The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Packet 1995/03/21 Tuesday, March 21, 1995 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Suecial Joint Meeting of the Redevelooment Agencv/Citv Council of the City of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Members/Councilmembers Fox -' Moot -' Padilla -, Rindone_, and Chairman/Mayor Horton - 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of March 7 and 14,1995 CONSENT CALENDAR (Item 3) The staff recommendations reganling the following iLems listed under the Consent Calerulsr will be eruu:ted by the Agenq by one motion without discussion unless an Agenq Member, a member of the publü: or CiLy staff requests tJuzt the iLem be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these iLems, please fill out a "Ikqøest to Speak Fonn" availoble in the loIJby and submit iL to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agenq or the CiLy Cleric prior to the meeting. (Complete the green fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; CI1mp1ete the pink fonn to speak in opposition to the staff recommemlation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calerulsr will be diseussed after AetûJn Items. Items pulled by the publü: will be the first iLems of business. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR' . PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following iLems have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by low. If you wish to speak to any iLem, please fill out the "Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submiL iL to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeüng. (Complete the green fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendaûon; complete the pink fonn to speak in opposiLion to the staff recommendaûon.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE/SPECIAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-12 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CIVIC CENTER P ARK1N G LOT EXPANSION PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 459 F STREET AS PART OF THE CIVIC CENTER MASTER EXPANSION PLAN '" GCCi~fe u~':'c,. rc:c,Jt:: d f'crj..'ry that I am employe::! b'f L'a ()¡~::':J'3 V'Ð:S in the Commun:t'r [)on-::):;~,"ilt ¡:>J)s,lmcnt and that I posted this Agends!¡;o'¿¡cu on t,cyGù1:o'(in [kÆrd at/t¡e Public Services C~j:~Ðn/~lty Ha~, ~ DATE') /{ 9'sIGNú' '//£1 . ?,-:; -- Agenda -2- March 21, 1995 COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17834 ADOPl'ING NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-9S-o9) AND APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (pcC-95-12) FOR THE CIVIC CENTER PARKlNG LOT EXPANSION AT 459 F STREET - In April 1990, Council adopted the Negative Declaration and approved the Civic Center Expansion Master Plan for the Civic Center Complex. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) AGENCY RESOLUTION 1448 ADOPl'ING NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-95-o9) AND APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (pcC-95-12) FOR THE CIVIC CENTER PARKlNG LOT EXPANSION AT 459 F STREET ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject mnlter wiLhln the Agency's jurisdicûon that is not an item on this agenda. (Stale low, however, generally prohibits the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete theyeUow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communicaûons Fonn" availoble in the lobby and submiL iL to the Secretory to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeûng. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up acûon. Your ûme is limited to three minutes per speaker. ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substJJntial discussions and deliberations by the Agency, stqff, or members of the general public. The items will be consûhred individually by the Agency and staffrecommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alte17Ultive. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" fonn available in the lobby and submiL iL to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeÛllg. Public comments are limited to five minutes. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the Redevelopment Agency will discuss iLems which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda iLems pulled at the request of the publü: will be consûhred prior to those pulled by Agency Members. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual. OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER REPORTrs) 6. CHAlRMANlMA YOR REPORTrS) -. Agenda -3- March 21, 1995 7. MEMBERICOUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on April 4, 1995 at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. ...... COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americana With Disabilitiea Act (ADA), requeat individuals who require speciaJ accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activitiea. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at 619.691.5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 619.585.5647. Califoruia Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. C:\WP51IAGENCY\AGENDASIO3-21-95 .AGD This page intentionally left blank. l\ßNUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, March 7, 1995 Council Chambers 7:48 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Fox, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, and Chair/Mayor Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF l\ßNUTES: February 28, 1995 MSUC (Rindone/Fox) to approve the minutes of February 28, 1995 as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: none) CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RIND ONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4. REPORT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE EL DORADO BUILDING AT 315 FOURTH A VENUE--At the request of the Agency staff prepafed a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the disposition of the El Dorado Building. The Agency also requested a feport on the current rent revenues generated and expenditures incurred in the building's operation. Both are contained in the staff report. Staff requests the Agency review the RFP and aulhorize staff to issue it. (Community Development Director) Chair Horton questioned whether the sale of the EI Dorado building was something the Agency wanted to pufsue. Mr. Goss replied Ihat it was up to the Agency. It was part of the work program presented to the Agency in August. Staff had outlined a way for the overall RDA budget to be balanced if the properties were sold in the current tiscal year. That was a short term measure and staff felt they would be looking at the same type of issue for next fiscal year although staff would be examining otber parts of the operating budget of the RDA. Chair Horton stated she was not sure it was the most prudent thing to be doing knowing the City utilized a large portion of the building and would continue to do so in the future. Mr. Goss stated the building was purchased by the RDA and its main benefit had been for expansion space of City Hall, including Otay Ranch Planning group, other parts of City operations, and space that could be leased to other entities. One concerns was that RDA funding had been utilized to the advantage of general operations and to the disadvantage of the RDA. Perhaps it should be looked at to see if that should be shifted around Of possibly sell the building to the City itself. He recommended thai the Agency continue with the RFP realizing that nothing would he set in motion and the Agency could withdraw from the process. In looking at the history with the RDA, the Agency had to issue bonds and create debt service so they would not lose their tax increment under the law. As a result, the bonds were issued, that cash became fixed assets in tenDS of property that was acquired and a lot of the process he was seeing was trying to transform those fixed assets into liquid assets to help support the operations of the Agency. One of the feal issues was whether property revenues could be obtained for those investments and not take a loss. Staff had been focusing on those where they felt there was a good opportunity of obtaining back the value originally put into the property. oÎ- / Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 2 Chair Horton stated she was opposed to the sale of the El Dorado building as City Hall was "bursting at the seams". She did support the sale of the other three properties. Mr. Goss replied there had been some retrenchment or retraction in the size of the City organization. He doubted the State would be giving hack any of the revenues they had taken over the last several years and he did not feel the City would be replicating many of the one time revenues utilized annually. With the continuing recession there may be a need to link the general fund issues with the RDA's financial problems. There may be some downsizing in the overall City organization. Even if the building were sold the general fund would be stepping in and renting space for City operations so thefe would be space available if there should be growth. Chair Horton stated the scenario could change if the owner did not want to continue a lease with the City. She felt it might be more prudent to sell the building to the City. Mr. Goss stated if the RFP process was approved staff could look at producing a bid on the building also. Member Rindone felt it would be in the Agency's best interest to go out to bid. The Agency would retain the option to not sell the building. The huilding value was $1.4 million so there was a net increase of $400,000 and there would be the option of leasing office space. He questioned why one of the tenants listed on the chart in the staff report had the Agency paying their utilities. Miguel Tapia, Community Development Specialist II, stated the tenant was paying $1.29 sq. ft. which covered expenses. Mr. Goss stated he was a pre-existing tenant when the Agency purchased the building and his lease agreement was continued at the higher rate with the Agency picking up the utility costs. Member Moot stated he was prepared to go out with the RFP, but was concerned whether ultimately it would be a cost effective transaction for the City. Chair Horton stated she would support it because she wanted the City to look at purchasing the huilding. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES None Submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ACTION ITEMS 5. REPORT REQUEST FROM AUTO PARK DEALERS FOR ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE--On 1/17/95 Council approved a conditional payout of $1.3 million to the Auto Park Developers for construction of puhlic streets within the Auto Park under Assessment District 92-2. On 1/19/95 staff met with the Auto Park developers and their attorney to discuss financial problems associated with a lower Assessment District payout than anticipaled. Staff recommends bringing this item forward to the Agency after receipt and analysis of the information. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 1995) (Community Development Director) Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, informed the Agency that the attorney had stated they would provide the information requested to the Agency and as soon as received staff would return to the Agency with a report. d~~ Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 3 MSUC (FoxlHorton) to continue the item indefinitely. 6.A. RESOLUTION 1447 and 17828 JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COUNCIL CHULA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPl'ING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM 89-10AFORRANCHO DEL REY SPA III, APPROVING A LAND DONATION AND FUNDING COMMITMENT FROM HOME PROGRAM FUNDS ($160,000) AND THE LOW/MOD FUND ($378,280) FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN RANCHO DEL REY SPA III, AND APPROVING A TRANSFER AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (OR AN AFFILIATE THEREOF) IN CONNECTION WITH SAME--McMillin Companies is required to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City which provides a detailed plan fOf accomplishing their affordable housing program requirement to provide a minimum of 23 affordable units. McMillin proposes a for profit/ non-profit joint venture which is requesting financial assistance from the Agency/City. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) B. RESOLUTION 17829 APPROVING TlIE RANCHO DEL REY SPA III AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT WITH RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P., AND A TRANSFER AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO 2.97 ACRES OF PROPERTY WITHIN SPA III PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT INTO A 40 UNIT LOW INCOME HOUSING COMPLEX Agency/Council Member Moot stated he would abstain from participation as his firm did legal work for McMillin Company. Shelia Shanahan, Community Development Specialist I, stated the first issue was the affordable housing agreement with McMillin and the second was the affordable housing project proposed to satisfy their affordable housing requirements. She then reviewed the proposed agreements. The staff report referred to a "transfer agreement" and the Tax Credit Allocation Committee had made a determination that form of an agreement would not be acceptable to them, but an "assignment agreement" would be agreeable to them. McMillin would transfer the land to the City and the City would then transfer the land to the non-profit, i.e. an assignment was an advantage to the City because they would not have to hold tille of the land throughout the process. The land would revert back to the City if the process did not go forward. Agency/Council Member Rindone slated one of the major deal points was that the City net participation not exceed the cap of $10,000 and he questioned if that had been achieved. Ms. Shanahan replied that it would. The City's donation coupled with the sale of the housing tax credits would net $10,000. Glen Googins, Deputy Cily Attorney, clarified that the City's initial contribution would total approximately $13,500. $10,000 was determined to be an acceptable level of City participation. There was a provision in the affordable housing agreement with McMillin whereby affordable housing credits were created, i.e. 17 credits above their required 23 units. The City would get a share of that reimbursed for the excess contribution, i.e. $3,500. Agency/Council Member Rindone questioned if Ihe City would receive reimbursements when the credits were sold. Mr. Googins replied that the credits would be transferred through a three party agreement in which McMillin would be the seller, there would be a buyer, and the City would oversee the units. The units would be created but not be redeemable hy another developer to which McMillin might transfer them until the City received $8,100 share of those units. Agency/Council Member Rindone questioned what time frame staff estimated. Mr. Googins responded that it depended upon the projects and was hard to predict. .;2-3 -' -- Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 4 Agency/Council Member Rindone questioned what had been built in to guarantee that the City/ Ageocy received their reimbursement in a reasonable period of time. Mr. Googins stated if the units were not sold the City/ Agency would not receive their reimbursement, it would be at risk. Mr. Boogaard stated where the City/ Agency normally contributed $10,000 per unit to an affordable housing project, with the proposal the City/Agency would be contributing $13,500 per unit to an affordable housing project. Mr. Googins stated staff originally proposed a provision which provided that in a period of time if the units were not sold a portion of those units would return to the City/ Agency at which time the City/Agency would become the seller. That raised additional complexities and it was felt if the units were sellable McMillin was better able to sell them, sell them quickly, and get a good price for them. Mr. Boogaard stated staff had tried to mitigate the risk by trading off against the risk of not selling them by taking the first dollars off the sale for the City's benefit. Agency/Council Member Rindone questioned what the sale price would be per unit. Dave Gustafson, Assistant Director of Community Development, responded the market would dictate the price. It was estimated that they would be worth $25,000. If a developer had a need to provide affordable units and were challenged by doing so they could ask to pay an in-lieu fee. A general calculation of an in-lieu fee would be the difference between providing a market rate unit and an affordable unit. Staff calculated that at about $35,000. It was a new commodities markets but staff felt there would be takers. Staff felt they would sell within the next 2-3 years. Chair/Mayor Horton questioned if the Bayfront development could participate. Mr. Gustafson replied that they could be used anywhere throughout the City. Agency/Council Member Rindone questioned if there were other developers that had not fulfilled their affordable housing requirements. Mr. Gustafson stated that EastLake, Sun bow, Salt Creek, and atay Ranch had to meet their affordable housing requirements. Agency/Council Member Fox questioned if the proceeds from the credits would be evenly split. Mr. Gustafson replied the City/Agency would he guaranteed the first $8,001 from the sale of the credits. Thereafter, any proceeds from the sale would belong to McMillin. Agency/Council Member Padilla questioned what happened if the value of each unit fell below the City/Agency guarantee. Mr. Gustafson responded if they sold for less the City/Agency was at risk of losing some of that reimbursement and contrihuting higher than $10,000 per unit. Mr. Boogaard stated if there was a sudden change in state legislation regarding the housing element of the general plan to void inelusionary zoning and Ihe City no longer had a requirement for affordable housing, the market would go away. Agency/Council Member Rindone questioned if it was a 55 year provision. Mr. Gustafson responded that was correct. ;(- 'f Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 5 RESOLUTIONS 1447, 17828, AND 17829 OFFERED AS AMENDED, reading of the text was waived. ("Transfer" language would be changed to "assigmnent" or whatever language deemed appropriate by the City Attorney.) Mr. Googins requested that the joint resolution be amended, page 6-16, Section 3 and 4, where the City set aside $160,000 of HOME Program funds and the Agency set aside $378,000 of low/mod funds, the tenD "set aside" should be changed to "appropriates". Agency/Council Member Rindone stated he would incorporate that into the motion. Mr. Boogaard stated due to the appropriation the motion would require a 4/5th's vote. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining. ...... The Agency recessed at 8:18 p.m. and reconvened at 9:22 p.m. ...... OTHER BUSINESS 7. DffiECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Negotiation between the City of Chula Vista and EastLake Development Company with respect to acquisition of Lots 3 and 4 by a private firm, through City incentives under the High Tech/ BioTech ordinance, with EastLake Business Center. Mr. Goss stated staff indicated there would be a written report next week. b. Mr. Goss stated he would be serving on the nominating committee for the International City Management Association and they would be flying him to Washington D.c. on Thursday and Friday. While there he would be working on the issue of obtaining funding for the bio share proposal. Chair Horton stated Congressmen Bilbray and Filner stated they pledged their support to the City in their efforts. 8. CHAffiMAN/MA YOR'S REPORTlS) - None 9. MEMBER/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS Rindone: Redevelopment Agency C.l.P. Funds Report (Continued from the meeting of February 21, 1995) Mr. Goss stated on 8/23/94 the Agency took action to move forward on a work program to sell three properties and work on an RFP for the El Dorado building and return to the Agency with a mid-year progress report. The sale of the property in terms of balancing the budget was a short term fix at best. The Agency did have a lot of liquid assets in terms of bonds that were used for a lot of beneficial projects over the past years for the City and the Agency. Much of it had been put in land and it was recommended that those fixed assets be put back into liquid form. As staff went through the budget process they were looking at a lot of other options in terms of the Agency's operating budget, contract legal services. etc. He felt economic development needed to be pushed on the short term in the project areas to assist the RDA. In terms of the CIP expenses it appeared the Agency was committed for participation in the atay Valley Road Street Widening Project of about $272,000. When Rohr made certain improvements there were certain contractual agreements that were made and it appeared that a portion of those would require funding in the current year. When the overall budget was reviewed for next fiscal year there may be projects that should be deferred due to the shortfall. It clearly had some impact on the bottom line. ~-~ Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 6 Member Rindone stated he still did not have a list of the current CIP projects to be funded that was incorporated in the $869,113 and he fequested it be forwarded to the Membefs. As to whether some of the ClP's could be deferred was a policy issue to be detefmined by the Agency/Council. He understood staff's intent in putting the best foot forward in understanding the situation, but he was very unhappy with the report. The assumptions of the sale of the three properties were included in the report, but it created a false sense of security. When the Agency tried to get a bottom line figure on the aggregate expenses versus the aggregate revenues of the five separate redevelopment projects they were unable to get it. The low/moderate income housing was a restricted fund and he questioned how that was applicable to the five projects. If it exceeded in one area and was not applicable to another the potential shortfall or expenditure could be greater. He wanted an understanding of what the restrictions were within the five projects, i.e. if there were funds that were available that exceeded the expenditures that could not be applicable to other projects. He questioned if staff was indicating in the report that if the sale of the three properties was completed in FY 1994/95 that there would be a positive ending balance of $295,067. Mr. Goss replied that was correct for the Redevelopment Agency as a whole. It was staff's understanding that there was a desire to see what the bottom line was for the Agency as a whole with the various project areas and other funds lumped together. If the three properties were sold it would be a short term fix. Staff was not prepared to discuss the balancing of the RDA budget for FY 1995/96 as they were working on a variety of things in terms of the operation as well as what interconnection there needed to be with the general fund supporting the RDA. Member Rindone stated if any or all of the three properties were not sold the ending balance could change significantly. He questioned if there were any other expendilures or responsibilities of the RDA that were not in the report that the Agency needed to be aware of. Mr. Goss stated he did not know of any. Mr. Salomone stated he was not aware of any that were not identified. Member Rindone referred to page 342 of the FY 1994/95 budget, payment from the RDA to the general fund of $1 million. He questioned where that was reflected in the staff report. Mr. Goss stated it was reflected in the operating budget, but at the same time staff was looking at the overall issue in terms of the overall budget to the extent that it needed to be addressed for the next fiscal year. Member Rindone stated that did not make any sense. It clearly stated there would be a transfer in to help balance the general fund $1 million from the RDA. Even if the properties were sold there was only $295,067 which would create a shortfall of $705,000 in the general fund. Mr. Goss stated the Budget Manager needed to address his concerns. Revenues came into the general fund that was a transfer from the RDA. The Budget Manager advised him that staff was aware there was no money in the Agency to pay that and it was one of the adjustments being made in the general operations at the end of the year. That would not be shown as a revenue although there were a lot of revenues that made up revenues in the general fund. Member Rindone stated it should have been reflected in the report as he had asked specifically how it would impact the City or if it would jeopardize the general fund. If there was to be a payout from the RDA of $1 million and the money was not there that was a large amount to have to adjust. Mr. Goss stated perhaps staff had missed that particular question. One of the interactions would be that the $1 million would not be there for transfer. Member Rindone stated it was not his job to flesh out what the RDA was costing the City. The report still did not reflect that. He referred to page 9-5, Item 3, which stated "The 8/23/94 report includes the aggregate amount of $9,745,000 and an aggregate expense of$13,539,000 for a difference of$3,794,000". He questioned whether those were actuals fOf 1993/94. Ms. Herring stated they were actual expenditures of FY 93/94. J..-(p -.. ... _. Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 7 Member Rindone stated there was a shortfall of $3.8 million FY 93/94 which was the last year there was actuals. If any Of all of the properties were not sold, plus the $1 million in the budget would result in another $4 million shortfall. Whether it was applied to the RDA or the general fund was not the issue, the issue was what it was costing the City to cover that. It was a cost to the year 2024. He referred to Item 6, which stated "Reference to a shortfall figure of $1 ,767,127". In the 8/23/94 report staff listed FY 94/95 annual revenue of $7,437,000 without the land sales minus the actual expenses with the CIP projects, i.e. $9,204,000 it showed an annual deficit of $1.7 million without counting the $1 million transfer to the general fund. He referred to line 7 under Item 6, it stated "assuming the use of no one time property sales then the figure of $7,437,000 for revenue without land sales would be correct creating a possible annual shortfall of $1,767,000". He felt the Agency/Council needed to: 1) recognize there was a problem; 2) determine the depth of the problem; and 3) determine how to correct the problem. The Agency had serious financial debt and it was annual. He concurred with staff in selling the three properties. He felt staff should also be directed to develop a workplan for 3, 5, and 10 years to deal with the shortfall. A workshop should be held so priorities could be established. MOTION: (Rindone) to have an RDA workshop within 60 days to discuss solely the development of a short/long tenD work plan. Chair Horton recommended that the discussion be held during the regular budget sessions when staff was more prepared to give the Agency a full and detailed analysis. She agreed that priorities needed to be set. She did not want to see it piecemealed together week after week, but have staff fully prepared to present all information and analysis during the budget hearings. Mr. Goss stated the overall budget was usually presented to the Council/Agency in May. There was a lot of work that was being done because there were a number of olher issues due to the recession, state take-aways, and one time revenues not being replicated. The Council/Agency would have to look at the overall City operating budget as well and he may be coming forward with fairly major recommendations. The RDA budget could not continue to be in a deficit situation and selling property because it was only a short term fix. Staff was not trying to lull anyone into a false sense of security and if that was the implication of the report that was wrong. Obviously the RDA was not prepared to do that so that was probably not a source of revenue to the general fund. Fortunately, there was a windfall carryover from the refinancing on PERS that would make up for that in terms of the overall City budget. There was some interconnection between the general operating budget and the RDA budget. It was all being looked at and evaluated at the present time. He had challenged staff in the RDA and departments to come up with potential budget cuts as high as 10 %. That was not to say he would recommend that everything be cut back by 10%, but it gave the raw material for staff to come up with a balanced recommendation to Council/Agency. The Community Development Director had indicated Ihat he felt there were ways within the operating budget of his department to bring it more into balance. The budget staff would be reviewing that as well as any othef proposals developed in the budget process. The progress report was turning into a detailed budget report which he felt was unfortunate as staff wanted to give the Council/ Agency a detailed budget report in terms of what was going to be happening in the future. In the past there had been a lack of budget workshops, but he felt there should be more meetings than in the past because it would take more time to review the issues and proposals. Chair Horton questioned whelher he would recommend meeting on Saturdays. Mr. Goss stated he was not opposed to meeting on Saturday. Member Rindone stated he wanted a specific workshop that dealt only with the Redevelopment Agency and no other Issues. Member Fox recognized Member Rindone for his research on the matter. It was disturbing that the $1 million transfer to the general fund was not included in the staff report. If there was a better economy and if certain projects had developed the Agency would not even be having the discussion. He wanted to be sure that adequate resources were allocated to the Community Development Department to make sure projects would happen. He was convinced that was a large part of Ihe answer. Mf. Goss felt it would be useful to have the Mayor/Council lobby to modify the law to feturn the take-aways by the state to the redevelopment agencies. ;l- 7 Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 8 Chair Horton felt it important to recognize that the City was fortunate to have the redevelopment projects developed within the last several years. The City should be proud of the programs as they were the types of programs that would help the Agency become solvent in the future. She was also proud of City staff. Member Moot felt the good needed to be shown with the bad in staff reports and he did not feel the worse case scenario was being included. The report was based on assumptions and did not include the information as to what would happen if the projections did not go forward. Mr. Goss stated staff was not really clear that the Agency wanted it in that form. He tried to give the most realistic view of what was likely to happen with the budget. He did not try to be overly optimistic or pessimistic. Staff had the impression that there were too many tables in their last report so they tried to present one simple bottom line table. Chair Horton felt it was clear that the Agency wanted all the facts before them during the budget workshops. Member Padilla stated he had a great amount of respect for Mr. Goss and his staff, but the frustrations sensed by Member Rindone were not unreasonable and he was not alone in his observations. It should not be debated whether the misunderstanding between the Agency and staff was intentional or by oversight. The form that was proper for any staff report should always be the complete form. When talking about deferral of CIP costs or outlays that could be changed or used in a budget assumption to project deficits, etc. was a policy issue and making certain assumptions and presenting that or not presenting that was a legitimate issue. He did not feel there was any question about the inquiries the Agency made regarding any general fund interaction between the Agency budget situation and any liabilities to the general fund. He felt it important to examine that. Due to the situation he felt it necessary to state that all information provided to the Agency/Council must be the complete information and must never be skewed by intention or by omission. CLOSED SESSION The Agency met in Closed Session at 10:23 p.m. and reconvened at 10:49 p.m. 10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 . CYPRESS CREEK CO., LP., a Delaware limited partnership, by SUNBELT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, its managing agent against the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista and the City of Chula Vista 11. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 10:50 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on March 21,1995 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk by: ,j-f MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, March 14, 1995 Council Chambers 8:15 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Fox, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, and Mayor Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted CONSENT CALENDAR None submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES None submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None OTHER BUSINESS 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) - None 4. CHAIR'S REPORT(S) - None 5. MEMBERS COMMENTS - None CLOSED SESSION The Agency met in Closed Session at 8:23 p.m. 6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 . Cypress Creek Co., LP., a Delaware limited partnership, by Sunbelt Management Company, a Florida corporalion, its managing agent against the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista and the City of Chula Vista. ,,;<- r -'-'-" Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 2 7. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - Council authorized the acceptance of an offer to settle a disputed claim with Cypress Creek by increasing the "walkaway limits" for the Palomar Trolley Center to $211square foot.. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 8:26 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on March 28, 1995 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council Meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk by: ~-IÒ CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item~ Meeting Date 03/21/95 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE/SPECIAL USE PERMIT PCC-95- 12 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 459 F STREET AS PART OF THE CIVIC CENTER MASTER EXPANSION PLAN [A] Council Resolution 1m 34 Adopting Negative Declaration (lS-95-09) and Approving the Conditional Use Permit (PCC-95-12) for the Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion at 459 F Street [B] Agency Resolution 1l//.f3 Adopting Negative Declaration (lS-95-09) and Approving the Special Use Permit (PCC-95-12) for the Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion at 459 F Street SUBMITTED BY: Community Developmt! Dir.ector (.. !:.. Planning.Director ;!!l ~ ~ REV'EWEn BY, ""'",;W n;"",,,'j1], J 1415... V,"" Yo. - No J<J BACKGROUND: In April of 1990, the City Co ncil of the City of Chula Vista adopted the Negative Declaration and approved the Civic Center Expansion Master Plan for the Civic Center complex. The Master Plan included the recommendation to acquire 0.52 acres of property at 459 F Street for the purpose of constructing a three-level permanent parking structure at that location. However, for financial reasons, the proposed project contemplates a surface parking lot in lieu of the three-level parking structure at this time. The proposed parking lot is recommended to be provided from the funds currently set aside in the project Capital Improvement Program Account (GG-148). It is undetermined at this time if the project site will ever include a parking structure as contemplated since the expansion plan will most likely be revisited and reevaluated as funds become available, and as expansion needs arise. Nevertheless, the proposed surface parking lot will ease the immediate and short-term future parking need of the Civic Center complex. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council/Agency adopt the resolutions which will 1) adopt Negative Declaration (lS-95-09), and; 2) approve the Conditional Use/Special Use Permit (PCC- 95-12) to allow for the construction of an expansion to the Civic Center Parking lot. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On November 7, 1994, the Resource Conservation Commission voted 4-0 to accept Negative Declaration IS-95-09. The Town Centre Project Area Committee at their meeting of December 1, 1994, reviewed the Negative Declaration issued for the project and adopted a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use/Special Use Permit PCC-95-12. The Planning Commission adopted the Negative Declaration and recommended approval of the Conditional Use/Special Use Permit at their meeting of December 21, 1994. 4-1 Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 03/21/95 DISCUSSION: The 0.52 acre site is zoned R-3 and had, until recently, held six residential units and a swimming pool. The neighboring parcels to the north, south (across F Street), and west are all similarly zoned and contain residential units of varying densities. To the east is the Civic Center complex, with the Fire Station being the closest building. In October of 1993, the City Council/Agency adopted the Relocation Plan for the residential units at 459 F Street. The Relocation Plan was a required document necessary to relocate the tenants that previously resided on the property. Subsequently, the Council/Agency approved the Purchase and Sale Agreement on November 2, 1993. After possession of the property, staff began relocating the tenants with the final relocation payment authorized by the Council/Agency on September 6, 1994. Since that time, a demolition contract has been awarded (November 22, 1994) and demolition work began on January 30, 1995. The demolition (as of the writing of this report) is in process, with the contractor required to complete the demolition within 30 working days from January 30, 1995. In the event the Conditional Use/Special Use Permit is approved for the project, it is anticipated that the construction contract will be awarded in late April, and the parking lot will be under construction in late May. Included as Attachments are reduced copies of the proposed layout of the parking lot and the landscaping plan. It is proposed that 52 additional parking spaces are to be provided, with access to those spaces being by an extension of the existing internal traffic circulation. The new aisles would cause the elimination of approximately four existing parking spaces, thus necessitating the restriping of up to 23 parking spaces. Ingress/egress is to be provided from F Street, using the existing parking lot driveways and curb cuts. The west property line, which borders residential property, is proposed to have a solid 6 foot high wood fence, and associated landscaping. Staff has met with a representative for the adjacent property owner, who expressed support for the project and appreciation that the City is proposing a 17 foot landscape buffer between the fence line and the parking lot. The proposed landscaping plan is consistent with the existing parking lot and is in accordance with the City Landscape Manual. Additional lighting has been provided for the proposed parking lot expansion, and so designed as to eliminate the possibility of glare affecting neighboring parcels. This is in conformance with the Performance Standards section of the zoning ordinance, and was favorably noted by the neighboring proeprty owner at the meeting with staff. The physical impacts of this change in use from multi-family residential to parking lot will be minimal, particularly in light of the extensive use of landscaping on the site. The fact that only the existing driveways will be used for ingress/egress and the driveway and curb cut serving the previous residential use are to be eliminated further mitigates this change in use. tj-Á- -. --- Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 03/21/95 FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the Conditional Use/Special Use Permit does not, in and of itself, have a fiscal impact. The funds necessary to complete this project have been appropriated and are available in the existing CIP project (GG-148). The project has a proposed budget of $185,000, and based upon the engineer's staff estimate for the project, it is anticipated that the project will fall within that budget and therefore, additional funds will not be necessary to complete the project. Attachments: Locator Map Project Plans Negative Declaration, Initial Study 15-95-09 Planning Commission Resolution and Minutes Town Centre PAC Minutes Resource Conservation Commission Minutes Council/Agency Resolutions ak:lyla\,a4sIlS95.9.,a4 4-3 - -. Thís ¡age ínttntíonaIly lift blank. 1-1 . W / ::J ~ ... ~ ----. I I II I I I I I ' ", I ~ ---- I II I I . I I '.. ~-~ ..L oJ t -- -I t -'- ~- .._L_ . I - I ------- J ;;j( . ---~ . 8 - t ~ -- c.y'c. c:amut. cÞl?LEX ~ . - ~ - I PRMCT I LOCAnON ~ . . I t I I e r t I I I . . I I -.,¿, ¿, .L ..J_- - CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR -, Çh7 or C.... ViIta fI8O.ET 118 ,_: CommDatty Denio,... IJ!U'. C9 -, 49 "F""" --"'.,. II aiáiDa ..,ao,,- ...w. III. I" - 200' IlUiëC-tS-12 l ...,.. "4-.s- T1ili ,age ínttntíonaIly lift blank. 4-6 negative '" declaration PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Parking Lot PROJECT LOCATION: 459 F Street ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 568-110-17 PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista - Community Development Department CASE NO: IS-95-09 DATE: October 26, 1994 A. Project Settin!! The project involves the expansion and redesign of the existing Civic Center parking lot west of the Fire Station at 459 F Street. The site is presently developed with one single family residence and five rental unit households.' The site is surrounded by multiple- family housing to the west and across F Street to the south, the Fire Station, parking lots and City Hall buildings to the east and City Hall buildings, multiple and single-family housing to the north. B. Proiect DescriDtion The project involves the expansion of the existing Civic Center parking lot west of the Fire Station including the redesign of the existing parking lot and the elimination of "compact" parking spaces. The existing dwelling units which are currently vacant will be demolished. All residents previously residing in the dwelling units were relocated' under the State Unifonn Relocation Act. With the addition of a .52 acre area proposed for expansion, the 60,770 sq. ft. lot will total 145 standard spaces including 124 (18' x 9') spaces and 21 (9' x 16') spaces. Perimeter lighting, landscaping and pedestrian walkways are part of the proposal. The discretionary action associated with this project is a Special Use Pennit. C. ComDatibilitv with Zonin!! and Plans The General Plan Designation is Residential Medium and the Zone is R-3. A special use pennit is required for this unclassified use which fits the public-quasi-public defInition. D. Identification of Enviromnental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Enviromnental Checklist Fonn) detennined that the proposed, project will not have a ~{ft.. ::-~-:; city 01 chula vista - planning department Cl1Y Of environmental review .ection CHULA VISTA Lf-7 significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. E. Mandatorv Findings of Significance Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality ofthe environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As the project is proposed on a previously developed site in an urbanized area, there are no sensitive animal or plant resources on site. 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? This project will accomplish the long-term goals consistent with the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan goal to improve and construct public facilities and other public improvements to improve the quality of the environment and work toward the elimination of blighting influences, including: inadequate parking facilities. 3. Does the project have possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? This project has the potential to reduce cumulative traffic impacts by providing additional parking spaces to Civic Center employees and visitors who may currently be traveling longer distances to fmd parking. 4. Will the environmental effects of a project cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project could reduce adverse effects on people by providing additional parking at locations which do not require as much travel and potential pollution. B,\ccpLnd Page 2 If-~ F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Barbara Reid, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney Lyle Haynes, Principal Community Development Specialist Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: City of Chula Vista, Engineering Department 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Town Centre II (Amended) Redevelopment Plan, 1987 3. Initial Studv This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. EN 6 (Rev. 5/93) s'lccpl.nd Pag.3 '1-9 Thís ,age íntentíonaIly lift blank. L/-IÒ . APPLICATION CANNOT BE. .'::CEPTED UNLESS SITE ¡~ PLAN IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-1/2 X 11 FOLDER ~Ijþ~t; ~~p '.','" INITIAL STUDY Ðáti:R.'J ' ^4CPi\::dbýl'<-" ' City of Chula Vista Pí:è>jecf,N6;FA'~,>~:;> . Dpst.Nci.~fVlft ' " Application Fonn , ClPNo,,"',,},"~ , ., A. BACKGROUND ~$'~~e',""""""" 1. Project Title Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion 2, Project Location (Stn:eNAddress or description) 459 F Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910 Assessors Book, Page &. Parcel No. 568-110-17 3. Brief Project Description Expansion of the existing Civic Center parkin9 lot west of the Fire Station which will include the redesign of the existing parking lot and elimination of "compact" parking spaces. 4. Name of Applicant City of Cfiula Vista Address 276 Fourth Avenue Fax# 476-5310 Phone 691-5120 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 91910 5. Name of Preparcr/Agent Lyle W. Haynes, Project ManaQer Address Same as above Fax# Phone City State Zip Relation to Applicant Employee 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required. - General Plan Amendment - Design Review Application - Specific PIau - RezonelPrezone - Tenlative Subd. Map --L Conditional Use Permit - Grading Permit - Rcdevdopment Agency CPA - Variance - Tentative Parcel Map - Rcdevdopment Agency DDA - Coastal Development - Sile Plan 4r. Arch. Review .....L Public Project - Other Pennit -L.. Special Use Pennit - Annexation If project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from to b, Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator), - Grading Plan - Arch. ElevaIioos - Hydrological Study - Parcel Map - Landscape Plans - Biological Study - Precise Plan - Tentative Subd. Map - Archaeological Study - Specific Plan - Improvement Plans - Noise Assessment - Traffic Impact Report - Soils Report - Other Agency Pemút - Hazardous Wasle Assessmenl - Geotechnical Report - Other WPC,F.\HOMElPl.ANNlNG\ITOREIIIJO21.A.'" "'of In", 0" ,a.1 Hmo" 1-1/ p... I '. 7, indicate other applications for permits or approvals that are being subnùtted at this time. a. Pennits or approvals required. General Plan Amendment - Design Review Application - Specific Plan - Rezone/Prezone - Tentative SuM Map - Conditional Use Pcrnùt - Grading Pcrnùt - Redevelopment Agency OPA Variance - Tentative Parcel Map - Redevelopment Agency DDA - Coastal Development Site Plan & Arch. Review - Public Project - Other Permit - Special Use Pcrnùt --..:..... Annexation B, PROPOSED PROIECf 1. a. Land Area: square footage 22.765 or acreage ,52 If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose, Does the project involve the constIUction of new buildings. or will existing structure be b. utilized? No ' 2. Complete this section if project is residential or mixed use. a. Type of development:- Single Family - Two Family - Multi Family - Townhouse - Condominium b. Total number of structures c. Maximum height of sttuctures d. Number of Units: 1 bedroom - 2 bedroom - 3 bedroom - 4 bedroom - TOtal Units - e, Gross density (DU/total acres) f. Net density (DUltotal acres minus any dedication) g. Estimated project population h. Estimated sale or rental price range i. Square footage of structure j, Percent of lot covenge by buildings or structures k, Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided I. Percent of site in road and paved swface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industtial or mixed use. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Height of structures(s) c. Type of consttuction used in the StIUcture WPC""~G\ST0RED\J021.....93 (Ref. 1020,93) (Ref. 1022.93) ~-/ 2... Page 2 d. D~scribe major access points to th~ structures and th~ orientation to ådjoining prop~rti~s and streets ~. Number of on-sit~ parking spaœs provided f. Estimated number of ~mployees p~r shift Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of custom~rs (per day) and basis of cstimat~ ~. h. Estimated number of d~livcries per day i. Estimated rang~ of service area and basis of estimate j. Type/ext~nt of operations not in enclosed buildings k. Hours of operation I. Type of exterior lighting 4. If proj~ct is oth~r than residential. commercial or industrial complete this section, a. Typ~ of project Civic Center parking lot expansion which is an "unclassified" use which needs approval of a Conditional Use Permit b. Type offacilities provided Parking lot wHh perimeter fencing, l;ght standards, landscaping and pedestrian walkways, c, Square feet of enclosed structures N/A d. Height of structurc(s) - maximum N/A e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f, Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 145 total "standard" parking SDaces. g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces h. Additional project characteristics Project contemplates the addition of approx- imately .52 acres of land to expand and redesign the existing employee parking lot to el iminate "compact" spaces and provide enhanced landscaping and pedestrian walkways. C, PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. Will th~ project be required to obtain a pemùt through the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)? WPC:F:\IIOMEII'I.AIINING\ORED'II021.A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93) 1/- /3 Page 3 .--.. , 2. Is any type or-grading or excavation of Ihe property anticipated? Yes If yes, complete Ihe following: Unknown a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be Ihe: Maximum depIh of cut A verage depth of cut Maximum depIh of fùl Average depth of fill 3. Describe all energy consunúng devices which are pan of Ihe proposed project and Ihe type of energy used (air cdnditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) 4. Indicate Ihe amount of natural open space that is pan of Ihe project (sq. ft. or acres) None 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe Ihe nature and type of Ihese jobs, Temporary construction jobs, 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within Ihe project site? No 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? Undetermined 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement Ihe project, and their points of access or connection to Ihe project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric. and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, None WI'C:F,IIIOMElPU.NNlNG\5TOREINO2t.A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93) Ij~ I '-I Page 4 D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SElTING 1. Geology Has a geology study be<:n conducted on the property? No (If yes, please attach) Has a soils report on the project site been made? No (If yes, please attach) 2. Hvdrology ~, . Arc any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? (If yes, explain in detail.) a. Is there any swface evidence of a shallow ground water table? Nn b. Arc there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? No c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly in to or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? No d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? No e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. 3, ~ a. Arc there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site? No b, Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptOrs (hospitals. schools, single- family residences)? No 4. Biolo£v a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation? No b. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? No c, If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property? Yes - No - (Please attach a copy.) d. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate location, height, diameter, and species of trees, and which (if any) will be removed by the project. None , WPC:EIIIOMEII'l.ANNINClSTOREIN021.A.93 (Rd. 1021).93) (Ref. 1022.93) !/-IS,- PageS 5. Past Use of the Land a. Me there any known historical or archeological resources located o.n or near the project site? No b. Are there any known paleontological resources? No c. Have there been any hazardous matcials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? No d. What was the land pœviously used for? Vacant, previously residential 6. Current Land Use' a. Describe all structures and land uses cwrently existing on the project site. Res i dent i a 1 - one (1) SFR and five (5) rental unit households b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property, North one (1) rental unit South one (1) SFR East four (4) rental units West none 7, ~ a. Are there any residents on site? No If so, how many? b, AIe there any ~ employment opportunities on site? No If so, how many and what type? 8, Please provide any other ÎlÚonnation which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project. ,~ wpc",,~M£\PLANNtNGISTOflEtNO21.A.93 (Ref. IOlD.9) (Ref. 102:2.93) 'f-/~ Page 6 , E. CERTIFTCA TION I, as owner/owner in escrow' Print name '" or I. consultant or agent. Prinr name HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief. the statements and infonnation herein contained arc in all respects true and correct and that all known infonnation concerning the project and its setting has been included in this application for an Initial StUdy of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. Owner/Owner in Escrow Signature or q-\~-1'-\ Date *U acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. WPC,F,IHOMEll'U.NNlNG'STOREIN021-A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93) tf- (1 Page? Thís Jage ínttntíonaIly lift blank. 1-(~ . ~ U....uJ...I.J..J L..J.....J...J L.....ì... oJ I U I I ~ ----- IAI IAI ~ ::> ::> :> 7. z z z 1\\ > ~ 1&1 > C C ~ ¡ '( I D - :. em- , 11 =- ~ IAI > C - - :> .', - > _.. , ..J ... .-.. z c - -.- --- ~ 1; - --- c - TR T ...~ IIIII .."."...'~...';-(~".1rt:..'.. - ...¡-~..JLLJ.'" ... ~ 'FRIENDSHIP PARK' ... ... -~ I r.'~;,<~r(.':""N;;-~:';'¡/ ..-1 I ;,":~~~'" (;.~,"/;:...rr,..r . CIVIC ""'- .. a: - -- I' :::.:- CENTER CHULA VISTA C ,-,-,~...Jr T -~- - PUBLIC LIBRARY I I ¡ I 1;"'- , " I 1; . T I ::I ,. do-:-,., ' c ::,r;;;:.,;,;~,~:.i:r? ',,:;:,~ .,;,;,",~..~¡.o-I-;r. ~ ,'r ,..;,,';,/"" ,~'" ,.,,~,;;,,:.>;...:! ~ '~t;rr.~<; MËMORiAi.' PARK ;~ I:) ,"'~.r-",",'r.""'" .".,.,., ;,. ;r".r"r....';1~"".';' """,,"r'~, o';,~: PARK WAY : : . CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR APPLICANT:Clty or Chuts Vista PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Community DeveJopmeøt INITIAL STUDY C) ADDRESS: 459 "F" Street EmaMion otexlstilll! 8I1DI- D8I'IdIll! IoL CORRECTED EXHIBIT IhowIIII! Dmied SCALE: I FILE IIIUMBEII: Ioc:ation of emaMion of exlstilll! 8I1Dlnvee NORTH 1" II: 400' I PCC-85-12 D8rlånl! lot "¡ - (1 This page intentionally left blank. tj-;¿Ò - Case No, IS. 15 (/1 APPENDIX III CITY DATA SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 "'"'" ""'" , 00 "'~""':~ - f C' - (j . South - 3 . East '-0 West R~ 3 Does the pro~ conform to the current zoning' r üMZI.. A-/;!U ~~r u. Genera! Plan land use designation on site: .~ - '1.:k. ~ ~ M Nonh r}x.¡,b..u,... -' íð-dA'.a.Y ¡ South ~ ~ ~ ~~:I ~ ~~~{z-t'i; ~. Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram'] ~ Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to In area so designated' ~,- Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes' ~ (If yes. describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route). . m, Schools - ¡./A If the proposed project is residential. please complete the following: INdents UDits GeDeradnJ Qeuerated ~ ~ Enrollment ~ ..fI£I2L Prom Prolect Elementazy , ' .!O JuDior Hip .29 Seoior Hip .10 . . IV. Remarks : . ~~ O.t J! ~, ¡"It!! DUector of . g or ~sentarive , Date ' ~- 4- :? / ...-..---. 'uel ~ - Case No. IS-'15-oq LANDSCAPE PLANNING A. Does the project affect native plant communities? If so, please identify which communities. Will the project require native planting? (please desaibe) B, or IdjlCCllt to the project, What landscaping conditions (if any) ill C. £, Are there any other landscape requirements or mitiption for the project? " " / ::Y2 o/~ j2" ~~ -A /-:r~ City Landscape Ari:hitect or Represenwive Date '1- J, ~ --'~'-~--'--_J '-'-'_J '.-M. Po.. . ROUTING FORM f(£C 8~þ '('/V~'D DATE: September IS, 1994 B Clly .¡,) 19 ;v¡;; Vlio Of' '.91 Y4'c ~ C/¡Ui Ken Larson, Building & Housing /¡O{¡S~JJ/-4 John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) /)£Pt. Cliff SWanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Asst city Attorney (Draft Beg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado) Community Development, Redev.Economic Dev. only Current Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, city Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista Elementary School District, ~ate Shurson SWeetwater union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Matin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) Other ~ DoUQ Reid Environmental Section íV SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 95-09/FA-..§Z.L/DO~ Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- _/FB- _/DO-l Review of a Draft EIR (EIR--/FB-_/DP-l Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- _ERR- -l Review of Draft Beg Dec (IS- _/FA- _/DO--l The Project consists of: Expansion of the existing Civic Center parking lot west of the Fire Station which will include the redesign of the existing parking, lot and elimination of "compact" parking spaces. Location: 459 "F" Street Please review the document and forward to IDe any col/lJllents you have by 9/29/94 . D~- 4-~ ~ Col/lJllents: ~ p~ ~f ~ ~ /!fJ/! ~:I ~ ~~~~ ~ S ' .' -I'.-..-I/A, . Case No. /S -Q5' ðO¡ FIRE DEPARTMENT A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? A!!!! what is the Fire Deplltment's estimated reaction time? O,c."ä s - S7?ff7ø~ - / Ú ¡p4.<.'7 7' ¿,ul.J '/ ¡J/¥~/,..)7 hr. - v : B. Will the rue Dep~ment be able to provide an Idequate level of fire protcáion for the proposed facility without an inaease in equipment or pelSOMe1? y£s C. Remarks AØ ú-.......~Jš - 11A7.-.- ..f¡.,..,:'- 20 rT /h:.c.f~ 3 ~~ku r /9-,It. (4- . a ~ /;£'& 1- It - 94 v Fire Marsha] Date " " l.f-a'-j PIle 6 WI'C::F,~II22." _. IIDI") /IJI. InD.") ROUTING FORM DATE: September 15, 1994 r-.. "-: Ken Larson, Building & Housing /lZ>~: John Lippitt, E~gineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Richard Rudolf, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado) Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only Current Planning Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista Elementary School District, ~ate Shurson Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR) Maureen Roeber, .Library (Final EIR) LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved) Matin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only) Other -¡¡. J!8rt: DoUQ Reid Environmental section SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 95-09/FA- .2Z.L/DO..JiLL) Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DO-1 Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP-1 Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- --.ßRR--l Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- _/FA- _/DO--1 The Project consists of: Expansion of the existing Civic Center parking lot west of the Fire Station which will include the redesign of the existing parking lot and elimination of .compact" parking spaces. Location: 459 "F" Street Please review the document and forward to IDe any comments you have by 91?(/(4 . Comments: Lf- d.C This page intentionally left blank. 'f-)t, Case No, 18-95-09 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 276 Fourth Avenue 691-5120 4. Name of Proposal: Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion 5. Date of Checklist: October 26, 1994 (b""plohk) Page I 4-::27 P,.."t"" Pot.,ti"" St",o"" t... th.. St";o",, v"... St";o",, N, tm.." Mil""'" tm.." tmp'" I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 g zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 g policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 g impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 g an established community (including a low- .. income or minority community)? Comments: The General Plan Designation for the area is Medium Density Residential and the Zone is R-3. With the approval of a Special Use Permit, this project will be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 g population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 g directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable g 0 0 0 housing? Comments: The parking lot expansion will service current and future employees of the City of Chula Vista. The construction of the parking lot will not alter the distribution or growth rate of the population. The expanded parking lot will displace existing housing. However, the City of Chula Vista currently has more than its fair share of low-income housing and the five low-income units that will be lost as a result of this project have been replaced. Previous residents of the development have been relocated under the State Uniform Relocation Act. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 g geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 g overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 g features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 g any unique geologic or physical features? (b""pL.hk) Page 2 if- ..2Y' P""<I'lIy P,..,<I,lIy S;,.;o,." Lo" th" S;,.ifi,." V,I." Sig,;fi,." N, Imp'" M;iig...d Imp", Imp", e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 181 either on or off the site? t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181 sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modifY the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The project will not expose residents to any geologic hazards. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 181 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 181 hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 181 of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181 water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181 of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181 through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181 waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181 otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The proposal will not increase surface runoff. The amount of impervious surface will be the same after the project as it is currently. (b,~'pl.,hk) Page 3 '-1-:21 P"...,to", P"......II, St",.."., unth.. Stonlfi".t 0"1,,, Ston""" N" Imp", Mitt,..,. tmp." tmp." V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 181 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 181 or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181 e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 181 non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The project will not produce substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality. VI. TRANSPORT A TIONlCIRCULA nON. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 181 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 181 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 181 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181 alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: This project will reduce the present situation of insufficient parking. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181 concern or species that are candidates for listing? (b,~.pL.hk) Lj-3Ò Page 4 ""'U.lly .",.".IIy s;...n,." Lou <boo S;"Ln,." U.I,.. S;,.Ln.oo. N. 1m""" MUI,.... Imp..' 1m",," b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 181 c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 181 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 181 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181 t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181 efforts? Comments: The project site is currently developed with single-family and multi-family housing. There are no sensitive species on site. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181 inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181 protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: This project will not waste non-renewable resources. It could reduce the use of non- renewable resources by providing more parking spaces in an easily accessible location to the office. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 181 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 181 health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181 brush, grass, or trees? Comments: No hazardous substances are associated with this project. (b".pl.hk) Page 5 Lj - 3/ P"""~" p""ti~" Si",O"" u.. ".. Si...."" V,I,.. ,""iO".. N, Imp'" Mit""" tmp,.. tmp'" X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 181 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The existing noise level may change slightly during the construction period and as a result of additional cars parking and leaving the parking lot. However, it will be within the acceptable noise standards of the City. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181 c) Schools? 0 0 0 181 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 Comments: None of the above services will be negatively impacted. The project will improve the maintenance of this public facility -- a city parking lot. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the 0 0 0 181 City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) FireÆMS The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is next door, and part of the west parking lot. An immediate response time is expected. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. The Fire Department requires the maintenance of a 20-foot access throughout the area. (b,l"p',hk) Page 6 Lf-3;L P".",.II, .....11.11, S;..i..... Lo.. th., S;..i..... U,I,.. Si"i..... N, 1m.... Mill,.", Imp... Imp..' b) Police The Thresho]d Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. c) Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "0" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of ]-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project is not subject to the Threshold Standards for Traffic. d) Parks/Recreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,OOO population. The proposed project is not subject to the Threshold Standard for Parks. e) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. t) Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The Thresho]d Standards for sewerage do not apply to this project. g) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project is not subject to the Threshold Standards for Water. (b,~'pi,hk) Cf - 33 Page 7 Po"""'" Pot"""" SI,.m"" eo.. tho. SI,.m"" V.I... SI,.,n"., N. tm.." Mill,..., tm.." tm.." XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 181 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181 Comments: No new or altered utilities or service systems are required for this project. XIV, AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181 public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181 d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 181 increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The proposal will add new light sources but they will be below a level of significance. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 181 the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 181 aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 181 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (h"'pl,hk) If -3 Page 8 'f P....,;."y P....,;~ly ~..¡fi<O'1 "'"th.. ~,.'fi<OO1 U.I... ~,.'fi<o" N. Imp",' M"I,..,. 1m.." tm.." d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 181 sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 181 EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: This site is already urbanized with no cultural resources or paleontological resources on site. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 181 proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: See above. XVIl. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 181 c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181 plans or programs? Comments: No. The project will not create any new recreational opportunities or reduce any recreational opportunities currently in existence. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 181 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-SUSlaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: As the project is proposed on a previously developed site in an urbanized area, there are no sensitive animal or plant resources on site. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmenlal goals? (b,l"plohk) Page 9 'f-3S , , ,.....oI'y ""...IIy ",piRu.' Lao".. ""."u.' V."" "'..'O_, N. I.,." MI.p"" I.,." I.,." Comments: The project will accomplish the long-tenn goals consistent with the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan to improve and construct public facilities and other improvements, to improve the quality of the environment and work toward the elimination' of blighting influences, including: inadequate parking facilities. c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 181 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: This projec\ has the potential to reduce cumulative traffic impacts by providing additional parking space to Civic Center employees who may currently be traveling longer distances to find parking. d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 181 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: This project could reduce adverse effects on people by providing additional parking at locations which do not require as much travel and potential pollution. ENVffiONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circu1ation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems 0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and 8 a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (.,.."to",,) 1f-.3b Page 10 , , I fwd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0 there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fwd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least 0 one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a 'potentially significant impacts' or 'potentially significant unless mitigated.' An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. il:;d..~ ¿7¿f ~¿, 19~i Date / "Dou¿.....< D RCID Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista (b""",<hk) (b',"",,<hk) t,L -J7 ' Page It T1ús ,age íntentío11t1l1y lift blank. f-c3 r . RESOLUTION NO. PCC-95-12 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND THE EXISTING CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT AT 459 F ST. IN THE R-3 (APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL) ZONE WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was fùed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on September 13, 1994 by the Community Development Department, and; WHEREAS, said application requests approval to expand the existing Civic Center parking lot to incorporate the property at 459 F Street, and; WHEREAS, the property consists of a .52 acre residential parcel, located on the north side of F Street, adjacent and to the west of the existing Civic Center parking lot, and the proposal is to combine the parcel with the existing parking lot, redesigning the combined parcels into a larger and more functional Civic Center parking lot, and; . WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use pennit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 21 days prior to the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely December 21, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and; . WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with the project and recommends adÇ>ption of the Negative Declaration issued on Initial Study IS-95-O9. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-09. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council approve the request in aéèordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution and the fmdings contained therein, and that a copy of this resolution be . transmitted to the City Council. . 4-39 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 21st day of December, 1994 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Salas, Tarantino, Tuchscher NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Fuller and Martin (excused) ~ ~ William C. Tuchscher II, Chairman 4-~ ¿,:h:t Nancy 'pley, ~ecre ry (m:I...\annlpcc9512p,res) " cup-res , Lf-f/O Excernt from 12/21/94 Planninl! Commission Minutes ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-12: REQUEST TO EXPAND THE EXISTING CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT AT 459 F STREET IN THE R-3 (APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL) ZONE -City of Chula Vista Principal Planner Griffin made the staff presentation, noting that the Town Centre Project Area Committee had recommended approval. Staff also recommended approval, based on the fmdings in the staff report. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Larry T. Powell, 438 Camino Del Rio South #203, San Diego 92108, representing the owner of 465 "F" Street, was neither for or against the property but favored the flfst phase of the project. He was concerned about the fence dividing the property, and requested a 6' tall, masonry fence to preserve privacy. He was also concerned about security and requested that the additional parking area be permit parking with fencing as it now existed. Regarding lighting, he believed the City ordinances would protect the neighbors from lighting that would shine in existing apartment windows, and that cleaning equipment would not frequent the lot before 7:30 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. He suggested that the existing structure at 459 "F" Street be lighted if it is razed to prevent security problems. He looked forward to a good neighbor policy and expansion of the existing lot. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray asked for clarification as to whether this was approval of the parking structure. Mr. Griffm stated it was only approval of the surface lot. Commissioner Salas asked what type of fencing would divide the property. Mr. Griffm was not sure if that had been decided. He thought Mr. Powell's ideas were good, and if the Commission thought they were appropriate, he would forward a recommendation that it be a solid masonry fence along that side. Commissioner Salas thought it was a reasonable request and would like to forward that recommendation. Principal Planner Griffm noted that it may be subject to change, along with landscaping, because of fiscal constraints. He stated that the parking would be by permit, and it would remain gated in the evening to maintain security. Chair Tuchscher was pleased to hear it would be permit parking, but noted that more open parking on the campus was needed, since it always seemed to be a challenge. Regarding the fence, he asked staff about the procedure to make a recommendation. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that typically this type of expansion was handled at Zoning Administrator level as opposed to Design Review Committee. A zoning wall is required If - if/ . _.~ -,- PC Minutes December 21, 1994 between commercial and residential properties. There is no requirement for a zoning wall with masonry. He went on to explain the procedure used. Chair Tuchscher asked if in circumstances where public or quasi-public type use next to some other land use, it was on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Lee concurred. He cautioned that the City would have to be the responsible party in maintenance of the fence, whether it were a fence or a wall. He did not see a maintenance issue. He asked for Mr. Powell's card so they could talk with him directly about some of the issues he brought up. Chair Tuchscher thought Mr. Powell raised some very relative issues, which everyone is concerned about; however, he thought the cost associated with a masonry block wall may be prohibitive. There may be some other effective, as well as cost effective, solutions that may satisfy Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell stated that they were more concerned with a solid fence and, unless the City put one up, the owner would be forced to. Chair Tuchscher thought the solid fence would be a proper visual barrier. Mr. Powell asked how he could be notified when a decision was made regarding the fence. Mr. Lee again suggested that Mr. Powell leave his address or phone number. Staff would contact him to set up a time to go through all the issues before it moved on to the City Council. Mr. Powell asked if there was an existing timeframe for razing the existing building and creating the lot. Chair Tuchscher suggested he ask staff when he was contacted. He was not sure staff was into that stage at the present time. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Salas/Ray) 4-0 (Commissioners Fuller and Martin excused) to adopt Resolution PCC- 95-12 recommending that the City Council grant a conditional use permit to expand the existing Civic Center parking lot at 459 "F" Street and R-3 Apartment Residential Zone. L/ - $L;¿ - % MINUTES TOWN CENTRE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, December 1, 1994 Council Conference Room 8:45 a.m. City Hall . 1. Roll Call Member's Present: Chairman Blakely, Members Hawk, Mason, Altbaum and Killian. Members Excused: Member Winters. Staff Present: Lyle Haynes, Principal Community Development Specialist; Barbara Reid, Associate Planner; Ann Pedder Pease, Land Use Planner; Parking Operations '. Officer, Bob Baker and Miguel Tapia, Community Development Specialist. MSUC IMason/l-fawk) to excuse Member Winters, 2. Approval of Minutes of November 10, 1~~4. Chairman Blakely stated that the minutes of November 10 indicated that Member Altbaum had made some statements that should have been attributed to Chairman Blakely. .Correction should be made on page 2, paragraphs 4, 6 & 8 by replacing Member Blakely's name where Member Altbaum's name appears. MSUC IMason/Altbaum) to approve .the minutes, of November 10, 1994,w:ith the correction to page 2. paragraphs 4,6 & 8, PARKING BUSINESS 3. Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion - Special Use Permit PCC 95-12 Mr. Haynes briefly described the project, He stated that the City purchased the property at 459 F Street with the intent to expand the Civic Center parking lot, Mr. Haynes said that the Masterplan for the Civic Center expansion calls for a three-/evel parking garage for which funds are,not available at this time. . Ms. Pease explained that the reason' for the necessity of a Conditional Use Permit is because the parking lot, as an expansion of the Civic Center, is considered a non-classified use under the zoning ordinance and any non classified use requires a Conditional Use Permit, The Conditional Use Permit allows the Planning Department to determine whether the parking lot is an appropriate use for the land. The plans have also been examined to determine if all requirements of the zoning ordinance have been met. Requirements for circulation, egress, size of space and parking ratios are all included in the study. She stated that the Planning Department is satisfied that this is an excellent solution for an interim. This project is also scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on December 21 . She said that so far no public comments have been received and the project meets all requirements from other City departments. Chairman Blakely asked how many parking spaces will be gained. Ms. Pease answered thirty. '-/ - '13 A',", } Minutes December 1,1994 Page 2 Member Mason asked if there is a different set of rules for City parking lots and the employee parking lot. Ms Pease said no. Mr. Haynes said that the design was arrived at in order to eliminate the existing compact spaces and maximizing them to st¡¡ndard size. Member Altbaum asked how many spaces in the existing lot are actually unusable. Ms. Pe¡¡se said that there are none that are unusable. Mr, Haynes said that staff Is recommending this plan at this time. He added that the recommendation includes eliminating the substandard parking spaces, ¡¡dding trees for shading as well as 'pedestrian walkways. ' Chairman Blakely commented that it seemed like a big InvestmeQt ,for gaining only 30 spaces. Mr. Haynes stated that the parking lot would be a definite improvement over the existing lot by elimin¡¡ting the compact spaces and upgrading the landscaping. However, from a monetary standpoint In terms of picking up only 30 spaces that is a negative factor. . Chairman Blakely asked what would happen if staff were asked to add 1 5 more spaces to the plan, Ms.Pe¡¡sesaid a studY w¡¡sconducted to determine if mOre'sp¡¡ces could be gained ifthat lot were' used separate from the existing lot, If access to that lot were achieved from the western property line, 45 to 50 spaces could be gained. However, that did not take into conslder¡¡tion the eHmination of about 6 spaces for access into that property and it does not solve the problem with the compact spaces, She said that although this alternative looks good on paper, still only about 30 spaces would be gained and Improvements such as the lighting and landscaping would be lacking. Member Mason asked if the circles on the plans indicated the actual number of trees that will be included in the landscaping. Ms, Pease said yes that Is the number of trees that is planned for the lot. Chairman Blakely asked if this is just a temporary parking lot would it not be better to develop the lot into the allowable spaces and restriping the existing lot and saving the money for the project that will eventually be constnjcted instead of planting all the trees and then having to redo everything. Mr. Haynes responded that if the parking garage was going to constructed in the next five or eight years then it would make sense not to proceed with this project. Since the money is not available for the parking garage project, the City feels it 'would be wise to improve this facility in the interim. He does not believe that the City will be ready to proceed with the parking garage for at least 10 years. MSUC (Altbaum/Mason) (5-0-1, Winters absent) to accept staff's recommendation to approve the project. Chairman's Comments: None. I,L-t¡:cf --- MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 p.m. Conference Room #1 Monday, November 7,1994 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Burrascano. City Staffperson Barbara Reid called roll. Also present: Commissioners Hall, Marquez, and Fisher. A motion had already been made to excuse Commissioner Ghougassian ftom tonight's meeting; Guerreiro is unexcused for the fourth straight meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (Marquez/Hall) to approve the minutes of the meeting of October 10, 1994; motion carried 4-0. Fisher stated he still wants to review the Alternatives to the MSCP Plan, even if it can be done at a special meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. NEW BUSINESS: The agenda was taken out of order to accommodate Michael Meacham. 1. Michael Meacham updated the commission on the Residential RefuselRecycling Public Education Program as the council was asking for appropriating funds. He reviewed what was currently being done to enhance the existing program by way of newsletters for educating the public, presenting awards on recycling, and expanding the program. It features focus groups, special event recycling, and ftee pickup of mulch and compost. The "Chula Vista Recycles" gives cash awards for those who exemplifY good recycling efforts. Marquez opposed the idea of gift certificates due to potential concern of "giving away" public funds to those who should recycle anyway. Mr. Meacham stated this money comes ftom monthly dues of around $1, and that only about .10 goes to public education. It was MSUC (Ha1lIFisher) to recommend support of the program for resource recycling; motion carried 4-0. 2. The "Variable Rate Unit Pricing Demonstration" was given by Mr. Meacham, who showed the 32, 64, and 96-gallon trash cans. Tlûs handles the problem of one large trash can rather than several smaller cans, eliminates the multi-rates, and allows residents to pay by the amount of trash generated according to the size of cans used and are not billed by trash weight but by a standard rate. Meacham suggested this system is more cost effective, people would be more concerned for the volume of trash generated, thus encouraging recycling. 3. Barbara Reid reviewed Alternative 5 of the MSCP plans for further environmental analysis. She provided an overview of the areas which are designated for 100% preservation and 90% preservation. The commission did not believe the 5th Alternative adequately showed what land is being used. Questions they wanted to be addressed included: why Rohr Park If-~lfr Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 was incorrectly depicted; how Alternative 5 compares with the other four alternatives (maps); definitions for core areas and linkages; wanted to see maps showing which areas are developed and which are vacant; where development is prohibited based on the General Plan and land use regulations; where is it prohibited based on general plan designations not connected to physical restrictions that would limit development. It was also suggested the proposed Alternative 5 work harder to preserve the gnatcatchers since it's one of the largest habitats in existence. Fisher wanted to know who the biologist was maYing the detcrmi:Ulti(),1S on the map, and what was meant by biological core areas, particularly ones that were delineated as 70% preserve. Further questions were raised on watershed restoration, why the greenbelts around Sweetwater River to the Otay River showed high development areas, and why the Bayftont areas showed a lack of open space and highly valued resources on the map. Reid also defined the areas on the map that were approved for development. It was stiJJ unclear to the commission what is already slated for open space and what was unbuildable vs. unprotected. They stiJJ felt they wanted to overlay all four plans and comparison maps to see each of the alternatives. A motion was made by Fisher not to accept this MSCP Plan's 5th alternative without better clarification of opposing points; Marquez amended the motion to include not accepting this alternative in its current fonn; motion carried 4-0. It was requested a workshop of the MSCP Plan be held to provide further information and detail to the commission. 4. Mitigation Land for various drainage improvements: postponed to the next meeting. 5. Review oÎ Ciean Wa(er MSCF map; postponed to the lIex¡ meeting. 6. Review of Negative Declaration IS-95-O5, Otay Lakes Road, Dual Left-Turn Lanes. It was MSUC (BurrascanolHalI) to accept the negative declaration; motion carried 4-0. A comment was made to put beepers for the blind at the signal lights. It was questioned why there were above-street phone poles when there are underground power lines, and why they lanes couldn't go from 4 to 6 lanes now to eliminate more construction later. 7. Review of Negative Declaration IS-95-O9, Civic Parking Lot. It was MSUC (FisherlHa1J) to accept the negative declaration; motion carried 4-0. 8. Planning Commission Agenda of November 9, 1994 review: No action taken by the COmmISSIon. STAFF REPORT: None i.f-ÇL~ Resource Conservation Commission Pa(e3 CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Chair Burrascano thanked Marquez for bringing the infonnation on the Historical Society. Additiona1ly, two new members are still needed on the commission. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 9:08 p.m. RespectfuUy submitted, EXPREss SECRETARIAL SERVICES ~~~~ Barbara Taylor t¡-tf7 Thís ¡age ínttnüonifly ltft blank. Lf- L/ F RESOLUTION ~O, ./ 7 8:3 4 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-95-09) AND APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-95-12 FOR THE CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT 459 F STREET I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as 459 F Street, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 0.52 acre located on the north side of F Street, immediately adjacent to and to the west of the existing Civic Center parking lot ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Conditional Use Permit WHEREAS, on September 13, 1994, the Community Development Department of the City of Churn Vista fIled a Conditional/Special Use Permit Application with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista in order to expand the existing Civic Center parking lot to incorporate the Project Site ("Project"); and, C. Project Area Committee of Town Centre Redevelopment Area Record on Application WHEREAS, The Project Area Committee of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Area held an advertised public meeting on said project on December 1, 1994, and voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the City Council approve the Project based upon the fmdings contained herein; and, D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on December 21, 1994 and voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the Project in accordance with Resolution PCC-95-12; and, E. City Council Record of Application /(- t( 1 -,- WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on January 3, 1995 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Project Area Committee, 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: II. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Town Centre Project Area Committee at their public hearing on December 1, 1994, and the Plannin:g Commission at their public hearing on this project held on December 21, 1994, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEWED AND ADOPTED The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration issued on Initial Study IS-95-09 and fIDds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and thereby adopts the Negative Declaration. IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-09 has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. V. INDEPENDENT WDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the Negative Declaration issued on IS-95-09 reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista City Council. VI. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the fIDdings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated rIDding to be made. A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. 4- J-V . _.. -' .-... The existing Civic Center parking lot is inadequate to meet the present parking needs at the Civic Center. The Project will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood by helping to ensure that all employee vehicles can be accommodated within employee parking areas. B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persous residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, The proposed use, as designed, will not adversely affect persons residing or working in the vicinity and has been found to comply with all City policies and standards for the design and operation of parking areas. C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The project will be required to comply with all applicable codes and regulations prior to the issuance of development permits, and on a continuing basis thereafter. D. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The approval of this permit is consistent with City policies and the Chula Vista General Plan and adheres to the previously-adopted Civic Center Master Plan. VII. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-12 subject to the following terms whereby: A. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to 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 can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. B. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. 4-- S- f VIII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination and file the same with the County Clerk. IX. 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 shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by ?LIf1.~ (\ /U....../ Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning 4- - :;,- ~ RESOLUTION /lfLf S RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VIST AADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION (15-95-09) AND APPROVING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT (PCC-95-12) FOR THE CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT 459 F STREET WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista adopted a Relocation Plan for the residential units formerly residing at 459 F Street pursuant to the Civic Center Master Expansion Plan adopted in April, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency approved the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the property located at 459 F Street in order to acquire the property necessary to construct an expansion to the existing Civic Center parking lot pursuant to the Civic Center Master Expansion Plan; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Chula Vista filed an application for an Initial Study (IS-95-09) and a Conditional Use/Special Use Permit (PCC-95-12) for the construction of a parking lot expansion; and WHEREAS, the Town Centre Project Area Committee at their meeting of December 1, 1994, reviewed the Negative Declaration (IS-95-09) issued for the project, and adopted a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use/Special Use Permit (PCC-95- 12) to the Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 21, 1994, reviewed the Negative Declaration and (lS-95-09) issued for the project, and adopted a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use/Special Use Permit (PCC-95-12) to the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve that 1) the Negative Declaration (IS-95- 09) is adopted and 2) that the Special Use Permit (PCC-95-12) is approved for the Civic Center Parking Lot Expansion project located at 459 F Street. PRESENTED BY: Ato AS lOAM '( ~~ ~ r~~~ ~ . v~ì ~ Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary /¡ Bruce M. Boogaard Community Development Director Agency General Cfu sel c:\ wp51 \haynes\document\459sup .res q-S3 - -,._- This page intentionally left blank. '--I -5"tf