines defines "cumulative impacts" as two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental
impacts." CEQA Guidelines Section l5130(b) states that "the discussion [of cumulative
impacts] need not provide as great of detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the proj ect
alone." Section l5130(b) further states that a cumulative impacts discussion should be guided by
the standards of practicality and reasonableness.
Cumulative impacts can occur from the interactive effects of a single project. For example, the
combination of noise and dust generated during construction activities can be additive and can
have a greater impact than either noise or dust alone. However, substantial cumulative impacts
more often result from the combined effect of past, present and future projects that are located in
proximity to the project under review. For example, the wastewater treatment demand generated
by a project may not be significant when analyzed alone, however, when analyzed in
combination with the wastewater demands of approved or proposed projects, the wastewater
demands may exceed the resource capabilities of the service agency, resulting in a significant
cumulative impact. Therefore, it is important for a cumulative impacts analysis to be viewed
over time and in conjunction with other related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future
developments which may have impacts that might compound or interrelate with those of the
project under review.
A. Biological Resources
Cumulative Impact: Continued development within the eastern areas of Chula Vista and the
extension of SR-125 would extend urban land uses into vacant areas characterized by natural
habitats and utilized by the region's sensitive plant and wildlife species. .
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(I) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project
)-5/
8/9/2004 42
Chu/a Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
alternative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative is described in
Section X ofthese findings.
However, the following mitigation measure is designed to reduce cumulative impacts to
biological resources and is a requirement of project approval.
Explanation: Although the project will result in minimal direct impacts to biological
resources and would not contribute to the elimination of undeveloped land for urban uses,
development of this project, combined with the others described above would contribute
to the increase in human presence within the Otay River Valley and eastern Chula Vista
area. It is anticipated that cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources could be
mitigated on a project by project basis by preservation of open space within project
boundaries, and contributions to the MSCP Preserve. The MSCP was designed to
address cumulative and growth inducing impacts on a regional basis. The proposed
project is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and will provide
mitigation for individual project impacts and reduce cumulative impacts to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to mirrimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant commurrities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that noise
attenuation features (such as berms or walls) shall be implemented during
construction should sensitive wildlife species be present. Implementation of any
required measures will be verified by the City during construction.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Per mitigation measure 5.2.5 [a], light shielding to protect the Preserve ftom spill-
over when deemed appropriate ftom a public safety standpoint shall be
implemented. Low sodium lighting shall also be utilized.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
7-5;)..
8/9/2004 43
Chu/a Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
· Although extensive landscaping is not anticipated next to the preserve, any
landscaping shall utilize native vegetation. Prior to issuance of grading permits,
landscape plans demonstrating that invasive plant species are not used in areas
that could potentially result in impacts to the Preserve shall be submitted and
approved by the City.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
· Pollution reduction measures, such as oil and water separators, shall be installed
in all drainage systems at the property line to eliminate introduction of
contaminants into the Preserve. Such measures shall be indicated on grading
plans and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permits, and
installation of such measures shall be verified by the City during project
construction.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
· If the proj ect is to be constructed during the least Bell's vireo breeding season
(March 15 to September 15), a pre-construction survey shall occur prior to
issuance of grading permits. If an occupied nest of least Bell's vireo is
discovered, and if noise associated with clearing, grading, or grubbing will
negatively impact the nest, noise levels shall not be permitted to exceed 60 Leq as
determined through construction monitoring by the City's biologist.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the Otay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
· A pre-construction survey for nesting raptors shall also occur prior to issuance of
grading permits, if project construction is to occur during the raptor breeding
7-5"3
8/9/2004 44
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
season (January 15 to July 31). In areas potentially affecting nesting raptor sites,
noise levels will be modified, if necessary, to prevent noise from negatively
impacting the breeding success of any detected pair during the breeding season.
Compliance with this measure will be verified through field monitoring by the
City's biologist. For areas where construction is proposed outside of the
breeding season(s), no additional mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the atay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. Any trimming of willow canopies extending into construction areas will be done
under the supervision ofthe City's biologist.
Mitigation Measure: In accordance with the adjacency guidelines contained in the
Subarea Plan, mitigation to minimize indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species,
sensitive plant communities and functions of the atay Valley Preserve as envisioned in
the City's Subarea Plan are as follows:
. A biological monitor shall be present onsite periodically during grading and site
preparation to ensure that grading and disturbance activities do not encroach into
sensitive areas.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will also preserve regional wildlife corridor
functions of the Otay River Valley.
Significance After Mitigation: Impacts to biological resources can be mitigated to less than
significant levels by incorporating mitigation measures as described in the EIR.
B. Water Quality And Hydrology
Cumulative Impact: Runoff from project construction areas and regular parking lot and
landscape irrigation systems will contribute to the incremental increase in urban runoff to the
atay River system.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project
alternative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative is described in
Section X of these findings.
7-s-~
8/9/2004 45
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
However, the following mitigation measure is designed to reduce cumulative impacts to
water quality and is a requirement of project approval.
Explanation: Although the project represents new development with an associated
increase in impervious surfaces, because the project site currently supports an urban use
with a greater potential to result in contaminated runoff, incremental increases in water
quality impacts would not be considered significant. Further, compliance by all
surrounding projects with applicable federal, state and city regulations for stormwater and
construction discharges, including the application of Best Management Practices would
reduce cumulative impacts to water quality to a level below significance.
Mitigation Measure: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant
demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) as set forth in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm
water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the
NPDES regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent
(NOr) with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both
construction and post-construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures
and shall identify funding mechanisms for post-construction control measures. The
applicant will also be required to comply with the City's Development and
Redevelopment Storm Water Management Requirements Manual and fill out all
applicable forms associated with the Manual. Finally, due to the project's size of over
100,000 square feet, it is a Priority Development Project and hence subject to the
requirements of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and
Numeric Sizing Criteria.
The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required:
· Soil Sediments: all landscaped areas will be self-contained due to the gentle slope of
the site.
· Fertilizers: All fertilizers shall be applied by professionals in order to avoid over
application. Proper wetting and other management techniques will help eliminate
blowoff or other non-absorption problems.
· Pesticides: All pesticides shall be applied by professionals in order to avoid over
application. As much as possible, pesticides that decompose into non-harmful
elements within short periods of time shall be used.
?-Ss-
8/9/2004 46
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
0 Metals: Application techniques such as coating shall be utilized in order to reduce
potential contamination.
· Organic Compounds: Hydrocarbons and other organic compounds shall not be
utilized.
0 Trash and Debris: Trash shall be contained in covered receptacles and collected
regularly to avoid exceeding container capacity. Containers will be placed on-site for
tenants and patrons. Any escaping trash will be picked up during regularly scheduled
parking lot sweeping.
0 Petroleum Products: The parking areas will be swept regularly and steam cleaned to
remove accumulated soils and greases.
0 General Site Runoff. During and after construction, slope protection/erosion control
measures will be required.
The following site design treatments are required:
· All runoff generated at the site will be captured and treated in an acceptable BMP
facility before reaching the storm drain outlet at the Otay River.
0 Pervious surfaces, including large planted areas adjacent to buildings and beneath
roof gutter outfalls shall be used as much as possible in order to allow for more onsite
percolation.
· Large planted areas, where feasible, where runoff can collect before entering the
storm drain shall be located around buildings.
· Where feasible the roof drains shall discharge into the landscaped areas prior to
entering the storm drain system
All Source Control BMPs identified in the November 2003 Stuart Engineering Report
shall be implemented.
The following best management practices shall be adhered to during construction:
· Gravel bags, silt fences, etc. shall be placed along the edge of the project site in order
to contain particulate prior to contact with the Otay River area.
· All concrete washing and spoils dumping will occur in a designated location.
· Construction stockpiles, uncovered material and dumpsters will be covered in order to
prevent blow-off or runoff during weather events.
· A pollution control education plan shall be developed by the General Contractor and
implemented throughout all phases of development and construction.
0 Severe weather event erosion control facilities shall be stored onsite for use as
needed.
7-5"f;
8/9/2004 47
-
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
C. Transportation, Circulation, And Access
Cumulative Impact: The project would contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to traffic
circulation on Main Street.
Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific
economic, social, or other considerations make implementation of the No Project
alternative infeasible. The infeasibility of the No Project alternative is described in
Section X of these findings.
However, the following mitigation measure is designed to reduce cumulative impacts to
circulation and is a requirement ofproject approval.
Explanation: Impacts would be cumulatively significant at the Main StreetlI-805 SB
ramps since the LOS meets the significance criterion in the short-term (LOS E or F). The
impact is not considered to be a project-specific impact because, as noted in the EIR, the
intersection would already operate at LOS E without the project, and project trips would
not comprise 5 percent of the entering volume.
Mitigation Measure: For the significant cumulative impact at the Main StlI-805
interchange, southbound ramps, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute a fair share, as
determined by the City, towards adding a second westbound left-turn lane on
Main Street from the 1-805 southbound off-ramp. The second westbound left-turn
lane is included in the City's existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The
funding source for the second westbound left turn lane is included in the City's
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The City of Chula
Vista anticipates that improvements to address this cumulative impact will begin
late 2005 and will include lane re-striping and signal modification.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
7-~7
8/9/2004 48
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
x. POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Where a lead agency has detennined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation
measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that
cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the proj ect as
mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project
alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA.
As noted earlier, in Section VI of these Findings, an alternative may be "infeasible" if it fails to
fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project.
Thus, "'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based
on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological
factors." of a project. (City of Del Mar. supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at 417; see also Sequoyah Hills.
supra, 23 Cal.AppAth at 715.)
In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address
feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the
significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption
of mitigation measures, as is the case with this Project, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no
obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their
impacts would be less severe than those of the project as mitigated. Laurel Heights Improvement
Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426];
Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal. Rptr.
842]; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270
Cal. Rptr. 650].
Notwithstanding the fact that the Project would not result in significant unmitigated impacts, the
City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible" pursuant
to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies to the
findings requirement: "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors." [Pub. Resources Code section 21061.1.] The CEQA Guidelines provide a
broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines
section 15364 states, "The lack oflegal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or
mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or
technological factor." (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52
Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].)
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a different
meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public
Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA with regard to
7-SY
8/9/2004 49
..- -
Chuia Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project
for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out
unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
(1) "[ 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." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(1).]
(2) "such 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.
[CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(2).]
(3) "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." [CEQA
Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(3).]
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar
V. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410,417 [183 Cal. Rptr. 898]) m[F]easibility' under
CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see
also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29
Cal.Rptr.2d 182].)
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate
that the proposed project has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal and other benefits. In
rejecting certain alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the finally approved project
objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The
decisionmakers believe that the Project best meets the finally approved project objectives with
the least environmental impact. The findings below examine the alternatives to determine
feasibility.
The detailed discussion in Section IX demonstrates that all significant environmental effects of
the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided through the imposition of existing
policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, formal mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR.
Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any alternatives
identified in the Draft EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to these
7-5~
8/9/2004 50
Chula Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
impacts. (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 519-527; [147 Cal.Rptr. 842]; Kings Countv
Farm Bureau v. Citv of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and
Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47
Ca1.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426].) As the succeeding discussion will show, no identified
alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior.
A. No Project Alternative
The No ProjectlNo Development Alternative assumes that the project site would not be
redeveloped and the existing automobile storage facility would remain and continue operation.
Project-level impacts would be avoided. The No ProjectINo Redevelopment Alternative would
not meet the following project objectives:
· The elimination of existing blighted conditions, and the prevention of recurring blight
in and about the Project Area.
· The encouragement, promotion, and assistance in the development and expansion of
local commerce and needed commercial and industrial facilities, increasing local
employment prosperity, and improving the economic climate within the Project Area,
and the various other isolated vacant and/or underdeveloped properties within the
Project Area.
· The creation of a more cohesive and unified community by strengthening the
physical, social, and economic ties between residential, commercial, industrial and
recreational land uses within the community and the Project Area.
· The development of a more efficient and effective circulation corridor system rree
from hazardous vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interferences.
· Removal of outdoor storage uses rrom the site and redevelopment into a productive
commercial center providing jobs and sales tax revenue.
· Dedication of land to the OVRPIMSCP Preserve to promote the goals of Chula
Vista's MSCP Subarea Plan related to conservation of sensitive species and habitats
and the OVRP Concept Plan.
· Establishment of a rreeway-oriented commercial center to provide commercial uses
that are easily accessible to the surrounding community.
Finding: The No ProjectINo Development Alternative would not meet the primary
objectives of the project in fulfilling the goals of the Redevelopment Plan to convert
underutilized land uses that currently contribute to blighting conditions within the project
area to economically productive uses that benefit the community. In addition, the No
Project alternative would not provide avoidance or reduction of significant environmental
impacts related to the project that could not be accomplished with proposed project
mitigation
ì -C,O
8/9/2004 51
Chi/fa Vista Crossings
Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact
B. Existing Zoning/General Plan Designation Alternative
This project alternative would involve construction of light industrial uses, such as light
manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, and office-related uses. This facility would likely
require similar site work and redevelopment efforts as the proposed project. Building footprints
would likely consume a larger percentage of the entire site.
The Existing Zoning/General Plan Designation alternative would not meet the following project
objective:
. Establishment of a freeway-oriented commercial center to provide commercial uses
that are easily accessible to the surrounding community.
Finding: The City and the Redevelopment Agency have determined that, due to the
location of the site relative to regional access facilities and existing residential
communities, commercial uses would better serve the community and would more fully
satisfY the project objectives. In addition, the Existing Zoning/General Plan Designation
alternative would not provide avoidance or reduction of significant environmental
impacts related to the project that could not be accomplished with proposed project
mitigation.
c. Reduced Density Alternative
This project alternative would involve the development of a commercial retail center similar to
that proposed, however the size of the project would be less. Instead of developing a site with up
to 188,000 square feet of retail commercial space, a total of 141,000 square feet would be
constructed (an approximate 25% reduction in total building square footage). The site would be
prepared, graded and designed in a similar manner as the proposed project. The alternative
would result in less land cover of the site.
Finding: The Reduced Density alternative would partially fulfill all of the project
objectives as outlined in the ErR, but would not provide the level of economic benefit
that the proposed proj ect would provide. More importantly, the alternative would not
provide avoidance or reduction of significant environmental impacts related to the proj ect
that could not be accomplished with proposed project mitigation.
7-?/
8/9/2004 52
- -
ATTACHMENT 3
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
This mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the City of Chula Vista
for the Chula Vista Crossings commercial development, to comply with Assembly Bill 3180,
which requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of
mitigation measures. This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as
additional mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on
the project throughout the project approval process.
This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation
measures for the proposed project and generating infonnation on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes the following:
· Monitoring team qualifications
· Specific monitoring activities
· Reporting system
· Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The proposed project involves redevelopment of an existing outdoor storage facility located at
the southeast comer of 1-805 and Main Street to commercial retail use. A total of 17.2 acres of
commercial uses are being proposed on the 24.1 acre project site. The proposed project would
include the construction of seven buildings with an approximate totalleaseable building area of
188,038 square feet. The remaining 6.8 acres and 0.08 acre will be set aside as open space to be
dedicated to the Otay Valley Regional Park and planned improvements to Main Street,
respectively.
The EIR, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on issues detennined to be potentially
significant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues addressed in the EIR include land use, planning
and zoning, landfonn and alteration, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
paleontological resources, agricultural resources, housing and population, water resources and
water quality, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, noise, public services and
utilities, hazards/risk of upset, cumulative and growth-inducing impacts. The environmental
analysis concluded that for all of the environmental issues discussed, some of the significant and
potentially significant impacts could be avoided or reduced through implementation of
recommended mitigation measures. Assembly Bill 3180 requires monitoring of only those
impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Chula
Chula Vista Crossings EIR 3984·01
August 2004 MMRp·1
7 -(,,2-
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
Vista Crossings commercial development, therefore addresses the impacts associated with only
the issue areas identified above.
MITIGATION MONITORING TEAM
A monitoring team should be identified once the mitigation measures have been adopted as
conditions of approval by the Chula Vista City Council. Managing the team would be the
responsibility of the Mitigation Monitor (MM). The monitoring activities would be
accomplished by the Environmental Monitors (EMs), Environmental Specialists (ESs), and the
MM. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula Vista, the
monitoring team should possess the following capabilities:
· Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in
working under trying field circumstances;
· Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special
features found in the project area;
· Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost-
effective mitigation options; and
· Excellent communication skills.
The responsibilities of the MM throughout the monitoring effort include the following:
· Implement and manage the monitoring program;
· Provide quality control for the site-development monitoring;
· Administrate and prepare daily logs, status reports, compliance reports, and the final
construction monitoring;
· Act as liaison between the City of Chula Vista and the applicant's contractors;
· Monitor on-site, day-to-day construction activities, including the direction of EMs and
ESs in the ùnderstanding of all permit conditions, site-specific project requirements,
construction schedules, and environmental quality control effort;
· Ensure contractor knowledge of and compliance with all appropriate permit conditions;
· Review all construction impact mitigation and, if need be, modify existing mitigation or
proposed additional mitigation;
· Have the authority to require correction of observed activities that violate project
environmental conditions or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions; and
· Maintain prompt and regular communication with the on-site EMs and ESs and personnel
responsible for contractor performance and permit compliance.
Chula Vista Crossings EIR 3984-01
August 2004 MMRP-2
7-?3
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
The primary role of the Environmental Monitors is to serve as an extension of the MM in
performing the quality control functions at the construction sites. Their responsibilities and
functions are to:
· Maintain a working knowledge of the Chula Vista Crossings' permit conditions, contract
documents, construction schedules and progress, and any special mitigation requirements
for his or her assigned construction area;
· Assist the MM and Chula Vista Crossings construction contractors in coordinating with
City ofChula Vista compliance activities;
· Observe construction activities for compliance with the City of Chula Vista permit
conditions; and
· Provide frequent verbal briefings to the MM and construction personnel, and assist the
MM as necessary in preparing status reports.
The primary role of the Environmental Specialists is to provide expertise when environmentally
sensitive issues occur throughout the development phases of project implementation and to
provide direction for mitigation.
PROGRAM PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved to
initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority of the participants.
Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed prior to any
project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring effects.
An effective reporting system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts. All parties
involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted and these
mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those that would
have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Chula Vista would
include the City of Chula Vista, the project applicant, the MM, and the construction crew
supervIsor. The MM would distribute to each Environmental Specialist and Environmental
Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks and the
appropriate time ftame that these mitigation measures are anticipated to be implemented.
In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring report
(MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form. Below the stated
mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the effectiveness of the
Chula Vista Crossings EIR 3984-01
August 2004 MMRP-3
7-?~
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with the MM following
the monitoring activity. The MM will then include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim
and final comprehensive construction report to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This
report will describe the major accomplishments of the monitoring program, summarize problems
encountered in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome
problems, and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition,
and if appropriate, each EM or ES will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the
MM. The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the
monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status reports, as detennined appropriate, will be generated
from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e.,
memoranda, telephone logs, and letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City of Chula
Vista to confinn the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on the
proj ecl.
ACTIONS IN CASE OF NONCOMPLIANCE
There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted
conditions of approval:
· Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment;
· Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action but does not result in work or task
delay; and
· Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or
task delay.
In each case, the MM would notifY the Chula Vista Crossings contractor and the City of Chula
Vista of the noncompliance, and an MMR would be filed with the MM on a daily basis.
There are a number of options the City of Chula Vista may use to enforce this program should
noncompliance continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include "stop
work" orders, fines and penalties (civil), restitution, pennit revocations, citations, and
injunctions. It is essential that all parties involved in the program understand the authority and
responsibility of the on-site monitors. Decisions regarding actions in case of noncompliance are
the responsibility of the City ofChula Vista.
Chula Vista Crossings EIR 3984-01
August 2004 MMRP·4
?-~;>
".-..
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table lists the proposed project mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts
necessary to ensure that the measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures
identified in the EIR are recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in
language appropriate for such conditions. In addition, once the Chula Vista Crossings Project
has been approved, and during various stages of implementation, the designated monitors, the
City of Chula Vista, and the applicant will further refine the mitigation measures.
Chula Vista Crossings EIR 3984-01
August 2004 MMRP-S
ì -ç. ~
~ '"
<> a.
..¡.
'" a:
0> ::;
M ::;
ro
<;;
:>
ro
"S
~
u
Õ
è
0
x x
x
x x
Q)~g>roÌ5Q)g>E~~õ :ß.8:-ê-g~~ i?§.8~õ~ ~~\'O.8
£I-'o:::>£-~~e .- .S I::: "5 ro -'15 EcU := 5} E
Õ -ã-o~~-§,--8'€ mo= Q)~ -:::::J= en 0 Q) - E e_
.=c:;L..u=fi .....oo -0";::: 3" ì:: ro ~c..êá57ð£
ffiy~ \'0"5 ro-:-~.gi:ij ¡:: "5 ro ~ Q) .- Q) (/) V)_ mo-Cij
OJ~.~'2¡ß-ª E'Ri -ogli' -- ~
c..~ VI g u æ "E ." - ~
\'0 e·õ Q) 0.;. "ô (l) "'0 8 8 () E"-æ :::::J 0:: a... ~~~~tB~ '" "
(/)CJ.a.ig'fi;ffiffi at;;; c::: c E ro -- ro..r= - to:: ~ 53
ro Q)..... "'" C)u c: - -8 Bg~!5ð)~ 0) 0 :¡;: U) a.-I::: '" !!J
-g£-5e~.8Eæ·ê "w .!:':: ..... § É ~
B 0 Q) 0-= ~ ~!3 ~ :&Õ:ou=æ~ ~£ou ..8 i!?CL
.5 - ro g'õ -g en :¡;: "I::: ~ E roro-.......>~ 0>Q)(/)2ë'_
::;Jc.b'õ-:2æ.g..... 0 " ~ c -~Eê&~ 0:
(/).gêc:§ê;æ ~ ~ Q)æõro>.cn ¡¡;
.8.~ ~ g g 5. g>~ æ Õ ~ £..c2io..2->. o~.88~m
..c::~ E 0u Bg~g>Q)ª¿ c ~
=æ8:~ ~ ro.~'õ~ >-~ ~ :!:: .- Q) 0 c
..c: ro _ E c:..c:: ro :::::J ~ Q)........~ Q) Q) c: Q) "t::.D rn 0 'W 0 c: "¡:¡
en ctiE:::::J¡ßõtnõu-a Q),sg:5j££ ~ "'0 .s::; ::J U) Q) "-e "'- " e
æ.~ii5£·§¡g~.8_~ffi gc06ffi_£ CI) = u"'O Q) E :::::J ~ 0)-'= U ..-
o..¡¡;æ-o·~e-<lJ'ffig -;n'W C'O"-.5 en 0 .~~~~f3~~ "Ë 06 :¡;: " 0
-0 -0 V>_........~..... c: <>
Q; ]2 (fi " N
g>Œo..~ Q) 5.§ii5 (:6(ü Q) æ ,-"'0 Q) IF> Q) .8ërnæU)·~8 '>
= C o>W..I:: rn 'U c: ~ û5 § _~.!:::! 13 § § en o...ii5ð ;;;
-ã.2>.5:E ....... .2:' 2 æ ro.g ð c: æ E'--="(ñ ~ "'~~a3~~g> . ~
"-~Eoo>'Q)~::::J '600·- (Uë"ë2tÜ"S;.2 "g o.-ro Ci.-o >.ï::: "3 '"
- 0) c:ro~xa>-oQ)rn 8"- c:: c::- a.. 0. a> E = c:: :::J .c ~
« ="~ 0 00 a><;;:,s roa:::~ E: Eoo,aa>$2 ro_"_~ro-o . u «
7 -(, ")
..-
~ ...
'" r:L
-<f '"
<0
'" ::;;
'" ::;;
= .......;>... -Q)......Q)-g ==OOQ)>'-.8~ Q)l!':I>'O><I)-g=tn<l)O) !?O)....
rn °cc2>ro~ oro--~~2 ~_Q)c~ '~-roc c~
~ croo·_._~_> C._ ....... ~._~_ Q) 'C o._§m
=§<I)- CQ)"- ~E-'~ ~ ~ rn >g _~ ~
<I) <I) _l!! ~ ~ <I) .9 §.. ~:o.£: 2:æ > Q) ~ 5. g> e ~ £!:! m"g O)Æ --l'-ª R} ~ ~
g> --IDf .5~ ~ ~~-c~e~<I) ·§rocO>~m.5Q) § ~O>s~
~ æ;> ~~~rn g~~~ ~g><I)o> ~~g~jro~.~gE .5~<I)c
g '[~Q).~5c~~ <I)~&~~~~~.§ ~§~~~Q)~g~c .I~·-i
~~>~O>'-Ero ~ O_~~~<I)~ UU)_ .~ Q)~-cc rn
E =roc~._~ Q)~5.c<l)co>rn~ ~ro<l)C~O ~üuo....ro Q)
<I) ro....= .... grnrn Q) bQ)cro C....<I)X ~o~ <I)
.2 uQ)co>~m.5= ~=Q) Q)<I)~E <I)<I)o~~~oQ)Q)~§_~
~ c~ -~._ <l)rt\ _Ec >. cO>~<I) C <I) >.
<I) ~-s~~ =E ~~So sB~= O£Q).~~u~Q)gcEQ)~
= O-~D E ~ücuU uu.... ._cc 0c~-
~ Q)B= Eg~~ ~~§uo>rn~ ÆQ)~OQro~£~u~~.... '"
> ::::)~Q).... co ·_:::)c::;) 2?ro.......;:) -ro :;:::..c:_OO ¡¡j
3 '~~:æ~~~b~ 2!~~oo~.~~~ 2~~.o§1~~·~[~~ .
,~~~~~~<I)~~ g~*~~~g.~ ,~.~~~c>ci~&~~U '"
"
UNQ) c».~~Q)c..c: ~Q)>'E~cow>'¿u>Q)....ro8c'-Q)-<I)2 ".
2~ uc Q)·G~<I)~~~~·-IDO·C=~.Q_~~~~~"~·~~~~~~ ~ID ê
C~~ID~OQID~ID'_ IDIDIDoo~Qrn """'0= 8 ~ID-_C'-CO ~ U '"
!?4 ID Q:lm ('OJ- ro 5} 2:ü ðm 0>15 ~ ~~~ g è5.~.æ 0 en 000 §? o"Ëü~.!!!. <Ii....... " '"
ID~~·~~~~.......~~~~~ê"£~~ð·S~~ID"""'~_~~ ~~~~ ~~c .. '"
~0~=~0~c3ID"""'=~'æE "- ~·CC~~W~ ID~0>~2.......~~§·c ;;: N
.~~~~~&~~8~~~~~~!~!~~8~jg~&~j~5~~<5&~ 1;;
" "
"5 '"
-" "
. . . . u «
7-ç. ~
0 '"
.. 0.
'" 0:
'" '"
'" '"
ro
'"
>
ro
S
~
U
Õ
"'"
i:}
X
x
g>~E~g>==i?~~§ g':V ~~-g.9 = ~ õ-tš£ >.,- 0>= -
~_~B~~-~-~ ~-g ~~ro.~ "§ .§ 23 ~ ¿g æ.13·2 ~ ð·§
~=øOØID>"~_c> c~ 0 ~ "'Õ -- ~-ð= -5
~~~~~3~ DE ~ID -Ug>~ ~ ~ as E <l) o ¡ jg Q)
~ ~ E'- :ß
~VJ·gc>..o~g><J)1DE ðj§1i5asffi'ëO ~- '" -g ~£-g
~ <5 '" ~
~J-E~~~m~~ VJU~æ ~~ .= ¡>¡ "- ~2ÆOZ.~
~Æ~~-VJ~~5§ '~B~~aC>ID E"O 5-~Q) ctI c §"= c
"E !!?"@£ ~~§Eg~
IDIDID~g>~O °E 0 BID~~a J~ 8 ~ ~
a.~~..o·c-Eau~ æ==~..o~£c ~ 0
üOOID-5£u~Wctl o~~~æ 0 <ü'" o ~ "0
C>~ ~"O ~ 'Ê~ Q)~ ffi ~
~c~5~'§~ ~o~~~G~ ~u ~g BS~ o . Q)'-
W - è:' .- t¡:; c:: Q) 0 Q) Q) rJ :;:, V) roO", E=-8'~¡:¡ '"
~~~~~B~ K~·~j~£~~~Æ '" '6'~Q) ~ ro - 0 ¡¡;
B~VJ~~~~~ ~g_c:~'2§ID:~ (/) - >. ro _ - ~- '"
;Sê=ª1 Q) s:: ~ ~~J!!-5§~ "
~B~_~e.~~o~o.ºcouou~ '"
~9~E~E£~ ~~g>U.QE -ro~ o ro -L:; ro-_ c
Õ '0,> -ä:-g - 8.~- .~
_ ~ ro
~~_·-~ou~§~ro._2.~~>..cQ)~ '" - ~ "- <I).....a> ..-
>"~·~>"UUQ)'-'- VJE-~u=ooro c: '- ~ ~roÉ '~'Ô"OJ!J~ e
s u~ .~..oUC>~E~ID·o,~~ffiQ) g~æ ¡>¡ ~ '" - ~ u ....
~ C>~.== >..c::.:::: 2.5 :;:'ï::: 0 et..Q__ Œ-e'== o ~ ~ S 0
o~~rnffi£~~oouVJ-o~~~ro::; ~ ~Q)>' ro"O ~~O g>ro 0
:;; æ -g ar __ Æ Q.) £ § ~ æ ~ B Q) -.0 "~ ì£ § ill ~ ~ ro ~ .0 '" " N
"''''- ~ð5:§ ..c:. tn tn"!:: ;;: <;;
~cEcOtn-.OUu-.OE<"~£<aQ~tn E~O 2Ôæ.sg>
'" a. '" a. u . ~
"i5...~£ E Q) ~ ro">.aï=~.2 -,; 0>
C ~ æ ~ '- :::) "' ~
. . E-- 8£~ u «
_ ro 0 « a_ en(/.)
7 -(, 'j
;; 0>
.,j. ri.
"' 0:
0> '"
'" '"
ro ro
-¡¡; -¡¡;
'> '>
ro ro
-s -s
~ ~
'-' '-'
õ õ
Z:' Z:'
(j (j
x x
x
o -="'Cc:......-c:16<t>-§......fJ)->.~C'lc: Q)Q) -Q)Q) -...:~ü
-fJ)Mc:'-~O ~O ~roro~ cB D~ UfJ)~C:OO
=-g-'=roCijE .S-.......o Ô:.ë-"æ ...... [Do=,gõü3
~ofJ)ro>_fJ)roæc:oC'l~€g1ij =_ ~œrouroro
16-§>gæ§E~~N£~~fJ)~.£G ~o -ID~~--
rn~g ~=a~E~~~~- C'I en- -'= fJ)Q) -'=
......~ro ~ roU øø ~~C:M æ v......wc:c:B......
~~i~"'C¡~EÆro~~s ~oID8 ê- ~~i82~~
~2 2iQID~ ~.§fJ)~ _g~<t>N M Uro"'C-c ~
gUæ~~~~&~~~~·[¥fJ)~£~ ~~ C'I.~~~.~ 8
"'C Ern 8-ill§QD '50~-'=~ E...... c:~fJ) fJ)~C
§ð~8O'8Q).~_iijg-~:rnfif- '~ø ~~ .~üm§,·~~~
C) ~ ro Õ g'''ï '- -5 ~ --"CI:B ~ j -g .£ ::)'x -g 'S §, Q) ëñ ~ '"
~ro!ê~~~ID~~liW~I~B.£ ge~[D'~~~~~a ¡;j
.~= 0E ......gID ::3..c:E '-gæ -g§: ~ ........=?rou
~c- $-,= £fJ)tim.~_E,-~16 ::)roEêüE~g .
"
ID..c:m......~ c '-£=<1> 0-0 °0._<1>'----- =
~roB£~b'~ID~~Æ- ~EB~~ £~~=E~efJ)~o .~
~.§~.£~gID£O§~~Õ=w= .~ ~§~§~~o.~'º e
E = ::t 0> .8 u ....... c: ro t¡::: Æ "§ c: 3: c: <I) ...... C'I ro!E c: U ...
~ .5 ~c:ox 8-~ ~ê IDem fJ)3~~~£ t1 0
O~C:~C:IDroOO~~ <.n--16C'1ID 0 D_ID~IDro::)roU~ 0
...... .Q,-o'-~~c:=~EC: .c:=~~ -mN~U_ ~ N
~ -~ti~O~ID roro¡ç~ ~ EuDm·c ~ ~ ;:; <;;
"Ë 8. i ~ ~..~ g ¡ß 2tg.~ ~~ a. ~ ~ g!E t .~ ð ~ ~ E ~~ m -ê § . ~
°a.E~E~ æ<.~~ßuE~-~~ ~E2œEc~IDÆE " 0>
-" ~
E~~.~8~.~~.~~ða~8~~8~~~~;~~ð~~æ~ u «
7-70
0 0
;it r:L
m 0:
M "
"
'" '" '" '"
1;5 1;5 1;5 1;5
5' 5' 5' 5'
'" '" '" '"
"3 "3 "3 "3
~ ~ ~ ~
Ü Ü Ü Ü
Õ Õ Õ Õ
Z> Z> Z> Z>
G G G G
x
x x x x
x
~ -gB o"ci g>cot'1?~ E1? rn 1ij€ oB2-ciEü 'E~ro~
c: co 0> tI) .~ '6 õ Q) ...... ~ ~ ...... "5 ......,z ...... >.~2 ~ ê:=·2::J
~ E·S:Q,)::J~ §-E....--e o ctI.~ .~'EQ.g..9'6 'EtI)~êû
In Q)"U 0) g C>rn ..... 0 -- >. CO ~~Q)u g>2~-o-o=æ a>§õz
.~ êi) ~ ê "- ..c: > c..~ "'0 CO == .... ~ 1'5 (5 '5 § ~..c: ~-o ë
B m O).~.~ Ole ~ ,-'~~.8 ~ 8-£; ëctlmuï:~~ rowß8,
..... -'=u.î"OtI)5§:ro.m¡ß en @<1>mID"-O _..0-0>
o "5ct1Q)B.srocnctl:e-2t ..9 ~ ¡ß _:5..c:..o 2:!: 0 _ ~i5
ï:: o~U)'> ....-c3:Q)¡ßo "_ ro Q)""" c: Q) c: VJ 1'õ
~ ~ ro1?~.æ.E ~Q) g-~(i) ~ _"§; a.>Q)co"'Oou).~..c:..c:c:
c: ro= Q)ctlEOQ)EBa.VJ:=:ro
Q) 0 Q) ...... ro en.... Q) ]!E~~ £;;'~¡ßro1358~3:(/)
:s! §g-E"'ê~~g>~~Q)-5
> --woê:c:ü'O"(ijc..c:- Q)E ro o___O.c::::ro ( )
.... .... c: . -..c:..c: '- ro g> In ...... E c:: '"
~ ê<1>'::::8~(l)'5~B-~ (l)0o(/)"O U::J..c. Q)"§ o..c: ¡¡;
C:B=,-C:Q)Ø~o--"" =-
f1) Q)£15 Q)~£..o Q)~.8.8 ~5~~~~~~~§~~§~~~ "
..c ðJ-c::g>_orn£ro Q) "
=vi::J°2c::ñ;......c -o"'C..c: o cJ) E c: Q) 0 Q) .... - c: .~
~[ß-c:: VJ°::J..c:_-æQ)ro~.-..c:
m........ c:: rn '-..c: .......... c: r::""'- ..c:....~8S'6Ec:.......Q)a.8u)õooE "
-55 "§ "Ë § ~ {5 CI) ~ ,.¿ ~ ro co -g -- - 0_.... - ::J e
U)Q)8:e-ê-ë-EE-2:VJ(1J g>e>D ~ Ô'ö 0 ro~ ~ '~-á.:.§ (/) iE u "
. 0
"EQ........o=:¡oroEij)o.Qõln £.§~ ctI'8>È~ m:..e..E u).~ oo~ 0
Q) c;; a5 a..tlJëg-g a.. I/) 00- § " N
~ ~ [; E ü ~ 2: I/) O>~ ~ ~ ~ § -5 ~ ~ £ ~ E ~ ~ :ß ~ '* ~ .§ ::; :; ;¡
Q) =1/)c;;otIJoü._'-c;; ~ì::' .
'=-·5 '-$ ~ Q) ro tIJ 5:..c:..-.......-o rotIJti:i'"l/)oü:ßI/)'E'5~ ro 0 ~
;:)-ea..U).-üQ)c;;-oU)::Q c;; a.~§.g~1ijg{~át5~~ 'õ¥ ., 0>
ª"õ {!. ~~-R~~~'§ß1š.2 ~ ~
« :.;:::: c: ~ a...c: ro::= .¡;) ro Q... <0= .5: t.> I U «
)-7/
~
C>
... ri.
'" a::
'"
"' :<
:<
~~~§ø~w~~£~~rn~~£§~~=~ffi~~gü~ê ~
'"
~~g ~_c_~ m--~'-B~ro~~~~-~o.£-ro "
çQ):;:)Q)3. 0... uc::roC:a..U:;:) .......u~::Jc: ~o - 13
~~~-a ~z ~~Q)üQ)~ro -~ ç oroo~õo...
~ ~o ~ ~-ro oE ~ & ro 00... '"
~~ o...GE~Q)~~S0~~~~~ ~Qg~ê~~~~2§ <t
~_ -we £t_ w~a a~ ~ ü_ouQ)Q)Q)ç~
~~§êD~~-æ~~ww~jE~§~oo~~mi£ðE~~.~ ê'
E =2~uuB 2ë~~~o...Q) ~E~Q)=_ro~_~Q)=Q) '"
8~Wro_~ro çOz~~cE=2-·2~3.i::J=o~~~E E
~aZ wE _=u ~oo.QB2~ero ~E~3.~~g~ü "
=.~~Q)E=Çro20 Q)uuEcoocë~~-ü~ --0 Wrn :;r
ro~o...~20.Qic:: æ~.~C:Q)Q) ogUmQo ~oo ~~c c
~ro -oo~~~Q)~U-Oro>Eo...y ~~E~oo_oo~Q)~·R '"
00....... ~ -:::JE- - Q) 8 -ro~_£ - ::< '"
æ_·5w :::JQQ)ß8-_~~E&Uç ~ ~i·ü "§- w ¡¡;
....... ro c~ -z Q)W"S 0 &0 ~ 0.._ gu
~oo뀧2-s'S æ~~ßcu~ ~.~~£ ~=~~Bo'i 115 ·
=§~o=~~.~gro~::J~<gQ)w ="'0_ ~.~roQrouŒE " .. '"
<D~ c
ü= -ro C>-Q) :::J£ U~CO~ :::J Q) :::J .~
Q~§~.5~ro æ~Q)E§~ Q)~ ~~_~goo£~~cz '5 ·
ro:::J_ E ro- .......a- =£ u --roœê ro e
~,-oo._-u_o=roroo~o...=~ c o~ o-~ ~ = cr
> - C~ ro~~-u ~ ~Ug__o_·-oonc c " U ..
~~cOOW2ro~ ~ ØW2~ croEc cc- ~ ~ro .§ ~ :3 0
._øwroøi u~ooøð~~~E ~cc.Q~~Øø~ID~ ~ 0
o ~ · N
e~ ~~E~_oEroU2g~ê~üg~ÕIDü~~~Si~~ = '" '>
üßoo~~~~o~~~c~U ~E~i-~~g~~~~~~~ 2-¡;;- · 1ñ
~1~u·5ti~3~ ·æ§~êg.~~>~~o~c~~~~c3 Q. =>
,,::< ., '"
ftU52-ð ~'ÔG ~ftÆ~æ'§a 8~ 8 *-~ 8-ffi~~ ft~ gffiŒ~ =<D .c =>
f- _ u «
7-7.2
;; N
.,¡. ri
ro 0::
'"
'" :;;
:;;
~~ ~~~2 _~~~~~ æ~ ê~ ~~~~~~_æ~ .~§
3::( ) -->..c::COv ·->..cO ::J.8 ft -- C·CQ)Q)¡:::<n<t:::·_
<na ~o~·~E~o~c~ J::.~ ~ _ ~=e::Jc~roæro~
ro~ ~ ECl> ~<n 0 u~ Me ~<n( )'~~~a Æro~~
~<n ro'õ~~~ro'ô&S-c ~o u= J::.IDU ~~( )æu~C~
coÆ ~>~ eB> ~~ ...... ern <nTI~<n ::J~·~EO>ro§.
¡ë _C'C ~o..=roU) m(¡) ~~ ..c::J9 ø-g~tI)~ro-gon::~-g
w ~oo>..c::çrooro( )~ ::Ju IV} <n~~.5ro~-o..2ro.ê~~
roO> ..c::-c_.Q~- <n..c:: g~ u ~~oro .yQ <n<n::Ja::J
~~ ~Q5i5~~:ßQ)£8.cn .£.£ § 1-....~§~¡g>~-g'6oa.ª"
c 0 Q)"E 3: rJ) V)"'O"E :::J E.!: Q) U .". 8. ü ~ :g ro V) Q)
~- ~O....~~·60E§£ -( )§~E ..-gS w~roj~-g~ ~
~~ ~cRQ~~c u"§ §~=~8 f$ ·-3::o..o~~oKæ '"
u -- C ( )'-OO _._=ro~ >~~""..c::~ --~o3::
..~ ~~££g~~~_2-g~:::J.~&£ ~8~~Sæ3i~~i~<n ¡¡¡
~c ~ê 2(¡)<ê ~~~~Broeæ Q 5~W~~e....§ ~ ~
'"
c» ïij o.......s::::. 0 ...... E Q) 0..- ....... 0 e> c; Q) ro'~ 0') Q.. ã.. .a - f,/) -ª
e- ..'~ -~a~'æ' ( )..c<~§Uo b·-....u~.5£ Q)ro-cro
~§ ~<n§E""œ<n§<n~= ~u .... ~"'O ....§~<ne3::ID~ß~ ~
y .~~=( )Ob~·_Q) co ~oQ) wUm ~~<n>- e
a~~~K~~~iK~~~~~.~~i~~~~~·~~m~tB~S~~ u ...
:3 0
~~~t ~c~~ ~~_Ø-~2~u.~~EÆEu~~b_~~~E 0
~E~~~~E~æ~~~~~~8&ò~~~888~~~~~B~88 ~ N
;; ûi
. "
"3 '"
~ "
. . . . . . . . u «
7-73
c; "'
.. "-
'" '"
'"
"' ::;
::;
.¡; ~o....s ~£-5~ ffi"ffi 160 "'= n; ~.!:ü g> ~.sg'
!'! :2~ -æ;::Jo u..c ..c.:;: £.ê = _ ..m -Ë ï'i. w -g "§
;::;;£D-a æl=:EE fI) (/)0.. ~ ~
-", ::: Æ E ëi~ V).... ~.!: (/) ~ .S t: ~ ~~8 ~ gã>"O
cr
!'! ~..... OJ ro,£ c~ cO.) 8. '" U)~.9 -0 1=:815
"
2......0 -0 ;:)"'0 ·-....E ~ '" ~
!'! "U)@(;) ~æ~~ ....ê ~roQ) . .0'.... f/) 1=:;:) C
." ,Æc::: ¥ 5..g '[.g ~ 2
~ Q) Q) - ~g 2? 0 ~Ví =0) Ci. me. fl)g -=5
ë: £;ro£ g>aøro ~ü)r.ñõª"~ ~ ~
-8 .;:: ë c cñ=$ -o-~3:~
'" ro æ O"J .'g:.6~.9 ?;..ê.~e ~.~ -- '"
E '" OJ.Q ~õ3rciæ-g"ð..f!!9
ro .S ~ ID ~ '§ .ê Q5 <J)~;g Q) -g-6 U)£ Et3
'" ~ Coo Q) -~ ~
J; 2~ G.~·-..D tI:I-e ~·§ß-E~ E "-'" 0>- 0.) 0).2 (ij 0> ro u $ 0
::; ~ "'00 --aæ,-.s§,.9~:o '"
~ ærnm~~.9~O¿?ö.æ-o jgo mW ~ ~ ~ Q) c.. ~ ~"¡;j VI E ¡¡¡
'" Q)Q)'-ro __ceco c§a>_ü5 t: ~ 8 U)Æ.sæ~.g:¡ -6~u) ~
-¡¡; - ."
'" ffi :; ~ õ -ê ffi "§ .- ~ ~ : 2 ~ .9 1? o ~ '" cñ~l!!:>. ro >"E '"
~ 'Eû5 - ~ "
0) ¡::; $!. Q) ;:) U 0 Æ 0 c ð (t ro .S ~ ~ -~ g>§8ð*'S'ª~~~ .¡¡;
2 ::t=ro~£V).õ-w,eà5~'q)-g.æQ)g> 88-0 ~-5 ~
-¡¡; .J:I_ ........ü Q) 2
'" g~ ro~ro'§~c..a..Dro ~.~ 02 0> 0 _~.91?g132:ro.9Q; u ""
~ 2 S~Q).Q (/) 0>8..2 Q)~ u 1!!B~ N~ ~ - ~Q)""'-8gv;g,-£ t1 0
-,. 1S..==C:ro- ël)E'_..2Q)U~ ~ '- ~ "§ ~ ro u OJ..c c:....... (1) 1'1:1 0
.Q ~rJ.M6æ~e~§~8~~:å.8 3 ~ Q) o ~ ð-õ.~~4:~8E~~ ;; N
= '" u;
:2 o E"'i5.. .E= .
UJ"'E ~ ~
'" >-- '" ." "3 0>
= . . = 0 ID = '" '" ~
f- . . «Z.Q f-.Q . . . u «
7-7i
--.-
c; ...
.;. rL
"' '"
'"
M ::¡;
::¡;
'" '" '"
'" '" '"
:> :> :>
'" '" '"
" " "
~ ~ ~
U U U
Õ Õ Õ
",. ",. ",.
G <3 <3
x x
x x x
~-gÕ ~ ~~E-g·~E~~E E-g~~§Æ~~ E~~§E~I
- '" ª ß-2~~'a~ ø Bm~ '--i~ ~2- 2~c
~ojß T; ._~~oc~oøE - Œ ~-ro I .___~ 'wro
~~~~~o~æ~ ~á ~Eo 9 ~~ro~~~-
tf) 1:5 ~ .."! ro~~~E æ-~ ro~cro ØoE~roOE2 cE
~"'~ e Øcco~æsÇ~ øØ'ffi~Æ~-æ~IDuID~~ 2
ro..Þ a..
- ~ £'~~ø~.S-g~O 5~~'~~~'c_£~K~ 1:5=
Cl. 0 _ .
cUmB ~ID_~Æ~2 c ~g ~ ¡IDw-g~'~'S~£2Æ
0_ = =m~ro~'~ID=O = c 'Cl.~Cro~IDgc·~OO
=ro.....u ~ E~~~§ID~Æ~ §êoü~eo~cE~ 5 ~~
r3 æ g .s 0 ~W~IDO t IDIDc~~a.. Cã0ID_CãD~~_
:;:) C..c U') ,ñ roc£~U')~~o .Cl.Ero2g cu=a.-c~c~o
16IDcnc: e 0)-8 ......._CLc:a. C7)Q)·-a.-E·- !!!cnCCJ)Q,)C)>-
_<.958 " c~ Etf)b_:;:)U')EcQ)~ mID U')cQ)·_~·_-c '"
--mID ID-uBcro-- ..... ID --EW WWo
g1?.c-g " ~..cU')e~u-_~-~~E~Q)~c..cæ~Q)uQ)~ 'æ ¡¡;
~-- " '3U')m-~ EU')~"S _D3·Q- ·sæe..c c'~ "
8 >--0 ~ > D>- ""'c mIDtf)>-Dc~ ~ Q)DCJ)ro~Q)-e '"
" _'æ~I~Q)>-3~CL_ro -g~ID-g..c_m.,þ D~a.. "
-",,~ O-._>-..co>..... 0 U) 3..c(t)c"""O _ .~
§"Uë~ :;; Bro~Œ(f)-e-g0~~B·~rotf)= '-~8~3~~ ~ 0
= 8. Q) 0.. ~ ~*:.5~c~8~8~E ~~ro~EØ~g~I~~~ U ...
.2oEo <;¡
8.~~~ ~~~~~"-~m-ID~~ro~~_5æ~!~EID>m ¿ ¡¡ 0
" 0
" =b~ E~EID~s_-~æ D=~~'CID_O N
" E " ._C~ ¿~ID ~~'-CUc ~-~ "-_u~~ro~ '>
<t: ~"_"O !!' 989§E~>~~ügID2~~ ~~~g~æü~ ~ ;¡
" ~- - ro~!2-~ro~-ü).!.-:guero:~_ IDc~~ . ~
> O~~ID~_~ _ O~c ~~.rouuO~~·_·-IDID ""3 '"
" æ~ð~~"~~~~~æ~82~~~~Qæ~~~~~~ .c ~
. U) u «
7- 7õ
~ '"
9 ri.
"
ro C<
æ
M ::;;
::;;
'"
';¡;
:>
'"
"5
~
<.>
'5
Þ
U
x
B æ~£rl·5~u~~~~~~~~~~~ê~~¿·~€~~ 0-
~ :ß
Q; ~i5.£ -m~=ü~~ro~=~~~o2-g~2~~ro~ ::;.0
~ Q)æ..ce~-s: oOQ)"-:;'ro<J).-ocor:::::t::Q)Q)g>êQ)@C::~_c a.",
in ~E~~=~~g>~~~2æ~~~*~~~·æg~~·~u~~ ~
go§: i...:
~ ~r::::Q)Q)Bæro'~~ .~~~~~5·ffiêg~~æ~~;mro~ o ~
~~ ðpE<J).~~~~~<J)_Q)uS~~EQ-<J) .u<J) -oo~._ -g'õ§
~§§u~ro<J)~~~~i.~·~U m<J)u2<J)8~~Q)2<J)
~ ¡:; ~gu~-ðQ)~;~E~-~~~u~2æ&~~Bð~<J)æ ~~=
'" > Q)~<Q)~3S~~<J)2r::::~~~~æer::::~<J)E~~3~g>6 ~S.ê
:2 ï:::: - ~
'0'" ~ as-Q)cID o~Q)~E--Q) ~Bo~o~<J)~~._<J) ts.§ ~
B"g -co w>oE ~Q)~r:::: ~r:::: ~ ~<J)
~-~~ g<J)o~.~~;.~uj~.~~B;~~Q)~-·~~R "'õ~ '"
à![ _0 u.SroQ)<J) _ Q)<J)ro--u~ror::::r::::roO_N~~ Q) Ë" 2 1= ¡¡¡
D<J)roQ)ro_M~oo~~~~~.§~Q)<J)roOQ·æ&_&Q)~..c .- i:i) ro
X~r::::~~Ua<J)õ~ Q) -r::::<J)<J)r::::~N<J) o<J)~~u ~~ "
~ '" ~ ~ .- Q) _ --; (I) ~ iñ .5 U ""O_.E g 1? "8 ê '* á1 0;) ~ Q) - OJ: u ~ e 8 ~ '"
"'= c
='5 ~ <1> ~ 1? 0 s cnQ; ro -t: o>fiS w :: N <5 ïi) °æ Q) _ 5. ~ "@ £ 0 1i5 ::: ï:: 0) E -~
v..,,- r:::: wcoc -0=0 -~E-ro ~-~ 8.§ e e
~ - 0Q)~r::::OJ~~£~~'2q@~-~ ~ Ea~~'Sroc~
.- ~ 5 roc~ t o~·_~...... ...... crQo £i5§ u ..,.
- '" C'.I u..c::'-Ero~2iUN<D;:] Q) _v.lUu_ CO)Q) -..::; ~ 0
"5'" ~_.~"""C QC æ ·cr ~~Ecco~roc~~ro_ 0
~ - ~~~~~c~~oWro~~~8~Eroro~~v.I~Q)~~~ ~ u N
'"~ - ~ '" :>
-5 c-~~·i·Q-~~O)Qcw~ ~ ~~æiv.lro~Q)E "'0- ;¡¡
ow~~ ~ot~c·ßoQ)20)_~ . c Q)Q~£ ~ ~._~
'" 0 - ~ '" . ~
- ~ ._~- Q)~=-_·-uu.~ ._Q)~.- C _ Q)_ Ov.l::;; -; 0>
~ '" ~~romQ)g=g=·~§~ro~c~~EQ)~.~·~Q)~5~~ -- '"
~ E > ~ ~
~5 ~~~Æ~-gQ~æ~~w~~~w~Bwa~ߧ~·i~~ - '" '" u «
7-7(,
~ '"
o
oJ '
~ &:
M ::¡¡
::¡¡
'"
;;;
>
'"
"
=
U
Õ
~
<3
x
x
rn § ~ ~ ø £ ~~ ~ Õ~ ~~ g 2& 2 ~~
E ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~~ ~'§ _ ~ ~~
w ~ c ~ ~ ~ _.~ ~ ~'5 rn~ ~ ~ a~-
~ V) ~ 8.. -0 cn'Ë TI 1J) ..c Æ ~ ~. ~. T ~
C _ I '- _ - .- C _0 -~o~ W XID
o 8 .~ Q) 0 """'0 ::J -- ro:;: .o.J.r= Q) c Q)=
..... ~ ª - 1 ffiB ~ ~~ cO -oE~~ 2 2~
B Q) g -0 ~~ m ~~~..c c~ m _
c: 0) rn '- ro .......c ro c..;:J c:: CD ro N m Q) x ._ 0,-
rn § c en 2 ~ ~'æ ....."'0 ~g "'Oce o~£o
e ~ g ....0 ~ ro .r=UJ8. 00 Q) E-o ~æ·Q_ ~roøoo
;:J E ü -0 ~ Q) <..)000 ~_Q)~
~ , ~ ~ en §~~ g 8..S ~~ ~~'~E~ gi§ro
-0 - 00 0 C --000.00 '- - 00"" e 0 E-@ ~
w~~ § ~ 'Ë~~~Ero Eæ TI"'O 2~Q)u .~c..~..c m
:::>15'5 u :::J "";:::(1)- ro>'"E aID 2ro wc 0) ~·S=
g-U)'õ ~ Ev.;~~3õ: Q) ~æ -.8 'U'?;v.;.!: 'cg32g> g>,.
~!c.. ~ ~ §.~§E,-·~.i ~œ.3Q) =~~~.. ~~§'§ .&
~ a. ..::: '''¡::;. = c;r 0>,2 CT - E .52 c ro @ 0 r.I) ..c a. Q) tf)"'O VJ
:::Jtf)~Ea .bEgQ)Q)~- ~~ ~~2~= tf)BXE~ ~.~ê e
§:oQ)Æ~SQ)·~-o£reQ)~-oa.~grou~o. -~Q)Q)TI g"'Og~. U ~
:@-KQ)2~K·-I~~~VJ.~ ~ø~g~~.~ ~:::J_~.5 ~Æ~2~ B g
-roQ)·5Q)UQ)·5Q)~-~..cro~~=Q)a.ê>..cs We VJ Ctf)~~O .~ N
~Ctf)c;rVJ~VJgU)o~'ËS@~roOtf)~oooro ~~~~~ ~~m·ê~ >-
--.Jro::>Q)::>o.::>::>o. cnro_CLa.::J_uO.S.c ~>a.ro~ 0....:::] ..:g ~
wro·3.~ro ~ æ
. . . . . .. .. . 0 § LÍfE ~ .. . ð ~
7-77
;; '"-
;j; ci.
'" 0::
co 2
2
ro ro ro ro
-¡¡; 1ñ 1ñ -¡¡;
'> '> '> '>
ro ro ro ro
"5 "5 "5 "5
= = = =
U U U U
Õ Õ Õ Õ
þ þ þ Þ
G G G G
x
x x x x x
~.~~;g ~~~~~ ig~~~g~~~~ro~~¡~ Q) II) m Q)
= -- -=
~~~ ~ _.s~~~ ·~~SU~~.5roB~g _EI ....... 15'~ .......
_c$oo ~æ Q)ro ~~ê~ ~ê~,-uQ)w=Q) E -" E
iñrom·: rocOtl).J:: 0.. 0'- E~CJ)"""'?~Ec 0$11.1.0
--~~ ~w""" Q) ~~Q)'-Q)-~a 0 -:= ro c..u
~O~$U ~~B ~~~tI)cgæ~tI)§ªMQ)~'~ ~ E od!~
$~Q)ro@ -þ~~ .............uüro~Utl)~ ......._Q)w~ O>=.S ro
ro$~- ¿8-- Q)~ - wctl Q)tI)~~-CO_
~ro~ro~o~ü~~~ 2~roo..tI)DroOõo8_ g~ ên~"ª~
s:a. .=roQ)....... ro "êc.. E~ _'-..... c.~(I)Q)
....... '-§_S~5_&c.. 1-·-£æ~U2~8£5~ ro= '"
~~·gEm~Q) °Æ~ &g~~~~~ti~~E ro~ ;g=ro~
.D......$~~tI)£2_0 æ õ£~-ü¿ c..ëroõ~æ ffi :; Õ
~O.5ro 5_øic2 c~roo ~·cc.. Ema> .J::~ ~ " Q)
tl)Q)Q)_ë'=O~Ero~ ~·=~o~_~~ =~£§Uoo -- u '"
=£rororn~c:v;O)U)o- ·3ð--.......gc:O..&:: ~8:c:.-EQ)...... .~ =g æ ¡¡;
rogð-£i~g§&õ~ .D~ëi&~~~E~ro·-&£Q - ro ~ .
.J:: Q) om ro _ Q) =(1)'- ......u u §..r::::. ~ '"
tl)tI)u~~-~E~~ oQ)E~~R>Q)Q).5W§ Be: ~~g.... "
~ro5 roo~tI)UQ) ~Dc..~Ero§~~"""~_~~ro '¡?¡
~~~~Æ~~~§~~~ffi~j~Q)~æ'~~i~j .~ :æ ~o2 2
ro cJ)"t:: ro U .,.
OC(I)........ Q).J::........... o:::J..c:Q) ~1--'1>w Q)ro...... en _0- VJ ~ 0
~Q)ffiQ)6E..c:VJQ~~~~VJo~~ Q) £~g 0'1> . ~ 0
QE "U Q)-'_' c; ~._-' u=.l.L c_ -'~~c ::: ('oj
mIDO ro..c:ocQ)ro·~Q)ocm oVJa> ~~ (j)VJ2ro ;;
ð~~~=-'~5""'~~-B~Q)Q~..c:Q) ~, -e"Qæ5 . 0
ID~~~~~~ß~IQ).~~~~5~~~55 ~* o·~ t:: ro '3 C>
-" 0
~.ê~~c.~&~£~5""'æ~~~~æ~~9E2~ E a.~l? u <l
7-7Y
~ '"
00
;i r:i.
'" '"
'" ::;
::;
ro '"
'" ~
>= >=
ro ro
-s -s
"" ""
u u
Õ Õ
z,- z,-
G G
x x
x x
~~~w~ ~3~~Õ~~~~~Õ~ ø~§~~E~~~~~õ~~
-~~§rn ~0W~ B~rorn ê 5~=o~~ B_roro ê~
E~= wg¿~m=ro~~wro.- ororoEro--rou~IDro._ro
~=~ro~ 0 - IDro~_~-!E ~.~ro~e~~2ID-~E~
~ID'-~~ ~~~~~~ ID~~roro ~U~N~~~DID~ßroro~
D=_O ID~~= ro~~w E _ ro ~wro~cw E.w
_ro~~ E~~ w-œrooIDB 0& ~~ -œrornwgC
~O~ ·_~W EUID=~_~c~ =o&:::" o~~Æ_~c~
~ -= VJ tn -0 f6 U ~ § ~,£; ~ :g ro - ~ ...... = 0 Q.'- lfi -"ê 'E '6 :g ro - ~ --- '=
.~ro"'5 OEG.O U)I:;:" EW~'xl::ë""'O _-o<¡:::oa>U)ew16'xt::c:
>~Drn-Q) ~ro E UðQ)'-~~IDQ)Q)~E~ üðQ)'-~Æ
~tn~Ec ~bO~~¿roa.E£œQ)~~~~~ ~.roa.E£mID~
c ........ =0 0 ro .... c I-.~ 3: 0 0>_ ( )'- C ::J Q) Q..- c: 0"_ _ C 0>_ (]) -- C :::I _
Q)~Sc=~-B ~ =.50....~~c-tn~ roOo.50....~~c~
D~~~.~E~§~~~ê~I~BE~*o~~ro~~~~IBBE~§ '"
=~"'C ~§.!u~E~·Ëlfi~~i~8~-i. _ ~.5lfi~~~~8ro ¡¡j
ro cro~'æ "'CÜtn-S~-~E =2SE16ID~ro~~-~~ = ~
""
~~ro~""eBID£::J~cE16tno roQ)ro.~.~ð=IDEE"'Ctno ro .~
U Q)roQ) NWD 8 tn8 '~~O)::J::JDro£O IDtn8'£
c£_~ ~=>~ 00__ ~~ ~~gro·B- ro__ ~~~
~rou~ ro ~~ ~ro·5roc C·-w u~ro·5roc u 0
~~mE c~g~~.~w~~~c.Q~oE~~ &~ ~~~c~~ro~ U .,.
mOO= ~~o-~ro~u~~~=§·5~oo~~~~ê~~~=§·5~§ " 00
2~~ro2-~w=~~~_uo~oou-~·- ~2~_~o~oo ~ 0
~ N
E·æw~~ro~ ~~ -w-ro~g~~~BoowOOoo~ -ro~~~ ~ '>
~~o ~WroOO ~ro- ~w~w øo_~rowro- ~Ø~ID - <;;
ro~ ~~ ~ wo~ro - 00 _~~ ._~. ._gro. 00 _ c M
uoo~wE~>~~~c>wEo Ooo~EOooC~ >WEo OooW "
=~~ro~ oOC~cwro~-~~ro~ooooroø>~ro~._~roro~o '3 0>
~~ ~o~ E~roo-ooowooo~> - w~~~UWWooo~>C -" "
~~o ~-cØ~~E&xc~·-oEwc~-EEo~xc~·-oEwO U «:
roro_~~oo_~~~ wo_~_.___roo ro=øo_~_.__o
1-71
~ '"
d..
'" 0:
'" :;
:;
"*:ê1ij£;C
S2~'~':
15 Q).... cJ) 0
.b~~"'EQ)
c ;: Q) U
8~o~æ.~
~'õ'~'3 ffi ~
~Q.Q)g5..o
=' Q) a..... ro c
,:£~y)Eï5
$-0 m"'Cc
~-g~8æ~
_ 3:e»C'U
ê.9 ¡;fa:::.&::: c::
0<1,)= cO
.- "0 Q) 'ª $
ar"ü ê -E § "¡¡¡
a::~-g..cEæ
Q).--. ro;'= -0 '"
;;m-3.9æ ¡¡¡
-cO( ) - "
"Sa.2:-à:ü~ "
~~t5E2i~ c
U)a:::rogv>o ".
_.£ ~.ê ê
u ...
" 0
" 0
:;: N
. ;;
'3 ~
7-1'0 .c '"
U ~
ATTACHMENT 4
Ree Minutes -2- June 7. 2004
NEW BUSINESS
1. EIR-04-03 - Chula Vista Crossings, 4501 Main Street
Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi (Environmental Review Coordinator) stated that staff will
record the Commissioners comments on a wall graphic, which can be used by the
Commission to formulate their recommendation motion(s). The minutes will reflect
that the Commission discussed the draft EIR but will not contain every individual
comment made by the Commissioners. Only those comments, which are included as
part of a motion will be included in the minutes. If an individual Commissioner wishes
to provide a comment(s) to the Planning Commission and City Council, which is not
part of the RCC comments, they may submit an individual comment letter on the
draft EIR, which will be included in the final EIR.
Mr. Benjamin Guerrero (Environmental Projects Manager) presented the Chula Vista
Crossings Environmental Impact Report.
Staff Recommendation: That the RCC finds the EIR adequate according to CEQA.
Ms. Ponseggi indicated that the Planning Commission would be holding their public
hearing on July 7,2004 to close the public review period.
Chair Thomas asked if any members of the public wished to provide any comments
to the RCC?
Ms. Laura Hunter (Environmental Health Coalition, 1717 Kettner Blvd., Suite 100,
San Diego, CA 92101) expressed her desire to provide comments to the
Commission on behalf of the Environmental Health Coalition. The first issue she
discussed was the proposed storm water management program. She stated that the
EIR must clearly analyze the potential impacts and identify the mitigation measures
that are necessary to address those impacts. She stated that infiltration is one of the
things that need to be looked at. Mr. Guerrero pointed out that there may be some
infiltration areas incorporated into the project, but that none have been identified at
this time. She stated that adequately treating storm water runoff depends on what
pollutants you are trying to address, how you are going to get at them, who is going
to pay for the O&M, and an analysis of whether or not it is going to work. She also
stated that since the runoff from the adjacent Pacific Bell site will also be treated on-
site that their runoff needs to be characterized. She encouraged the RCC to press
for the preparation of the storm water management plan up front, that it be as
detailed as possible, and that it be very clear and specific about what is required.
The second issue she discussed was the presence of sandblast grit on-site. She
stated that the EIR is missing an environmentally superior alternative and suggested
that the removal of the sandblast grit be included as part of that alternative.
7-- g /
Ree Minutes - 3- June 7. 2004
The third issue she discussed was regulatory due diligence. She indicated that this
site has a very long regulatory history. She encouraged the RCC to strongly
recommend that the City go back to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
get them to look at this site again. She indicated that the plan for protecting workers
and neighbors from potential exposure to hazardous materials is a real concern. She
expressed that she is not confident that the City has the full picture of the sites'
history.
The final issue she discussed was the protection of biological resources. She
suggested that an alternative should consider 100% protection of on-site MSCP
Preserve land. She stated that she would also like to see an additional buffer area
added for the planned trail through the site. She stated that she did not see a
discussion of the habitat restoration mentioned in Mr. Guerrero's presentation in the
draft EIR.
Ms. Hunter submitted a formal comment letter on the draft EIR From the
Environmental Health Coalition.
The Commissioners then discussed adequacy of the draft EIR.
Commissioner Means left the meeting at 6:07 p.m.
MSC (Jasek/Diaz) that the RCC finds Draft EIR-04-03 to be adequate and to
submit the comments contained in Attachment 1 as formal RCC comments on
the Draft EIR.
A motion to amend the motion was presented by Vice-Chair Reid to delete
the comment regarding water quality sampling and monitoring during
construction and beyond as it is well beyond the scope and responsibility of
this project. The maker and second of the motion accepted the
amendment.
Vote: (6-0-0-1) with Means absent.
Ms. Ponseggi asked the Commissioners how they felt about the new procedure for
recording the Commission's comments on a draft EIR. By common consent, the
Commissioners agreed that it worked well.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR COMMENTS
Ms. Ponseggi stated that the Commissioners would no longer receive EIR technical
appendices together with draft EIRs. However, she stated that after receiving draft
EIRs, Commissioners may contact the project manager to obtain copies of any technical
appendices that they would like to review. Chair Thomas requested that she continue to
receive the full set of technical appendices for draft EIRs.
7-,?;L
ATTACHMENT 1
RCC Consensus Comments on The Crossings Draft EIR
· Assess the adequacy of the proposed vertical fill buffer between building pads and
groundwater to protect groundwater quality, based upon current and historical
data regarding on-site contaminants and potential water quality impacts associated
with the long-term operation of the project.
· Address the potential for contaminants to be released through the crushing of
concrete debris present in the undocumented fill on-site.
· The hazardous materials consultant should verify that all contaminants potentially
occurring on-site, including chromium and organics, have been tested for and test
for any that have not been tested for.
· Decomposition, reactivity, and water solubility processes associated with
sandblast grit and volatile organic compounds present on-site should be addressed
with respect to potential long-term impacts to the Otay River.
· An adequate buffer area should be provided between the project development area
and the Otay River to allow site runoff to percolate prior to entering the Otay
River. Appropriate plant species capable of absorbing contaminants should be
planted within the buffer area, including canopy type trees; no palm trees should
be planted.
· A public access easement from Main Street to the Otay Valley Regional Park
should be provided on-site, including a staging area with an information kiosk and
parking if possible.
· Identify where contaminated soils will be disposed of in the event any needs to be
exported from the site as well as where fill soils will be obtained from in the event
any needs to be imported to the site.
· Appropriate biological experts should be consulted prior to and during
construction as needed to adequately address potentially significant indirect
impacts to sensitive biological resources.
· Incorporate the requirements of an approved solid waste management plan into
the project.
· Verify the accuracy of the mapping of the La Nacion and Rose Canyon faults in
the project vicinity.
· Address the timing of construction ofthe second left-turn lane at the I-8051Main
Street southbound off-ramp identified as a mitigation measure for cumulative
traffic impacts.
7-ð"3
ATTACHMENT 5
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. Public Services Building
Wednesday, July 7,2004 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALU MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present: Madrid, O'Neill, Hall, Hom, Felber
Absent: Castaneda, Cortes
Staff Present: John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Ben Guerrero, Environmental Projects Manager
Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney III
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
MOTION TO EXCUSE
MSC (Felber/O'Neill) to excuse Commissioners Cortes and Castaneda. Motion
carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Close of Public Review Period for Chula Vista
Crossings Draft EIR 04-03.
Background: Ben Guerrero, Environmental Projects Manager stated that the
purpose of tonight's meeting is to close the public comment period on the Crossing
Draft EIR. Mr. Guerrero further stated that all comments received at tonight's
meeting, including all comments made by the Planning Commission will be
considered and addressed as part of the final EIR.
The Crossings Draft EIR has evaluated the redevelopment of an existing outdoor
storage facility to a commercial retail use and conceptual tentative map. The project
proposes the construction of seven buildings within an approximate total leasable
building area of 188,038 sf. The proposed project would include two free-standing
restaurants, a main department store anchor and additional retail spaces. The draft
EIR was circulated for public review beginning on May 21,2004 and tonight's hearing
will mark the close of the 45 day public review period. At this time, staff is requesting
that comments be limited to issues related specifically to the information presented in
the draft EIR. A public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Commission on
7-8'1
-
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - July 7,2004
August 11,2004 for consideration of the site plan and a certification ofthe Final EIR.
Public Testimony
Teresa Acerro, 3730 Festival Court, Chula Vista, CA stated that she submitted
comments to the Planning Commission on behalf of the Sierra Club. They are:
· two plant species (Otay Tar Plant and oreis bird beek) were not listed in the draft
EIR as sensitive plant species
· concerned with cumulative impacts from hazardous waste coming from the Omar
Rendering Plant and Apache Services
· the inadequacy of the proposed Reduced Density Alternative
Krista Ostoich, San Diego Baykeeper, 2924 Emerson St. Ste. 220, San Diego, CA
expressed concern with storm water run-off and that the EIR simply states that the
Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan would reduce impacts to a level below
significance, however, the plan has not yet been developed.
Another area of concern is that, unlike other projects, the City is not requiring the use
of Integrated Pest Management for this project.
Lastly, a reduction of the paved area of the parking of the parking lot would be
desirable.
Frank Ohrmund, 2908 Weeping Willow Road, Vice Chair for the Otay Valley
Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee, raised concerns associated with the
River Valley, they are: 1) the transient problem, 2) graffiti, 3) storm water run-off, and
the inclusion of trails.
Mr. Ohrmund stated that the connectivity of a good trail system that links west 1-805 to
east 1-805 and leads to the Center is very desirable. To address the graffiti problem,
a galvanized pole fence, similar to what was installed at the John Lippitt Corp Yard
would be advisable, with a gate that could be closed at nights to keep out transients
that would be attracted to loiter around dumpsters. The projeCt should also complete
the restoration of the river valley by removal of non-native species on the portion
that's on their property. Lighting should be properly shielded to reduce glare and
adequate landscaping with mature vegetation to serve as a buffer leading to the river
valley, would be desirable.
Commission Comments:
Cmr. Felber stated that according to his recollection, the draft EIR addresses a
filtration system for water run-off and asked for clarification on this.
7-gs-
Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - July 7,2004
Marilyn Ponseggi clarified that a response to comments made this evening will be
prepared and will address specific issues that were raised by the public tonight. The
Response to Comments will cite those section in the EIR that speak specifically the
issues raised tonight.
MSC (O'Neill/Madrid) (5-0-2-0) to close the 45-day public review period for Draft
EIR 04-03. Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT at 6:30 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 2004.
- Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission
?-f~
..- .
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 04-03)
FOR THE CROSSINGS COMMERCIAL RETAIL PROJECT AND
CONCEPTUAL TENTATIVE MAP; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT;
AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(MMRP) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City") has received an application from Yacoel
Properties ("Applicant") to redevelop an existing outdoor storage facility with assorted used
vehicles and equipment located at the southeast corner of 1-805 and Main Street to a commercial
retail facility ("Crossings Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") on the proposed Crossings Commercial Retail Project
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et.
seq., "CEQA"), and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et. Seq., the "Guidelines") and City
CEQA Guidelines and City Environmental Review Procedures; and,
WHEREAS, all action required to be taken by applicable law related to the
preparation, circulation, and review of the EIR have been taken; and,
WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented
to incorporate all comments received during the public review period and the response of the
Agency and the City thereto; and,
WHEREAS, the Findings of Fact for the Crossings Commercial Retail Project,
dated August 2, 2004 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution) conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superceded or withdrawn. These
findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will
come into effect when the City Council adopts the ordinance adopting the Crossings Project. The
adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
of the Final EIR are expressed as conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with the Findings of Fact
and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Crossings Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula
Vista adopted Resolution No. 04-03 certifying the Final EIR and recommending that the City
Council certify the Final EIR as well.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista as follows:
7-F7
J:\COMMDEV\RESOS\2004\OS-.24-04\CmasingsCCResoCertifiEIR.DOC
I. FINAL EIR 04-03 CONTENTS
That the Final EIR 04-03 consists of the following:
1. Final EIR for the Chula Vista Crossings Commercial Retail; and
2. Comments and Responses to Comments; and
3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "Final EIR")
II. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO THE FINAL EIR
1. Findings of Fact; and
2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT
That the City Council does hereby find that the Final EIR, the Findings of Fact (Exhibit "A")
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B") have been prepared in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), City
CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista.
V. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The City Council hereby makes each and every one of the findings contained in the
Findings of Fact (Exhibit "A")
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in the Final EIR and in the Findings of Fact for this
Project, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above-
referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity (Agency or
City) assigned thereby to implement the same.
7-g'f'
J:\COMMDEV\RESOS\2004\O&..24-04\CrossinpCCReJoCertifiEIJ..DOC
. .~- .
C. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in the Final EIR and in the Findings of Fact Section
XI, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and
CEQA Guidelines 15091 that alternatives to the Project, which were identified in the Final
EIR, were not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and/or meet Project
objectives and/or were found to be infeasible based upon specific economic, social, or
other considerations.
D. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B"). The City Council
further finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure
that, during project implementation, the Agency, City, and any other responsible parties
implement the project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in
the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista certifies
that the documents constituting the City's record of proceedings on which its decision is based
are contained in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista and the City Clerk is the
custodian of records of those documents; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, hereby
certifies and adopts the Final EIR for the Chula Vista Crossings Commercial Retail Project, in
accordance with the CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, City CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~ázr</W
James D. Sandoval An Moore
Director of Planning & Building Attorney
?-~/
J:\COMMDEV\RESOS\2004\OS-24-04\CnmingsCCResoCenif1EIR.DOC
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: ~
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA TO CONSIDER A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA-03-11)
AND A ZONE CHANGE (PCZ-03-06) FOR LANDS LOCATED AT 4501
MAIN STREET AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW (DRC-03-87) FOR
THE CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS COMMERCIAL RETAIL
DEVELOPMENT (YACOEL PROPERTIES, LLC)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA-03-11) FROM
RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL
COMMERCIAL FOR 4501 MAIN STREET (YACOEL PROPERTIES, LLC)
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING A ZONE CHANGE (PCZ-03-06) FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL
TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL FOR 4501 MAIN STREET (YACOEL
PROPERTIES, LLC)
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW (DRC-03-87) FOR A
RETAIL COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER AT 4501 MAIN STREET
(YACOEL PROPERTIES, LLC)
SUBMlnED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO 0
BACKGROUND
On June 27, 2003, Yacoel Properties, LLC ("Applicant") filed applications requesting a general
plan amendment, zone change, and design review for the development of a retail commercial
shopping center on the south side of Main Street and the east side of Interstate 805. The project
is located in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. An Environmental Impact Report
(EIR-04-03) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The
City Council/Redevelopment Agency action on this project will rely on the previously certified
Environmental Impact Report (EIR-04-03).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency conduct the public hearing to
consider General Plan Amendment (GPA-03-11), Zone Change (PCZ-03-06), and Design Review
(DRC-03-87).
'l~ /
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting General Plan Amendment
(GPA-03-11 ).
It is recommended that the City Council place on first reading an Ordinonce adopting lone
Change (PCl-03-06).
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt a Resolution approving Design Review
(DRC-03-87).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
On July 19, 2004, the Design Review Committee (DRC) adopted a Notice of Decision finding that
the project was consistent with the City's design manuals and guidelines and recommended that
the Redevelopment Agency approve Design Review (DRC-03-87), subject to conditions of
approval.
On August 18, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. GPA-03-11, PCl-03-06,
DRC-03-87 recommending that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency approve General Plan
Amendment (GPA-03-11), lone Change (PCl-03-06) and Design Review (DRC-03-87), based
on findings of fact and subject to conditions of approval.
DISCUSSION
Site Characteristics and Surrounding Uses
The project site is located on the south side of Main Street and on the east side of Interstate 805.
The site consists of approximately 17.2 acres with approximately 430-feet of frontage along Main
Street, a maximum depth of approximately 1,1 OO-feet along Interstate 805 to the west, and a
maximum width of approximately 1,1 OO-feet along the southern project boundary.
The site was previously developed and historically used for agricultural purposes and is currently
used for the outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment, and materials. The site was previously
graded with fill under San Diego County permits prior to annexation to the City. The site drops in
elevation approximately 25-feet from Main Street to the southern project boundary.
Immediately adjacent land uses include single-family residences to the north of Main Street,
Interstate 805 to the west, the Otay River floodway/floodplain to the south, and an SBC field
operations center and an undeveloped portion of the Auto Park to the east. A Shell service
station is located along the project's frontage on Main Street on a parcel that is not a part of the
project.
General Plan and Zone
The General Plan land use designation for the project site IS Resea rch and Limited
Manufacturing. The zone classification for the site is Limited Industrial, which is the implementing
g-;).
"".-.
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
zone for the land use designation. The Limited Industrial zone permits and conditionally permits
a wide range and intensity of uses, such as research and development, manufacturing,
wholesaling, warehousing, vehicle sales, service and storage yards, auto repair, restaurants,
trucking yards, retail distribution centers, recycling centers, and hazardous waste facilities.
The proposed project would not be consistent with the current industrial land use designation or
zone classification for the site. Consequently, the applicant has requested a general plan
amendment and zone change that would ollow the proposed retail commercial land use. The
proposed land use designation is Retail Commercial, and the proposed implementing zone is
Central Commercial. The Central Commercial zone allows retail uses such as stores, shops,
offices, services, restaurants, and other uses consistent with the zone.
Development Proposal
The applicant proposes to develop an approximate 188,860-square foot retail shopping center,
Chula Vista Crossings, on the 17.2-acre site with parking for 1,011 cars. The site would be
subdivided into seven parcels, each developed with a commercial building. Five retail buildings
would be aligned along the west side of the site with the main entrances on the east elevations
facing the primary parking areas. Two restaurant pads would be adjacent to and oriented
towards Main Street.
The anchor retail building would be approximately 88,400-square feet in size with an 8,055-
square foot mezzanine. The potential tenant is a Kohl's department store. The second retail
building would be approximately 37,665-square feet in size and would potentially be occupied
by Babies-r-Us. The third retail building would be approximately 18,140-square feet and
potentially occupied by Office Depot. The fourth retail building would be approximately 15,400-
square feet in size; a potential tenant has not been identified at this time. The fifth retail building
would be approximately 1 0,800-square feet and potentially occupied by Pier 1 Imports. The two
restaurant buildings would be approximately 3,600-square feet and 6,800-square feet each, and
would potentially be occupied by Panda Express and Souplantation, respectively. A tower
element with signs identifying the center and major tenants would replace an existing billboard
located at the southwest corner of the site.
Vehicle access to the center is proposed at the northeasterly corner of the project site, adjacent to
the SBC facility to the east. This entrance is proposed as aT-intersection with Main Street, but
would be signalized to function as a four-way intersection with Oleander Avenue, which is
immediately north of the SBC site. The existing four-way intersection at Oleander Avenue would
be reconfigured to eliminate the existing SBC driveway access at the intersection. This driveway
would be relocated to the east and serve as an un-signalized driveway for right-in/right-out traffic
only.
Two inbound lanes (east and west) and three outbound lanes (2 west, 1 east) ore proposed to
serve the center as well as the SBC site. Necessary right-of-way improvements would require
additional street dedication along the project frontage east of the Shell station, along the entire
fI-3
PAGE 4, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
SBC frontage, and along a portion of the Auto Park. The required Main Street improvements
would include deceleration and acceleration lanes at the project entronce, dual westbound left
turn lanes from Main Street to the project, and parkway and median improvements along the
entire project frontage and adjacent properties.
The conceptual landscape plan emphasizes drought tolerant plant materials, but provides an
appropriate variety in design ranging from a more formal streetscape and entry that would be
consistent with the Main Street Streetscape theme to a native plant selection along the southern
project boundary to create a transition between the project and the river vegetation communities.
A walking path with seating areas is proposed within the southern boundary landscaping. The
City would have the option of retaining a 15-foot wide easement over the path for future
connection to the proposed Otay Valley Regional Park trail system.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
The applicant has requested a general plan amendment of the land use designation from
Research and Limited Manufacturing (Limited Industrial) to Retail Commercial and a zone change
from Limited Industrial to Central Commercial. The proposed Central Commercial zone is the
implementing zone for the proposed Retail Commercial land use designation, and is therefore
consistent with the designation. The Retail Commercial designation includes neighborhood,
community, and regional shopping centers. Consequently, the proposed shopping center would
be consistent with the proposed land use designation and zone.
The proposed general plan amendment would be consistent with the following goals and
objectives of the General Plan:
Goal 1. Obiective 2 (Land Use Element): "Where land is currently occupied by marginal
industrial uses, encourage replacement by higher value-added users. " The proposed
amendment would support this objective by establishing a land use designation that would
encourage the development of the types of higher, value-added uses such as the proposed
project. The current use of the site is a relatively low-value industrial use that has not significantly
improved in value since the adoption of the current industrial land use designation, and it is not
likely to be redeveloped for industrial uses in the near future. The proposed project, on the other
hand, is reflecting an immediate demand for a high-value land use that would be allowed by the
proposed amendment.
The Central Commercial land use designation is appropriate for the site, which is located at the
intersection of an Interstate freeway and prime arterial street, as well as a gateway to the City.
The land uses included in this designation are typically those needing higher visibility and
customer access than those uses included in the industrial designations. The location of the site
at Interstate 805 and Main Street would provide excellent visibility and access for land uses
permitted by the proposed designation, such as the proposed retail shopping center.
g- ..¡.
PAGE 5, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
Goal 2 (Land Use Element): "... The goal of the city is to improve and increase the retail base
of the city, making the city an attractive place to shop for comparison and durable goods." The
proposed amendment would support this goal by establishing a land use designation that would
encourage the development of the site for retail commercial uses in an area that is relatively
lacking such uses. The proposed land use designation would allow the development of a
community/regional size center on one of few remaining large sites along a freeway. The
proposed project would increase the availability and variety of products and services in the
community.
All of the developable lands within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area have been
designated for industrial use; there are no commercial designations within the project area. In
2003, a study was completed that assessed the potential for redevelopment of industrial lands
within the project area and citywide. The study concluded that there was a significant supply of
immediately available industrial lands for redevelopment and that an adequate inventory would
continue to meet market needs over the next 20 years. Furthermore, the study recommended
that the lands studied in the project area not be targeted for redevelopment until after the
anticipated close of the County landfill sometime around the year 2025. Consequently, the
proposed land use amendment would not have a significant affect on the availability of industrial
lands, especially in the project area.
The following table illustrates the comparative distribution of land use designations citywide,
within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area, and within a one-mile radius of the
project site. The project area has a relative abundance of industrial-designated lands and no
commercial lands. The amendment would introduce a land use that is not currently allowed, but
which is needed within the project area.
Acres
City % OVR % l-mile %
land Use Desinnation
Alllndustriol Desinnotions 1904 3 414 55 355 16
All Commercial Desianations 1741 3 0 0 13 <1
All Residential Desinnations 22,556 39 0 0 656 30
All Public and Onen Saoce 12,098 21 336 45 715 33
Other / Unknown 20,000 34 0 0 457 21
T atal Acres 58,299 100 750 100 2196 100
Goal 2. Obiective 8 (Land Use Element): "Provide for community and neighborhood commercial
centers in developing areas convenient to new neighborhoods. . . ." The proposed amendment
would support this objective by establishing a land use designation that would facilitate the
development of the proposed retail commercial shopping center in an area not now conveniently
served by such uses and on area of the community that is developing rapidly, especially
residential uses needing the types and variety of products and services provided by such centers.
The proposed Retail Commercial land use designation would be the only such designation found
along the east side of Interstate 805 from the southern City boundary to Telegraph Canyon Road,
~-S
PAGE 6, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
and the project would be the only significant commercial center in the south-centrol area of the
City. The nearest Retail Commercial designation is located on the south side of Main Street, on
the west side of Interstate 805, and is developed with a relatively small and older commercial
center that serves as a neighborhood center. The proposed amendment would facilitate the
development of a needed community and regional commercial center within the south-centrol
area of the City.
Redevelopment Plan
The proposed general plan amendment and zone change would be consistent with the
Redevelopment Plan for the merged redevelopment project area, and the proposed project would
implement the adopted policies for the merged project area. The amendment/zone change
and/or the shopping center project would support the following goals of the Redevelopment Plan:
o Eliminate existing blighted conditions and prevenf recurring blight in the Proiect Area. -
The amendment/zone change and the proposed project would result in the elimination of
blight (visual, economic, physical, and environmental) on the subject properly and the
redevelopment of the site with a higher, value-added use that will prevent the recurrence
of blight on and around the site.
o Develop property within a coordinated land use pattern of commercial, indusfrial,
recreational, and public facilities consistenf with fhe General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
- The amendment/zone change would introduce a commercial land use designation into
the project area, which does not currently hove any commercial designations. The
proposed designation would balance the overabundance of industrial lands and support
the residential designated lands around the project area. The proposed project would
establish the only major neighborhood and regional shopping center within the south-
central area of the City; the nearest equivalent center within the City is located at Terra
Nova at Interstate 805 and H Street.
o Develop a more efficienf and effective circulation corridor sysfem free from hazardous
vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interfaces. - The proposed project would result in off-
site improvements along Main Street that would improve circulation through the corridor
and access to the site and surrounding properties. The project would reduce the number
of unprotected turning movements along its frontage.
o Encouroge, promofe, and assist in the development and expansion of local commerce and
needed commercial and indusfrial facilifies, increasing local employment prosperity, and
improving the economic climate within the Projecf Area. - The amendment/zone change
would introduce a commercial land use designation into the project area, which does not
currently have any commercial designations. The proposed designation would balance
the overobundance of industrial lands ond support the residential designated lands
around the project area. The proposed project would establish the only major
neighborhood and regional shopping center within the south-central area of the City.
q-Ç-
PAGE 7, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
. Achieve a physical environmenf reflecting a high level of concern of archifectural and
urban design principals deemed important by the community. - The quality of the
proposed development is exceptional and would exceed that of the surrounding built
environment. The proposed project is highly desirable because of the site's visibility and
location at a major gateway to the City and the Main Street corridor. The level of
architectural quality in this project would become a model for future development in the
project area. The project is consistent with the City Design and Landscape Manuals.
The proposed project would also be consistent with the Five Year Implementation Plan (2000-
2004) for the project area by implementing the following program of the Implementation Plan:
. Resolve sife-specific fraHic circulation issues impeding development. Development of the
parcel (pro¡ect sife) located of the southeasferly corner of Interstate 805 and Main Street
requires fhe reso/ufion of fraffic circulafion issues a/so impacting two ad¡acent developed
properties (SaC facility, Shell Station), and requires coordinated signalized access fo Main
Street.
The design of the proposed project would address traffic circulation and access issues that
have impeded the redevelopment of the last large, undeveloped property on the south
side of Main Street. The project would eliminate most driveways and unprotected left turn
movements along the frontage of the site, and would provide one shared signalized
intersection for the subject property and the adjacent SBC facility to the east; this signal
would be coordinated with the Oleander Street signal. The resolution of these issues
would further the redevelopment and proper utilization of properties in the project area.
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
The proposed shopping center project would be consistent with the development standards of the
proposed Central Commercial lone as indicated in the following table:
Development Standard Requirement Proposed
Front Setback 25-feet 25-feet+
Side Setback-exterior 25-feet 25-feet+
Side Setback None 215-feet+
Rear Setback None 55-feet+
Height (maximum) None 27-39-feet
Lot a rea 5,000 O.7-acres+
Parking 1,011' 1,011
"'Based on a maximum of 295 restaurant seats
The required parking is based on the gross square footage of the retail buildings and the
permanent seating capacity of the restaurants. One parking space is required for every 200-
square feet of retail, which results in a parking requirement of 893 spaces for the retail uses. At
this time, the seating capacity of the proposed restaurants has not been determined. The project
tj-ì
PAGE 8, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 08/24/04
proposes 0 total of 1,011 parking spaces, which would result in 118 remaining spaces for
restauront uses. The parking requirement for restaurants is one space for every 2.5 seats, which
would allow a maximum of 295 seats for the two restaurants.
The Design Review Committee has determined that the project is consistent with the guidelines of
the City Design and Landscape Manuals with regard to site planning, architecture, and
landscaping. The site layout and building placement would buffer the freeway and utility areas to
the rear of the buildings from the main entrances and customer parking areas to the front of the
building. A significant level of architectural relief is praposed for the building facades, including
changes in plane, heights, materials, and colors. The proposed landscaping complements the
architecture of the buildings and defines the entry and other use areas on the site. The proposed
tower element is consistent with the architecture of the project and is incorporated into the
planned sign program to adequately identify the center in an aesthetic manner.
CONCLUSION
The proposed land use designation and zone for the site would be consistent with and implement
the goals and objectives of the General Plan, as well as the Redevelopment Plan's goals and
objectives for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. The proposed zone is the
implementing zone for the proposed land use designation, and is therefore appropriate and
consistent with the designation. The proposed project is appropriate because of the site's
visibility and location at a major gateway to the City and the Main Street corridor.
The proposed retail shopping center would be consistent with the development standards of the
proposed Central Commercial zone and the guidelines of the Design Manual and the Landscape
Manual. The quality of the proposed development is exceptional and would exceed that of the
surrounding built environment. The level of architectural quality in the project would become an
outstanding example for future development in the project area. Therefore, staff recommends
that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment (GPA-03- 11) and lone Change (PCl-
03-06), and that the Redevelopment Agency approve Design Review (DRC-03-87).
FISCAL IMPACT
If the project is approved and fully developed, the ultimate tax increment is expected to exceed
$200,000 annually and the anticipated annual sales tax receipts to the general fund from this
project are estimated at $750,000.
J:\COMMDEV\STAFF.REp\2004\08-24-04\Chula Vista Crassings\A-113.DOC
g-9
RESOLUTION NO. -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA-03-11)
FROM RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL
COMMERCIAL FOR 4501 MAIN STREET (YACOEL PROPERTIES,
LLC)
A. RECITALS
1. Project Site
WHEREAS, the property, which is the subject matter of this resolution, is represented in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description is
located at 4501 Main Street, Chula Vista; and
2. Project Application
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2003 a duly verified application for a general plan amendment was filed
with the City of Chula Vista by Yacoel Properties, LLC (Applicant); and
3. Project Description
WHEREAS, Applicant requests a general plan amendment from Research and Limited
Manufacturing to Retail Commercial to develop a retail commercial shopping center (Project); and
4. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
application on August 18, 2004 and after considering all evidence and testimony presented
recommended that the City Council APPROVE General Plan Amendment (GPA-03-11); and
5. City Council Record on Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the application was held before the City
Council on August 24, 2004 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to hear
public testimony with regard to same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine, and
resolve as follows:
B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on this application held on August 18, 2004 and the minutes resulting therefrom, are hereby
incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR-04-03) has been prepared and previously certified in
accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of ChuJa Vista.
~-q
- .
D. FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt General Plan Amendment (GPA-
03-11) finding that it would be consistent with the fOllowing goals and objectives of the General Plan.
Goal 1. Obiective 2 (Land Use Element): "Where land is currently occupied by marginal industrial
uses, encourage replacement by higher value-added users." The proposed amendment would
support this objective by establishing a land use designation that would encourage the
development of the types of higher, value-added uses such as the proposed project. The current
use of the site is a relatively low-value industrial use that has not significantly improved in value
since the adoption of the current industrial land use designation, and it is not likely to be
redeveloped for industrial uses in the near future. The proposed project, on the other hand, is
reflecting an immediate demand for a high-value land use that would be allowed by the proposed
amendment.
The Central Commercial land use designation is appropriate for the site, which is located at the
intersection of an Interstate freeway and prime arterial street, as well as a gateway to the City.
The land uses included in this designation are typically those needing higher visibility and
customer access than those uses included in the industrial designations. The location of the site
at Interstate 805 and Main Street would provide excellent visibility and access for land uses
permitted by the proposed designation, such as the proposed retail shopping center.
Goal 2 (Land Use Element): "... The goal of the city is to improve and increase the retail base
of the city, making the city an attractive place to shop for comparison and durable goods." The
proposed amendment would support this goal by establishing a land use designation that would
encourage the development of the site for retail commercial uses in an area that is relatively
lacking such uses. The proposed land use designation would allow the development of a
community/regional size center on one of few remaining large sites along a freeway. The
proposed project would increase the availability and variety of products and services in the
community.
All of the developable lands within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area have been
designated for industrial use; there are no commercial designations within the project area. In
2003, a study was completed that assessed the potential for redevelopment of industrial lands
within the project area and citywide. The study concluded that there was a significant supply of
immediately available industrial lands for redevelopment and that an adequate inventory would
continue to meet market needs over the next 20 years. Furthermore, the study recommended
that the lands studied in the project area not be targeted for redevelopment until after the
anticipated close of the County landfill sometime around the year 2025. Consequently, the
proposed land use amendment would not have a significant affect on the availability of industrial
lands, especially in the project area. The amendment would introduce a land use that is not
currently allowed, but which is needed within the project area.
Goal 2. Obiective 8 (Land Use Element): "Provide for community and neighborhood commercial
centers in developing areas convenient to new neighborhoods. . . ." The proposed amendment
would support this objective by establishing a land use designation that would facilitate the
development of the proposed retail commercial shopping center in an area not now conveniently
served by such uses and an area of the community that is developing rapidly, especially
residential uses needing the types and variety of products and services provided by such centers.
The proposed Retail Commercial land use designation would be the only such designation found
along the east side of Interstate 805 from the southern City boundary to Telegraph Canyon Road,
and the project would be the only significant commercial center in the south-central area of the
City. The nearest Retail Commercial designation is located on the south side of Main Street, on
the west side of Interstate 805, and is developed with a relatively small and older commercial
1-10
center that serves as a neighborhood center. The proposed amendment would facilitate the
development of a needed community and regional commercial center within the south-central
area of the City.
E. 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
anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to
be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable. this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
PRESENTED BY
Laurie Madigan
Director of Community Development
({-/ I
,..-
EXHIBIT A
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
(GPA-03-11), (PCZ-03·06), (ORC-03-B7)
"'" I
<tt!) ,
"'" I
-
(II¡)
G1J) ,
,
""'8 i
i
\I') ,
lID Q OE~'
co
!!
~
II)
It:
!!
z
N
~ W*E
S
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Feet
, ,
g- fJ-
-"
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING A ZONE CHANGE (PCZ-03-06) FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL TO
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL FOR 4501 MAIN STREET (YACOEL PROPERTIES,
LLC).
I. Recitals.
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the property, which is the subject of this Ordinance, is represented in Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general
description is located at 4501 Main Street, Chula Vista (Project Site); and
B. Project Application
WHEREAS. on June 27, 2003 a duly verified application for a zone change was filed with
the City of Chula Vista by Yacoel Properties, LLC (Applicant); and
C. Project Description
WHEREAS, Applicant requests a zone change from Limited Industrial to Central
Commercial to develop a retail commercial shopping center (Project); and
D. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
application on August 18, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after considering all evidence and testimony
presented recommended that the City Council adopt Zone Change (PCZ-03-06); and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced on this application before the
Planning Commission at their public hearing held on August 18, 2004, and the minutes and
resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and
E. City Council Record on Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on
August 24, 2004 on the application and to receive the recommendations of the Planning
Commission and to hear public testimony with regard to the same.
F. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the City Council is relying on the previously certified Environmental Impact
Report (EIR-04-03), which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista.
II. The City Council does hereby ordain as fOllows;
The City Council does hereby adopt Zone Change (PCZ-03-06), finding that the
proposed zone is consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA-03-11) and the
g-/3
Ordinance No.
Page 2
adopted Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Project Area, and that the public necessity,
conveniences, general welfare, and good zoning practice supports its approval and
implementation.
III. Invalidity; Automatic Revocation.
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in the
event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this Ordinance shall be deemed to
be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
IV. Adoption of this Ordinance (Second Reading) is conditioned upon the approval by the
City Council of General Plan Amendment (GPA-03-11).
V. This ordinance shall take effect and be in fUll force on the thirtieth day from Second
Reading. which shall occur as stated above.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Laurie Madigan
Community Development Director
%'-/1
EXHIBIT A
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
(GPA-03-11), (PCZ·03-06), (DRC·03·87)
"'" i
<J:r ) ,
(lIt) I
"'"
CI2¡)
(JxI) i
i
~8 i
In I
lID Q Oi
'"
STREET
~
:!:
II)
0::
~
z
N
~ W*E
S
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Feet
, ,
?-/~
RESOLUTION NO. -
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW (DRC-03-87) FOR A
RETAIL COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER AT 4501 MAIN STREET
(YACOEL PROPERTIES. LLC)
A. RECITALS
1. Project Site
WHEREAS, the property, which is the subject matter of this resolution, is represented in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description is
located at 4501 Main Street, Chula Vista; and
2. Project Application
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2003 a duly verified application for Design Review (DRC-03-87) was
filed with the City of Chula Vista by Yacoel Properties, LLC (Applicant); and
3. Project Description
WHEREAS, Applicant requests Design Review approval to develop a retail commercial shopping
center (Project) as depicted in plans on file with the Community Development Department; and
4. Design Review Committee Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
application on July 19, 2004 and after considering all evidence and testimony presented recommended
that the Redevelopment Agency APPROVE Design Review (DRC-03-87); and
5. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the Planning
Commission on August 18, 2004 to receive the recommendation of the Design Review Committee and to
hear public testimony with regard to same; and after considering all evidence and testimony presented
recommended that the Redevelopment Agency APPROVE Design Review (DRC-03-87); and
6. Redevelopment Agency Record on Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
Redevelopment Agency on August 24, 2004 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and to hear public testimony with regard to same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby find,
determine, and resolve as follows:
B. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Design Review Committee
at their public hearing on this Project held on July 19, 2004 and the minutes resulting therefrom, are
hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
g-¡?
C. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on this Project held on August 18, 2004 and the minutes resulting therefrom, are
hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Agency is relying on the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR-04-03) which
has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
E. CONFORMANCE WITH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find that the Project is
consistent with the adopted Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Project Area.
F. CONFORMANCE WITH DESIGN MANUAL
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find that the Project is in
conformance with the City Design Manual, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the
evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made.
1. The proposed project is consistent with the development regulations of the Municipa/
Code.
The proposed project would be consistent with the development standards of the proposed
Central Commercial Zone, including height, setbacks, parking, and landscaping.
2. The design features of the proposed project are consistent with the Design Manual and
the Landscape Manua/.
The proposed project would be consistent with the Design Manual and Landscape Manual.
including compatibility within the context of the Main Street corridor through its design, scale,
landscaping, and use of materials.
G. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve Design Review
Permit (DRC-03-11) subject to the fOllowing conditions:
1. The subject property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
approved application, plans, and color and material board, except as modified herein.
2. The use of Date Palms (p. dactylifera) shall be limited to the project entrance and Main Street
streetscape. California Laurel (u. californica) shall be eliminated from the plant material
palette and Catalina Ironwood and/or Engleman Oak shall be substituted in its place.
3. The recommendations of the EIR biologist and Environmental Review Coordinator shall be
implemented for the native/non-invasive landscape buffer along the southern project
boundary.
8-/7
..--
4. Utilities and equipment shall be architecturally screened and/or located out of public view.
5. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces and shall be
noted on all building and wall plans prior to issuance of building permits.
6. The project shall comply with applicable codes and requirements, including but not limited to
CSC, CFC, CMC, CPC, CEC, ADA requirements, Title 24, and other codes in effect at the
time of issuance of any permit.
7. A solid waste and recycling plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of
building permits.
8. A lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of building permits.
9. The applicant owner shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements,
and in any case where it does not comply, this permit is subject to modification or revocation.
10. This permit shall become void and ineffective if not used or extended within one year from the
effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.600 of the Municipal Code.
11. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified. or deleted conditions imposed after
approval of this permit to protect the public from a specific condition dangerous to its health
or safety or both due to the project, which condition(s) the City shall impose after advance
written notice to the permittee and after the City has given the permittee the right to be heard
with regard thereto. However, the City in exercising this reserved right/condition. may not
impose a substantial expense or deprive permittee of a substantial revenue source which the
permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically
recover.
12. The applicant shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless
the City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives from and
against all liabilities. losses, damages, demands, claims, and costs, including court costs and
attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising directly or indirectly from a)
City's approval and issuance of this permit, b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit
or action, whether discretionary or non discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated
herein, and without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the operation of the facility.
Applicant shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this
permit where indicated below. The applicant's compliance with this provision is an express
condition of this permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of the applicant's
successors and assigns.
13. The design and architecture of the future restaurant buildings shall be submitted for review
and approval to the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits for
the restaurant buildings.
14. Enriched paving shall be incorporated into the project entrance.
H. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided
below, said execution indicating that the property owner and Applicant have each read, understood, and
agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the
County Recorder's Office of the County of San Diego, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the
Community Development Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded
document within ten days of recordation to the Community Development Department shall indicate the
property owner/Applicant's desire that the Project, and the corresponding application for building permits
and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the
Community Development Department's files and known as Resolution No_.
g-)ý'
Signature of Property Owner/Applicant Date
Signature of Property Owner/Applicant Date
I. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and
maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to
their terms, the Redevelopment Agency shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted; deny or further condition issuance of future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute,
litigate, or compel their compliance; or seek damages for their violations. Applicant or successor in
interest gains no vested rights by the Redevelopment Agency approval of this Resolution.
J. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in the
event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be
automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
PRESENTED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
Laurie Madigan ~~
Ann More
Director of Community Development Ag cy Attorney
t -I 'j
EXHIBIT A
CHULA VISTA CROSSINGS
(GPA·o3·11), (PCZ-03·06), (ORC·o3-87)
"'" 1
<1:J<> ,
"'"
<II!)
OJ:¡)
Q j) ,
""'8 ¡
i
In
= 0 Oi
eo
STREET
!!
~
I/)
0::
!!
z
N
~ W*E
S
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Feet
, ,
<? ~ ;20
...- -