The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Packet 1994/11/15 Tuesday, November IS, 1994 Council Chambers 6:00 p,m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Joint Meeting of the Redeve1ooment Agency/City Council of the Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Agency/Council Members Fox -, Horton -, Moore_, Rindone -' and Chairman/Mayor Nader -' 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November I, 1994 CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 3 through 4) The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Agency by one motion wilhout discussion unless an Agency, a member of the public or City staff requests that the ilem be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submil it to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4.A. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17712 APPROVING THE SECOND RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT AS FIRST AMENDED WITH ADVOCATION, INC., FOR THE 1995-1996 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND AUTHORIZING TIlE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA--On 12/31/94 the current agreement with Advocation, Inc., expires. The Agreement provides for two 2-year extensions to coincide with the State legislative sessions, and Advocation has formally requested the existing Agreement be extended. Advocation is highly instrmnental in the success of the City's lobbying efforts on various issues at the State level, including redevelopment and State budget legislation. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Legislative Subcommittee/Administration) B. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1433 APPROVING TIlE SECOND RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT AS FIRST AMENDED WITH ADVOCATION, INC., FOR TIlE 1995-1996 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND AUTHORIZING TIlE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * Agenda -2- November 15, 1994 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following ilems have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submil it to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. 5. JOINT COUNCIL/AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A 31.63 ACRE SITE OF VACANT LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 54 BETWEEN BROADWAY AVENUE (NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD) AND FIFTH A VENUE WITHIN TIlE BOUNDARIES OF TIlE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. TIlE PUBLIC HEARING WILL CONSIDER TIlE FOLLOWING: [Continued from the meeting of 11/1/94] 1. Review and certification of Final Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR 94- 02), Addendmn to the FEIR (EIR 94-02A) , Findings of Feasible Mitigation Measures, Mitigation and Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a proposed 220,000 sq. ft. commercial retail shopping center to be anchored by a "Wal-Mart" store; and 2, General Plan Amendment (GPA 94-04) for the project site to change the General Plan designation from "Research and Limited Manufactoring" to "Commercial Thoroughfare": and 3, Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA #12) for the project site (the "Inland Parcel") to change the land use designation for both the Bayfront Land Use Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan from "Industria1 General" to "Commercial Thoroughfare" subject to the "Central Commercial" zoning designation criteria of the Chula Vista Municipal Code: and 4. Zoning Map Amendment (PCZ-94-C) for the project site to change the zoning designation from "Limited Industrial - Precise Plan Modifier" to "Central Commercial - Precise Plan Modifier"; and 5. Coastal Development Permit (#068) for construction of the Channe1side Shopping Center consisting of approximately 220,000 sq. ft. of commercial-retail floor area anchored by a "Wal-Mart" store at the project site. It is recommended that the Citv Council and Redevelopment Aeencv open the public hearine take testimonv close the public hearine. and approve the resolutions and place the ordinances on first readine in the followine seQuential order: fA} Agency Resolution # 1430 and Council Resolution # 17705 which: (I) certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report #94-02 and adopts Addendum EIR 94-02A, (2) makes Findings of Fact on the feasibility of ntitigation measures and project alternatives, (3) Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations [B} Council Resolution # 17706 which Amends the General PÚln Úlnd-use designation for the project site from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial-Thorouglifare" Agenda -3- November 15, 1994 [C} Ordinance # 2613 which amends the Certified ChuÚl Vista Local Coastal Program and Bayfront Specific PÚln in accordance with Amendment #12 recÚlssifying 31.63 acres of the "InÚlnd Parcel", Subarea 4from "Industrial-General" to "Commercial-Thoroughfare" subject to the "Central-Commercial-Precise PÚln" modifying District pursuant to Chapters 19.36 and 19.56 of the ChuÚl Vista Municipal Code [D} Ordinance # 2614 which amends the Zoning Map established by Section 19.18.010 of the ChuÚl Vista Municipal Code to rezone the 31.63 acre project site located at the terntinus of North Fifth Avenue from "Industrial-Lintited with Precise PÚln Modifier" to "Central-Commercial-Precise PÚln" [E} Council Resolution # 17707 which authorizes the issuance of Coastal Development Permit #068 for the construction of the Channelside Shopping Center located at southeast quadrant of National City Boulevard (Broadway) and State Route 54 subject to Conditions of Approval [F} Agency Resolution # 1431 which approves the Channelside Shopping Center project and Precise Plan, subject to Specific Project Conditions; and decÚlres that Certain Conditions Precedent to effectiveness as set forth in the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency, ChuÚl Vista Town Center Associates, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. have been satisfied A. JOINT AGENCY RESOLUTION 1430 COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17705 CERTIFYING TIlE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 94-02) FOR TIlE CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER; ADOPTING ADDENDUM EIR 94-02A; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO TIlE FEASffiILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS B. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17706 AMENDING TIlE GENERAL PLAN FOR 31.63 ACRES LOCATED AT TIlE TERMINUS OF NORTH FIFTH A VENUE FROM "RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING" TO "COMMERCIAL- THOROUGHFARE" C. COUNCIL ORDINANCE 2613 AMENDING TIlE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND BA YFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH AMENDMENT #12 RECLASSIFYING 31.63 ACRES OF TIlE "INLAND PARCEL", SUBAREA 4 FROM "INDUSTRIAL-GENERAL" TO A COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE LAND USE DISTRICT SUBJECT TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 19.36 AND 19.56 OF TIlE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE (First Readin2) D. COUNCIL ORDINANCE 2614 AMENDING TIlE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF TIlE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REZONE 31.63 ACRES LOCATED AT TIlE TERMINUS OF NORTH FIFTH A VENUE FROM I-L-P (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) TO C-C-P (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL-PRECISE PLAN) (First Readin2) Agenda -4- November 15, 1994 E. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17707 AUTHORIZING TIlE ISSUANCE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #068 FOR TIlE CONSTRUCTION OF TIlE CHANNELSIDE (WAL-MART) SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 220,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA LOCATED AT TIlE SOUTIIEAST QUADRANT OF NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD (BROADWAY) AND STATE ROUTE 54 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL After the Citv Council takes the above recommended actions. it is recommended that the Redevelooment Agencv then approve: F. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1431 APPROVING TIlE PROJECT AND TIlE PRECISE PLAN TIlEREFOR SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC PROJECT CONDITIONS; AND DECLARING THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO EFFECTIVENESS AS SET FORTH IN TIlE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIlE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CHULA VISTA TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, AND WAL-MART STORES, INC., HAVE BEEN SATISFIED 6. PUBLIC HEARING LEASE OF THE STRUCTURES AT 801 BROADWAY IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE TIlE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FINDING, PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33431, THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF TIlE PUBLIC AND TIlE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THAT TIlE STATED PROPERTY BE LEASED TO THE URBAN CORPS FOR USE AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER FOR AN OIL RECYCLING EDUCATION PROGRAM AND BE LEASED WITHOUT PUBLIC BID--The City's Recycling Coordinator obtained a $371,850 grant to promote used oil recycling. The programs to be funded by the grant and administered through the Urban Corps will make a substantial contribution to the City's residential and commercial recycling and watershed oil programs. The Urban Corps requests use of the South Bay Chevrolet dealership as an office/warehouse facility. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) A. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1434 AUTHORIZING TIlE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A LEASE FOR STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 801 BROADWAY WITH TIlE URBAN CORPS FOR USE AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER FOR AN OIL RECYCLING EDUCATION PROGRAM ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter within the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker. _H Agenda -5- November 15, 1994 ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicil substantial discussions and deliberations by the Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Agency and staff recommendations may in cel1ain cases be presented in the aÛemative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minuJes. 7. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1435 AMENDING RESOLUTION 1419 APPROVING SALE OF 1994 TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS--On 9/24/94 the Redevelopment Agency and Council authorized the issuance of 1994 Tax Allocation Bonds for advance refunding of the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds previously issued by the Agency for the Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project. The primary purpose of the proposed refunding is to achieve savings in annual debt service payments. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Executive Director) ITEMS PULLED FROM TIlE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the Redevelopment Agency will discuss ilems which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Agency Members. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual. OTIlER BUSINESS 8. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) 9. CHAIRMAN'S/MA YOR'S REPORTlS) 10. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT By vote at the 1111194 meeting, the meeting will adjourn to a Special Joint Redevelopment Agency/City Council Meeting on November 22, 1994 at 6:00 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 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for schednled services and activities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at (619) 691-5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647, California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. [C:IWP51 IAGENCYIAGENDAS\11-15-94.AGDI Minutes of a Joint Meeting of the Redevelooment Agency/City Council of the Citv of Chnla Vista Tuesday, November I, 1994 Council Chambers 8:35 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Chairman/Mayor Nader ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Executive Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Counse]; Marcia Scully, Agency Special Counsel; Chris Salomone, Community Development Director; Bob Powell, Director of Finance; and, Berlin D. Bosworth, Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 23, 1994; October 11, 1994; and October 18, 1994 MSC [RindonelHorton] to approve minutes of August 23, 1994, passed 4-0-0-1, Fox abstained; October 11, 1994 and October 18, 1994, passed 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR None Submitted. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None Submitted. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 4, AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING LEASEOFTHEPARCELLOCATEDEASTOF~5BROADWAY IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE TIlE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FINDING PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33431, THAT IT IS IN TIlE BEST INTEREST OF TIlE PUBLIC AND TIlE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THAT TIlE STATED PROPERTY BE LEASED TO SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR USE AS A PARKING LOT AND BE LEASED WITHOUT PUBLIC BID--Staff has been working with South Bay Community Services on locating an adequate site for a teen club with the goal of assisting low and moderate income youths, The selected site at 825 Broadway does not have adequate parking, necessitating additional parking which is available on the adjacent Agency-owned vacant lot. Staff wishes to lease a portion of the lot to be used as additional parking for the teen club. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) A. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1429 AUTHORIZING TIlE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A LEASE FOR TIlE PARCEL LOCATED EAST OF 825 BROADWAY WITH SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR USE AS A PARKING LOT .2 - J Minutes November I, 1994 Page 2 Member/Council Member Rindone noted in the recommendation section of the staff report it stated a nominal rate would be charged, but it was not contained in the resolution. Was the nominal rate $l? Community Development Director Salomone replied a nominal rate of $1 was what staff intended. Member/Council Member Moore referring to the seventh Whereas of the resolution, requested it be reworded to also indicate lease of the property as well as sell of property. Mr. Salomone concurred in adding that text. This being the time and place, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION 1429, as amended, OFFERED BY CHAIRIMA YOR NADER, reading of the text was waived and passed unanimously. 5. JOINT COUNCIL/AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A 31.63 ACRE SITE OF VACANT LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 54 BETWEEN BROADWAY AVENUE (NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD) AND FIFTH A VENUE WITHIN TIlE BOUNDARIES OF TIlE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. TIlE PUBLIC HEARING WILL CONSIDER TIlE FOLLOWING: 1. Review and certification of Final Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR 94-02), Addendum to the FEIR (EIR 94-02A), Findings of Feasible Mitigation Measures, Mitigation and Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a proposed 220,000 sq. ft. commercial retail shopping center to be anchored by a "Wal-Mart" store; and 2. General Plan Amendment (GPA 94-04) for the project site to change the General Plan designation from "Research and Limited Manufactoring" to "Commercial Thoroughfare"; and 3. Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA #12) for the project site (the "Inland Parcel") to change the land use designation for both the Bayfront Land Use Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan from "Industrial General" to "Commercial Thoroughfare" subject to the "Central Commercial" zoning designation criteria of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; and 4. Zoning Map Amendment (PCZ-94-C) for the project site to change the zoning designation from "Limited Industrial - Precise Plan Modifier" to "Central Commercial - Precise Plan Modifier"; and 5, Coastal Development Permit (#068) for construction of the Channelside Shopping Center consisting of approximately 220,000 sq. ft. of commercial-retail floor area anchored by a "Wal-Mart" store at the project site. It is recommended that the Citv Council and Redevelopment A.encv open the public hearine take testimonv close the public hearine and approve the resolutions and PÚlce the ordinances on first readine in the followine seauential order: fA} Agency Resolution # 1430 and Council Resolution # 17705 which: (1) certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report #94-02 and adopts AddendumEIR 94-02A, (2) makes Findings of Fact on the feasibility ofntitigation measures and project alternatives, (3) Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations 02-1- Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 3 [B} Council Resolution # 17706 which Amends the General PÚln Úlnd-use designation for the project site from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial-Thorouglifare" [C} Ordinance # 2613 which amends the Certified ChuÚl Vista Local Coastal Program and Bayfront Specific PÚln in accordance with Amendment #12 recÚlssifying 31.63 acres of the "Inland Parcel", Subarea 4 from "Industrial-General" to "Commercial-Thoroughfare" subject to the "Central-Commercial-Precise PÚln" modifying District pursuant to Chapters 19.36 and 19.56 of the ChuÚl Vista Municipal Code [D} Ordinance # 2614 which amends the Zoning Map established by Section 19.18.010 of the ChuÚl Vista Municipal Code to rezone the 31.63 acre project site located at the terntinus of North Fifth Avenuefrom "Industrial- Limited with Precise PÚln Modifier" to "Central-Commercial-Precise PÚln" [E} Council Resolution # 17707 which authorizes the issuance of Coastal Development Perntit #068 for the construction of the Clwnnelside Shopping Center located at southeast quadrant of National City Boulevard (Broadway) and State Route 54 subject to Conditions of Approval [F} Agency Resolution # 1431 which approves the Channelside Shopping Center project and Precise PÚln, subject to Specific Project Conditions; and decÚlres that Certain Conditions Precedent to effectiveness as setforth in the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency, ChuÚl Vista Town Center Associates, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. have been satisfied A. JOINT AGENCY RESOLUTION 1430 and COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17705 CERTIFYING TIlE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 94-02) FOR TIlE CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER; ADOPTING ADDENDUM EIR 94-02A; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO TIlE FEASffiILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS B. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17706 AMENDING TIlE GENERAL PLAN FOR 31.63 ACRES LOCATED AT TIlE TERMINUS OF NORTH FIFTH A VENUE FROM "RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING" TO "COMMERCIAL-THOROUGHFARE" C. COUNCIL ORDINANCE 2613 AMENDING TIlE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND BA YFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH AMENDMENT #12 RECLASSIFYING 31.63 ACRES OF TIlE "INLAND PARCEL", SUBAREA 4 FROM "INDUSTRIAL- GENERAL" TO A COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE LAND USE DISTRICT SUBJECT TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 19.36 AND 19.56 OF TIlE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE (First Readin!!) D, COUNCIL ORDINANCE 2614 AMENDING TIlE ZONING MAP EST ABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REZONE 31.63 ACRES LOCATED AT TIlE TERMINIJS OF NORTH FIFTH A VENUE FROM I-L-P (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) TO C-C-P (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL-PRECISE PLAN) (First Readilll!) ;--3 Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 4 E. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17707 AUTHORIZING TIlE ISSUANCE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #068 FOR TIlE CONSTRUCTION OF TIlE CHANNELSIDE (W AL-MART) SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 220,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA LOCATED AT TIlE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD (BROADWAY) AND STATE ROUTE 54 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL After the Citv Council takes the above recommended actions. it is recommended that the Redevelopment Aeencv then approve: F. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1431 APPROVING TIlE PROJECT AND TIlE PRECISE PLAN TIlEREFOR SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC PROJECT CONDITIONS; AND DECLARING THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO EFFECTIVENESS AS SET FORTH IN TIlE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIlE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CHULA VISTA TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, AND WAL-MART STORES, INC., HAVE BEEN SATISFIED MSUC [Moore/Nader] recommend the public hearing be opened and continued to Tuesday, November 15, 1994 immediately following the City Council meeting. This being the time arul place, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony at this time, the public hearing was declared continued to Tuesday, November 15, 1994 immediately following the City Council meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ACTION ITEMS 6.A AGENCY RESOLUTION 1432 WAIVING TIlE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AND APPOINTING BOND COUNSEL AND FINANCIAL ADVISOR UNDER EXISTING CONTRACTS; AND AUTHORIZING TIlE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO SELECT TIlE BOND UNDERWRITER THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR TIlE PROPOSED NEGOTIATED SALE OF BONDS FOR ADVANCE REFUNDING OF VARIOUS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DEBT UNDER TIlE MARKS-ROOS LOCAL BOND POOLING ACT--The City has several outstanding Assessment District bond issues that were sold during periods of higher interest rates, and are candidates for refunding at this time. Formation of a Joint Power Authority, specifically termed a Marks-Roos Authority, will allow the City to maximize savings to property owners under applicable State statotes. In order to achieve a timely refunding, it is recommended that Bond Counsel be appointed under an existing contract, that Financial Advisor be appointed by modifying the terms of an existing contract, arul the Director of Finance be authorized to appoint a Bond Underwriter after a competitive proposal process. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Finance) B. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17708 WAIVING TIlE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AND APPOINTING BOND COUNSEL AND FINANCIAL ADVISOR UNDER EXISTING CONTRACT; AND AUTHORIZING TIlE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO SELECT TIlE BOND UNDERWRITER THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR TIlE PROPOSED NEGOTIATED SALE OF BONDS FOR ADVANCE REFUNDING OF V ARIOUS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DEBT UNDER TIlEMARKS-ROOS LOCAL BOND POOLING ACT 02-1/ Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 5 Member/Council Member Rindone stated this was a highly sensitive issue and noted the last line of the recommendation (page 6-2 of the staff report) said subject to approval by the City Manager. Wonld there be any difficnlty in the time line if a change was made to eliminate the words City Manager and replaced with the words City Councir? Director of Finance Powell pointed out the time line was extremely tight. It wonld take, at minimum, three weeks to select an underwriter. Mr. Mark Nortbcross, Kelling, Nortbcross & Nobriga, Inc., said the Agency/Council could be accommodated in its request, but there wonld be risks. Assessment Bonds are callable on March 2 and September 2 of every Bond year. There was a 60-day Call Notice reqnirement. In order to achieve the March 2 date, then the refunding must close no later than January 2. The Bonds must be soldo-given the market wonld was right to enter--very early in December. The underwriter would need to be selected by late November, which would leave a small margin of error in the schedule. Member/Council Member Rindone asked why the item could not come to the first meeting in December, which would be December 6, 1994. Mr. Nortbcross replied it was hoped the Bonds would have been sold by December 6 in order to meet the necessary time lines. Therefore, the underwriter would need to be selected by the end of November. Member/Council Member Rindone disagreed. He wanted the item to come before the Agency/Council. MOTION [RindonelMoore] to approve staff recommendation, but eliminate the words City Manager and replace with the words City Council in the staff recommendation. Member/Council Member Rindone said it would be staffs responsibility to get the item to the Agency/Council even if that met requesting a Special Meeting. Joseph W. Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, concurred with Member/Council Member Rindone. It seemed staff always had to do everything in a hurry. There was no actoal fiscal impact against the City, other than the cost to generate the paperwork. Mr. Powell agreed there was no cost to the City, but noted the City recovered $16/year for each parcel for its administrative costs to administer the Districts. Mr. Garcia pointed out there was no guarantee the Assessment Districts would generate the income necessary to pay the Bond issue. There was nothing in the staff report which stated the dollar amount which was being petitioned for authorization on the Bond issues for each of the five Districts, Mr. Powell stated that information would be supplied when staff presented the legal documents and the request for formation of the Marks-Roos Joint Power Authority at its November 15, 1994 meeting. Member/Council Member Fox asked if there would be a delay which could cause a problem entering the Bond market if the item came back to the Agency/Council at its regular meeting of November 15, 1994 or to a Special Meeting on November 22, 1994. Mr. Powell replied that was a possibility. The main restriction was to meet the 60-day Call date, which was early January 1995, otherwise the March payment date wonld be missed, Staff wanted to get the process structored so as to gauge the market at that time. Member/Council Member Fox asked if staff conld bring a bond underwriter recommendation to the Agency/Council on November 22, 1994. ;<-5 Minutes November I, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Powell said that was in the realm of possibility. The concern was missing the March payment date. Member/Council Member Horton understood Member/Council Member Rindone's concerns but had full confidence in the City Manager to make the right decision. In a situation such as this, time was of the essence. Chair/Mayor Nader agreed with Member/Council Member Horton with respect to the City Manager's ability. However, when there was an elected official who felt, for whatever reason, that an item should come before the elected body, that should be the case. Member/Council Member Moore was satisfied with the process, though he concurred with bringing the item to the elected body shonld a Member desire it. Could a process be developed to select a bond underwriter without having to bring it to the Agency/Council. Member/Council Member Horton asked if the City conld create a list of qualified bond underwriters for Agency/Council preapproval. Mr. Powell noted that wonld be an excellent idea on normal Issues. There were, however, certain Issues which wonld not lend themselves to a preapproved list. This Issue was one of those. Assessment Districts are somewhat unique and a pooled refunding of this natore was more unique and there were very few firms which would participate, that had experience marketing that type Issue. Staff recommended going out with a Request for Qualifications of firms interested and make a selection based upon those qualifications. Staff was not requesting avoidance of the competitive process. Member/Council Member Fox agreed that should a Member want an item brought to the elected body, he would defer to him/her in those requests. However, he shared Member/Council Member Horton's concern about missing the time lines. If the item was not agendized for the November 22, 1994 meeting, then it should be placed under his Council Comments. Chair/Mayor Nader suggested the item be agendized for November 22, 1994 and contain a recommendation for Agency/Council action. Member/Council Member Horton concurred. AMENDED MOTION [RindonelMoore] to approve staff recommendation, but eliminate the words Ciiy Manager and replace with the words City Council in the staff recommendation. Agendize the selection of the bond underwriter a for Joint Special Agency/Council meeting of November 22, 1994. Vote on Amended Motion: Approved 5-0. ITEMS PULLED FROM TIlE CONSENT CALENDAR OTIlER BUSINESS 7. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTIS) None. 8. CHAIRMAN'SIMA YOR'S REPORTIS) None. cJ,-~ Minutes November I, 1994 Page 7 9, AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT The Redevelopment Agency/City Council met in a closed session at 9:08 to discuss: 10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54956.9 . Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 0 South Bay Chevrolet v. City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency [letter from South Bay Chevrolet dated October 18, 1994] 11. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 . Property: 980 F Street, Chula Vista, CA Negotiating parties: Director of Community DevelopmentlUnified Port District of San Diego Under negotiation: The sale of Agency-owned property. The Redevelopment Agency/City Council reconvened at 10:08 p,m. and announced that no reportable actions had been taken in Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:09P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectftdly submitted, o'-IJ~ j~7'J~~ Berlin D. Bosworth Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency (C:\WP51 \AGENCY\AGENDAS\11-01-94.MlNl d.-7 JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item ij Meeting Date 11/15/94 ITEM TITLE: Resolution /77/L approving the Second Renewal of Agreement as first amended with Advocation, Inc. for the 1995-1996 legislative session, and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Resolution /IfJ3 of the Redevelopment Agency approving the Second Renewal of Agreement as first amended with Advocation, Inc. for the 1995-1996 legislative session, and authorizing the Chairman to execute said agreement On behalf of the Redevelopment Agency. SUBMITTED BY: Legi"etlve '"'oommittee M Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manager -' REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoXI On December 31, 1994, the current agreement with Advocation, Inc. expires. The agreement provides for two two-year extensions to coincide with the state legislative sessions, and Advocation has formally requested that the existing agreement be extended. Advocation has been highly instrumental in the success of the City's lobbying efforts at the state level on various issues including redevelopment and state budget legislation. RECOMMENDATION: That the Council/Redevelopment Agency extend the agreement with Advocation, Inc. for the second of the two two-year options (proposed agreement attached as Exhibit' A'). The effective period of the extended contract will be January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1996. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Support staff's recommendation, DISCUSSION: Background In March of 1989, Council and the Redevelopment Agency approved an agreement which retained the legislative advocacy services of Advocation, Inc. for the remainder of the 1989-90 Legislative Session. In November of 1990, the agreement was formally amended with a new effective period covering the 1991-92 Legislative Session, expiring December 31, 1992. Contained in the amended agreement was an option to renew the agreement at the mutual discretion of the Council/Agency and Advocation, Inc., for two two-year periods coinciding with the state legislative sessions. The first of these options was exercised in 1992 for the just-completed 1-/ Page 2, Item-Í- Meeting Date 11 /15/94 sessions. The first of these options was exercised in 1992 for the just-completed 1993-94 session (Exhibit '8'). In a recent letter to the Mayor (Exhibit 'C'), Advocation, Inc. has formally requested that the existing agreement be extended for the second of the two two-year options, to expire December 31, 1996. Scooe of Work The existing agreement designates Advocation Inc. as Chula Vista's official legislative representative with the Cafifornia State Legislature, the federal defegation and various governmental agencies. Further, the agreement requires that the City/Agency be provided with comprehensive legislative services, including: 1. Review of all bills introduced in the California Legislature, informing the City of all State and Federal legislation affecting the City's primary interests and forwarding a copy of such bills to the City; 2. Attending all League of California Cities' regular "City representative" meetings and briefings; 3. Tracking legisfation of interest to the City, maintaining bill records and sending updated copies regularly to the City (In 1993-94, Advocation tracked more than 210 bills for the City, on 65 of which the city then took a formal position. Of these, 44 (or 68%) resulted in positive outcomes); 4. Arranging meetings with legislative representatives for elected officials and City staff when necessary, and being prepared to participate as required; 5. Performing customary duties of legislative advocacy and governmental affairs representative on behalf of their cfients to the best of its abifity, experience and expertise; 6. Gathering data and providing information to City on such matters as: a. State agency and department regulations, guidelines, directives, and other instruments of administrative poficy which may impact Council/Agency projects/operations; b. Funding opportunities for proposed City and Agency projects and maximizing use of all available State resources for financing City programs and mandates; c. Hearings, reports and testimony of interest to the City; 7. Representing the Council/Agency in meetings with state agencies, boards, commissions, and legislative bodies; 1-2 Page 3, Item~ Meeting Date 11/15/94 8. Developing legislative initiatives to assist in the implementation of the Council/Agency's legislative program; 9. Tracking and monitoring propositions and initiatives at the State level and keeping the City apprised of proposals which impact City services. Performance of Services Throughout the 1991-92 and 1993-94 Legislative Sessions, Advocation's performance has continued to be in keeping with the City's expectations. As the state has focused in recent years on redirecting local revenues to fund state programs, Advocation's assistance has been invaluable in preserving Agency Supplemental Subvention funding, vehicle license in-lieu fees and other revenues. With another tough budget year ahead and the fall elections behind them, the state legislature is expected to be gearing up for another tough round of cuts and "reallocations." But in addition to helping in the coming budget fight, Advocation's assistance will continue to be needed for the day-to-day battles over home rule, franchising and taxing authority, redevelopment law, environmental protection, the Brown Act, public liability and other issues. Their assistance is especially valuable in: * Attendance and follow-up at critical late evening and weekend legislative sessions; * Providing unsolicited informational reports and data on various key topics (e.g. growth management, workers' compensation reform, redistricting plans and state financial forecasts); * Assistance with last-minute research regarding bill analyses, legislators' positions, and non-legislative proposals; * Delivery of letters of support and opposition directly to legislators in the critical hours before committee and floor votes; * Coordination of special testimony before state committees and other extra efforts to shepherd city-sponsored legislation (e.g. supporting the Chula Vista Nature Center and opposing the binational airport). Advocation, Inc. continues to be a highly respected lobbying firm in Sacramento, representing such clients as The Walt Disney Company, Southland Corporation, Eastman Kodak, Mobil Oil, and General Motors, to name a few, The wide range of contacts and diversity of resources available to the City through Advocation's expansive professional network, coupled with the firm's thorough knowledge of the City's needs, has become a tremendous advantage to the City. This is especially /!'-3 Page 4, Item~ Meeting Date 11/15/94 apparent during the state budget negotiations when Advocation's relationships with individual legislators, the Department of Finance, the Sacramento media, and the offices of the Governor, Controller, Treasurer and Legislative Analyst provided the necessary conduit for the flow of critical information both to and from the City. Advocation, well-positioned to keep the City advised of a broad spectrum of issues affecting Chula Vista, has proven its ability to influence the course of those issues for the benefit of the City. PROPOSED AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS: Term The existing agreement, as amended, expires on December 31, 1994. As referenced above, Advocation has formally requested that the agreement be extended for the second of the two two-year options to coincide with the 1995-96 Legislative Session, Staff recommends that Council extend the agreement for the second of the two two- year options (January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1996). Fees and Exoenses The existing agreement, as amended, states: "At the Council/Agency's discretion, the cost for the Consultant's fees and expenses beyond 1992 shall be adjusted in accordance with the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Diego area not to exceed 6% per year," The current amended agreement provides for fees in the amount of $5,170 per month, plus reasonable expenses not to exceed $1,000 per month, for a maximum of $74,040 per year. Advocation's last increase in base compensation was in December of 1992, In view of the continued recession and other recent City Council decisions against applying a CPI to contract extensions, staff does .!lQ1 recommend applying a CPI increase at this time. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the recommended action is a maximum of $ 74,040 per year, or a total of $148,080 for the two-year term of the contract, Sufficient funds are available to carry this contract through the end of the current fiscal year (account numbers 990-9901-5201, 990-9907-5201, 990-0030-5201, 990-9920-5201). Staff will return with a request for the remaining funds in the FY 1995-96 budget, Although the fiscal impacts of many of Advocation's efforts can be difficult to estimate (e.g, issues of land use control, potential civil liability), their assistance has provided substantial, concrete cost savings. In previous years, this has included preservation of $700,000 in agency supplemental subvention revenues, $226,000 in 4-'-1- Page 5, Item~ Meeting Date 11/15/94 criminal justice grants, $1 million in utility users tax and $120,000 in transient occupancy tax, In 1994, Advocation was instrumental in obtaining amendments to weaken and eventually kill a bill that would have mandated an estimated $70,000 in additional parking ticket processing costs. Other efforts helped take city vehicle license revenue off the state budget chopping block (est. $500,000 take-away), block a measure that would have increased special assessment district administration costs (est, $20,000 per year), and pass a law that authorizes cities to collect booking fees from the prisoners they book themselves (est. $10,000 per year). Coming fiscal issues may include cable television deregulation efforts (potential loss of $450,000), further vehicle license fee raids, final legislation for a state veterans home in Chula Vista, and $400,000 in Environmental License Plate funds for the Nature Center. Attachments Council and Agency Resolutions A: Proposed Second Renewal B: Current agreement, as first renewed C: Letter from Advocation .,""""""'IAD""""" 4-5 CJh¿~ þClfj~ Clank! 1-1, . SECOND RENEWAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO E:: )( , "A II AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING AND ADVOCACY SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OFCHULA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AG'ENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND ADVOCATION, INC. THIS AGREEMENT, dated this November 15, 1994 for the purpose of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed by the parties, is made and entered into by and between the City of Chura Vista and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, hereinafter jointly referred to as "CLIENT, " and Advocation, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE", and is made with reference to the following facts: ,. ,. 1. Recitals. 1.1 The parties entered into an agreement for lobbyist services on March 1, 1989 ("Original Agreement"); 1.2 Upon expiration of said Original Agreement, the parties amended said Original Agreement to include an initial term expiring December 31, 1992 and the option of two two-year term extensions; 1.3 The first of those two two-year options, being exerc.ised on November 25, 1992 ("First Renewal"), expires on December 31, 1994; 1.4 The parties desire to continue their contractual relationship on the same terms and conditions, except as herein modified. 2. Agreement. The CLIENT and CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE, hereby agree to renew and amend the Agreement as amended by the First Amendment and First Renewal ("Agreement") as follows: 2.1 TERM. This renewed agreement shall remain in effect through December 31, 1996. 2.2 FEES. The fees associated with this agreement for services performed after January 1, 1995 shall remain at the level of $5,170 per month plus reasonable expenses not to exceed $1,000 per month. 3. Appropriation of Funds by City Council/Redevelopment Agency. This agreement is subject to the appropriation of funds by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency. 4. Original Agreement. All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment and First Renewal, not otherwise modified by the terms of this Second Renewal shall remain in full force and effect, and all other warranties, representations and recitals therein contained not herewith modified remain true and correct. To the extent that this Second Renewal may conflict with or otherwise modify the Agreement, the provisions of this Second Renewal shall prevail. J../-7 Signature Page to SECOND RENEWAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING AND ADVOCACY SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND ADVOCATION, INC. 5. Execution. Comes now the parties to this agreement, and in recognition of their consent to the terms herein contained, do hereby execute same. Dated: ~: CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a chartered municipal corporation; and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political subdivision of the State of California By: Tim Nader, its Mayor and Chairman Attest: Beverly Authelet City Clerk Approved as to form: Bruce Boogaard City Attorney Dated: ADVOCATION, INC. By: Donald K. BrOwn, President C.:ADVO94.mll 1-ð' --- '[ FIRST RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT AS FIRST AMENDED ~X, "B" FOR CONSUL TINGAND ADVOCACY SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND ADVOCATION, INC. THIS AGREEMENT, dated this November 1, 1992 for the purpose of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed by the parties, is made and entered into by and between the City of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, hereinafter jointly referred to as "CLIENT," and Advocation, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE", and is made with reference to the following facts: ,. 1. Recitals. ,. 1.1 The parties entered into an agreement for lobbyist services on March 1, 1989 ("Original Agreement"); 1.2 Upon expiration of said Original Agreement, the parties amended ("First Amendment") said Original Agreement to include an initial term expiring December 31, 1992 and the option of two two-year term extensions; 1.3 The parties desire to continue their contractual relationship on the same terms and conditions, except as herein modified. 2. Agreement. The CLIENT and CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE, hereby agree to renew and amend the Agreement as amended by the First Amendment ("Agreement") as follows: 2.1 TERM. The Agreement is hereby extended to December 31, 1994 on the same terms and conditions except as expressly modified herein. 2.2 FEES. The fees associated with this agreement for services performed after January 1, 1993 are increased to $5,170 per month plus reasonable expenses not to exceed $1,000 per month. 3. Appropriation of Funds by City Council/Redevelopment Agency. This agreement is subject to the appropriation of funds by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency. 4. Conflicts with Original Agreement as First Amended. All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, not otherwise modified by the terms of this First Renewal shall remain in full force and effect, and all other warranties, representations and recitals therein contained not herewith modified remain true and correct. To the extent that this First Renewal may conflict with or otherwise modify the Original Agreement as amended by the First Amendment, the provisions of this First Renewal shall prevail. 4-7 -., ('nq("\-:>i~'-I¡" I I .I Signature Page to FIRST RENEWAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO . AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING AND ADVOCACY SERVICES BETWEEN ìHE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND ADVOCATION, INC. 5. Execution. Comes now the parties to this agreement, and in recognition of their consent to the terms herein contained, do hereby execute same. /Jov- 1)1/1fJ.- ", Dated: CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a . chartered municipal corporation; and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political subdivision of the State of California By: ß 7//æ(£ Tim Nader, its Mayor and Chairman Attest: ~O rlrt.U Beverly A he let City Clerk I APp'r r' . Bruce Boogaard City Attorney Dated: ADVOCATION, INC. By: !1dK ~/ ~ Donald K. BrOwn, President f:lhomelottomeyladvo1.wp q.-jD FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING AND ADVOCACY SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND DONALD BROWN ADVOCATION, INC. THIS AGREEMENT, dated this November 16, 1990 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed by the parties, is made and entered into by and between the City of Chula Vista and the ~edevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, hereinafter joìñtly referred to as "CLIENT," and Advocation, Inc., Donald Brown Advocation, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT- ADVOCATE", and is made with reference to the following facts: 1. Recitals. 1.1. The parties entered into an agreement for lobbyist services on March 1, 1989 ("Original Agreement"); 1.2. The term of said Original Agreement has expired; 1.3. The parties desire to continue their contractual relationship on the same terms and conditions, except as herein modified. 2. Agreement. The CLIENT and CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE, for mutual consideration as defined herein agree to the following terms, services and conditiòns: 2.1. The provision of the Original Agreement, entitled "Term", commencing on Page 1, is hereby amended to read as follows: "TERM. This agreement is effective commencing March I, 1989, and shall remain in effect through December 31, 1992, with the option to renew at the mutual discretion of the Council/Agency and legislative representative for two two-year periods to coincide with the legislative session. At the Council/Agency's discretion, the cost for the consultant's fees and expenses beyond 1992 shall be adjusted in accordance with the annual Consumer Price Index for the San Diego Area not to exceed 6% per year. 2.2. The pr~vision of the Original Agreement, entitled "Services", commencJ.ng on Page 1, is hereby amended to read as fOllows: lobbiest.wp Agreement Extension with Donald Brown, Lobbiest November 16, 1990 Page 1 1.(- JI "SERVICES. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE is designated and authorized by CLIENT to act as the official LEGISLATIVE representative with the California State Legislature, the Washington Delegation and various governmental agencies, commissions, and persons involved in governmental affairs affecting the CLIENT. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE agrees to perform the following services, which may be expanded upon mutual agreement between CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE and CLIENT. Services performed by CONSULTANT shall include, but not be limited to, the following: ", 1. Review all bills introduced in the California Legislature, inform CLIENT of all State and Federal legislation affecting the City of Chula Vista's primary interest and forward a copy of such bills to CLIENT. 2. Attend all League of California cities' regular "City representative" meetings and briefings. 3. Track legislation on which the CLIENT has taken a position, maintain bill record and send update copies regularly to CLIENT. 4. Arrange meetings with legislative representatives for elected officials and CLIENT staff when necessary, and be prepared to participate as required. 5. Perform customary duties of legislative advocacy and governmental affairs representative on behalf of their clients to the best of its ability, experience and expertise. 6. Gather data and provide information to. CLIENT on such matters as: a. State agency and department regulations, guidelines, directives, and other instruments of administrative policy which may impact Council/Agency projects/operations; b. Funding opportunities for proposed City of Chula Vista and Redevelopment Agency projects and assist the city to maximize use of all available State resources for financing City programs and mandates; lobbiest.wp Agreement Extension with Donald Brown, Lobbiest November 16, 1990 Page 2 4 - /:& c. Hearings, reports and testimony of interest to the CLIENT. 7. Representing the COUNCIL/AGENCY in meetings with state agencies, boards, commissions, and legislative bodies; 8. Developing legislative initiatives to assist ~~ the implementation of the COUNCIL/AGENCY's legislative program. 9. In performing such services, the CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall work under the policy direction of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and be administratively responsive to the City Manager or his/ her designee. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall report in writing to the City Manager or his/her designee at least monthly on the nature and extent of the services provided. In addition, the CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall provide oral presentations on an as-requested basis. 10. Track and monitor propositions and initiatives at the State level and keep the City apprised of proposals which impact city services." 2.3. The provision of the Original Agreement, entitled "Fees", commencing on Page 2, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Fees. The fees associated with this contract for work performed after the effective date of the First Amendment,.are'amended as follows: For the services as outlined herein, including incidental expenses, CLIENT agrees to pay CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE the sum of $5,000 per month, plus reasonable expenses or $60,000 annually for the 1991-92 legislative session. Payment to the CONSULTANT shall be made on a monthly basis. The CLIENT shall reimburse CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE for City-approved expenses incurred in connection with activities directly related to representation of the interests of CLIENT. Reimbursable expenses shall include all necessary and reasonable expenditures made by CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE, not to exceed $1,000 per month unless otherwise authorized by CLIENT, lobbiest.wp Agreement Extension with Donald Brown, Lobbiest November 16, 1990 q~/3 Page 3 including commercial transportation, rental vehicles, meals, and/or lodging incurred in the performance of services. Expenses enumerated shall be reimbursed in the amount of direct cost, excluding overhead, and are understood not to be included in the professional fee. CONSULTANT/ADVOCATE shall provide an accounting of all services rendered. Said accounting shall be subject to a performance and audit review as determined by the CLIENT." 3. Remainder of Original Agreement. All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement not otherwise modified by the terms of this First Amendment shall remaJ.n J.n full force and effect, and all other warranties, representations and recital therein contained not herewith modified remain true and correct. (End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.) lobbiest.wp Agreement Extension with Donald Brown, Lobbiest November 16, 1990 Page 4 1- /Lf Signature Page to FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING AND ADVOCACY SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND DONALD BROWN ADVOCATION, INC. 4. Execution. '. ,. Comes now the parties to this agreement, and in recognition of their consent to the terms herein contained, do hereby execute same. Dated: CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a chartered municipal corporation; and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political subdivision of the State of California by: its Mayor Gregory R. Cox, and Chairman Attest: ., Beverly Authelet City Clerk Approved as to form: Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney Dated: lobbiest.wp Agreement Extension with Donald Brown, Lobbiest November 16, 1990 Page 5 J-/ - /5 ClI'ili ME- C&mk! ~- /(0 ""-'"..;.' " r . - AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING AND. ADVOCACY SERVICES BEnLEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGEtJCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND DONALD BROWN ADVOCATION, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into thi s day of March 1989, by and between the City of Chula Vista/Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chul a Vi sta, herei nafter referred to as "CLIENT," and Advocati on, Inc., Donald BrOwn Advocation, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT- ADVOCATE. .. ,. The CLIENT and CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE, for mutual consideration as defined herein agree to the following terms, services and conditions: TERM. This agreement is effective commencing March 1, 1989, and shall remain in effect through December 31, 1990, with the option to renew at the mutual discretion of the Council/Agency and legislative representative for two one-year periods. At the Council/Agency's discretion, the cost for the consultant I s fees and expenses beyond 1989 shall be adjusted in accordance with the annual Consumer Price Index for the San Diego Area not to exceed 6% per year. SERVICES. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE is designated and .authorized by CLIENT to act as the official LEGISLATIVE representative with the California State Legislature, the Washi ngton Delegation and various governmental agencies, commi ssi ons, and persons invo1 ved in governmental affairs affecting the CLIENT. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE agrees to perform the following services,. which may be expanded upon mutual agreement between CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE and CLIENT. Services performed by CONSULTANT shall include, but not be limited to, the following: .. 1. Review all bills introduced in the California Legislature, inform CLIENT of all 1 egi sl ation affecting the City of Chul a Vi sta 's primary interest and forward a copy of such bills t~, CLIENT. 2. Attend all League of California Cities' regular "City representative" meetings and briefings. 3. Track legislation on which the CLIENT has taken a position, maintain bill record and send update copies regularly to CLIENT. 4. Arrange meeti ngs with 1 egi sl ative representati ves for e1 ected offi ci al s and CLIENT staff when necessary, and be prepared to participate as required. 5. Perform customary duties of legislative advocacy and governmental affairs representative on behalf of their clients to the best of its ability, experience and expertise. 1-/-/7 " -- 6. Gather data and provide information to CLIENT on such matters as: a. State agency and department regulations, guidelines, directives, and other instruments of administrative policy which may impact Council/Agency projects/operations; b. Funding opp_ortuni ti es for proposed City of Chula Vista and Redevelopment Agency projects and assist the City to maximize use of all available State resources for financing. City programs and mandates; '. c. Hearings, reports àrid testimony of interest to the CLIENT. 7. Representing the COUNCIL/AGENCY in meeti ngs wi th state agencies, boards, commissions, and legislative bodies; 8. Developing legislative initiatives to assist in the implementation of the COUNCIL/AGENCY's legislative program. 9. In performing such services, the CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall work under the policy di recti on of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and be admi ni stratively responsive to the Ci ty Manager or hi s/ her desi gnee. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall report in writing to the City Manager or his/her designee at least monthly on the nature and extent of the services provided. In addition, the CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall provi de oral presentations on an as-requested basis. Scope of Work. A. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE recognizes that the legislative acti vi ty affecting local jurisdictions is a dynamic process,and as such, the principal assignments from the CLIENT may change to reflect current needs. B. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall have no interest in other projects or independent contract~ which would c.onflict in any manner or degree with the performance requ1red by the COUNCIL/AGENCY. The COUNCIL/ AGENCY shall have the right to approve other clients before.offeror retains them. C. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall provide all equipment and personnel to ful fill the requirements for representation of the COUNCIL/ AGENCY. Minimum personnel shall include, in addition to the CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE, one secretary. All costs for said staff shall be paid by the CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE. Fees. For the services as outlined herein, including incidental expenses, CLIENT agrees to pay CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE the sum of $4,166 per month, plus reasonable expenses or $50,000 annually for the 1989 legislative session. Payment to the CONSULTANT shall be made on a monthly basis. -2- ,t/-/f -j " The CLIENT shall reimburse CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE for Ci ty-approved expenses incurred in connecti on with acti viti es di rectly rel ated to representati on of the interests. of CLIENT. Reimbursable expenses shall include all necessary and re~sonab1e expenditures made by CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE, not to exceed $1,000 per month unless otherwise authorized "by CLIENT, including commercial transportati on, rental vehicles, mea 1 s, and/or lodging i ncurred in the performance of services. Expenses enumerated shall be reimbursed in the. amount of direct cost, excluding overhead, and are understood not to be included in the professional fee. CONSULTANT/ADVOCATE shall provide an accounting of all services rendered. Said accounting shall be~'subject to a performance and audi t review as determined by the CLIENT. Insurance.- A. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall, throughout the duration of this agreement maintain professional errors and omissions coverage with minimum coverage of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) and comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance covering all operations hereunder of CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE, its agents, and employees including but not limited to premises and automobile, with minimum coverage of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limits. Evidence of such coverage, in the form of a Certificate of Insurance and Policy Endorsement which names the City Council and Redevelopment Agency as Additional Insured, shall be submitted. to the City Clerk at 276 Fourth Avenue. Said policy or policies shall provide thirty (30) day written notice to the City Clerk of the City of Chu1a Vista of cancellation or material change. B. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall also carry Workers'. Compensation insurance in the statutory amount and Employers Liability coverage in the amount of Five. Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00), evidence of which is to be furnished to the City in the form ~f a Certificate of Insurance. Confidentiality. Unless otherwise authorized, CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE agrees to maintain in strict confidence all advice/information provided by CLIENT to CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE, and vice-versa, pursuant to this agreement. .. -. -. Any reports, information, data, statistics, procedures, studies or other form of communication or knowledge provided by the CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall be the full and exclusive property of the COUNCIL/AGENCY. Conflict of Interest. CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE agrees that prior to entering into contracts for consulting services with any parties, associations, or individuals other than CLIENT, CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE shall confer with CLIENT to discuss the potential -3- 1-/r . . . " of conflict created by the addition of such contracts. Should the CLIENT or CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE determine that a conflict of interest exists regarding legislative representation by Advocation Inc. to the City of Chul a Vi s ta, CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE agrees to conti nue to represent CLIENT and insure that other representation is obtained by the third party(s). The CLIENT will not be responsible for any cost borne by the CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE as a result of this action. Modification of Agreement. This agreement may be" àinended by mutual consent by both, CLIENT and CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE. Hold Harmless Agreement and Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Statement. See Attachments A and B. Termination. The CLIENT \~ill reserve the right to terminate this agreement for services at any time by giving 30 days written notice without cause. In the event of such termination, CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE would be paid the reasonable value of all services rendered up to the date of such termination subject to contract limits. CLIEUT: CITY OF CHULA VISTA/ CONSULTANT-ADVOCATE: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF DONALD BROWN & ASSOCIATES CITY OF CHULA VISTA By: By: Gregory R. Cox, Chairman Donald BrOwn, President By: Date: Gregory R. Cox, Mayor Date: WPC 2553A -4- 4- ;¿ð EXHIBIT C November 6, 1994 The Honorable Tim Nader, Mayor Members, Chula Vista City Council 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: The 1993-94 Session of the California Legislature was one affecting the City's interests in several respects. We outline below some of the more significant issues that we handled on behalf of the City. We also write to express our sincere desire to continue to represent the City before the Legislature and the various state agencies during the upcoming 1995-96 Session. We take pride in representing the City of Chula Vista and look forward to focusing considerable efforts to advance the City's goals and objectives during the coming year. The following list highlights some of the issues Advocation advanced on behalf of Chula Vista in the last Session: 8 Sponsored legislation to secure $400,000 from the Environmental License Plate Fund to construct a flow-through sea water system at the Chula Vista Nature Center.1 8 Sponsored legislation allowing unitary property tax revenue attributable to new construction by a utility to be allocated to Chula Vista, the host city.2 . Played a key role in defeating legislation that would have seve:t;ely restricted City control of emergency medical care servlces. . Sponsored legislation to significantly enhance criminal 'I D"pioo i13 $400,000 appmpmtion, Advne.tion ,""",fully mov,d Ibe m",ure Ibmugh Ibe L<gi,13ture ",d to Ib, Gov,mOL We inoond to wo,k willi Ibe City ",d Ibe Gov,m",', AdmW,tLation to ""ure funding f", Ibe Nature Conoo, ",ly next yooc. 'I AB 1108 (P""), ,ign,d into13w by lbeGovemo,O,tob" II, 1993. 1-;2/ 1121 L StLeet Suite 610 Saçmmento CA 95814 (916) 447-8229 penalties for drug trafficking.3 8 Supported efforts to limit booking fees charged to cities. 8 Worked with the League of Cities to preserve Chula Vista's method for enforcing parking violations. 8 Worked with the Legislature, the Governor's office, and various veteran's groups toward funding of a second veteran's home in Chula Vista.4 8 Contacted members of the relevant legislative budget committees regarding reduction of state mandates. 8 Provided routine updates to City staff concerning developing legislative issues. 8 Successfully opposed legislation restricting development within Chula Vista if water supply could not be unequivocally guaranteed in advance of the development. 8 Tracked gaming legislation and its potential effect on the City. 8 Successfully lobbied the Governor's office for a veto of legislation eliminating the City's veteran's preference standards, replacing them with a statewide program. 5 8 Tracked over 220 bills potentially affecting the City during the last two-year session. The state's fiscal problems continue. We estimate, based on informal talks with officials within the State Department of Finance and on a presentation recently made by senior officials at Morgan Stanley, that the state will face a revenue shortfall of near~y $6 billion in the next fiscal year. This shortfall will requ~re continued efforts to ensure that the City is not short- changed in the legislative budget process. We expect to further pursue veteran's home legislation, and have had meetings with the County Veteran Service Officers Association to that end, the condition being that Chula Vista is specifically named as a site. Additionally, gambling legislation will definitely be introduced this upcoming year. We expect a redoubled effort on the part of the Nevada gambling interests and '/ AB 91 (Alp,rt) 'I AB 2496 (Knight) fsdod pa..ag' sfie, it w" "",ondod to ,"'"' only that additionsl v,""..', homes would not be 'nUt until th, s"'", "rtifiod that a wsiting li" of 'pocifiod longth ,,",",d. W, hav, sl,oody 'pohn with th, County V,"".. S""i" Olfiem to jointly spon,o, ',g;,lation in 1995 that wonld spocifically n""" Chula Vis'" " a si", fo, th, n,xt v,""..'s hom" which w, discu.. dsowh", in this I"".. '/ This bill, AB 2426 lOa,,), would hav, g""'" 15 v,""..'s p"f",n" poin..., lhi" times " much" Chula Vis'" euITOntly allows. "'sag' of thi. moos"" could hav, impodod th, City's sffinnativ, sction ou,",soh ,fforts. 4-).2..., the Attorney General to push gaming legislation next year. Also, we look for continued movement by the state's fire services to affect change in the delivery of emergency medical services. We have taken steps within our firm to solidify working relationships with many of those who will be elected this week to the state Legislature and the Congress. In sununary, we look forward to working with the Council, the Mayor and the City staff in the upcoming Session to ensure its interests are protected. Very truly yours, ./~ )<. r3"o ~ ",' Donald K. BrOwn President ,tf-b2- ~ ~ fra9g blank! t/-2tf RESOLUTION NO. ¡71/~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECOND RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT AS FIRST AMENDED WITH ADVOCATION, INC. FOR THE 1995-1996 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA The city of Chula vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista entered into an agreement (Original Agreement) for legislative advocacy services on March 1, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended on November 20,1990 to extend the Original Agreement for 2 additional years as well as to provide for two two-year options beginning January 1993; and WHEREAS, the first of those two year options, being exercised on November 25, 1992, expires on December 31, 1994; and WHEREAS, the results of Advocation Inc.'s efforts have been positive in that Advocation has proven its ability to influence the course of critical issues for the benefit of the city; and WHEREAS, staff recommends renewing the Agreement as First Amended for the 1995-96 Legislative Session with the effective dates of the second renewal being January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1996; and WHEREAS, in view of the continuing recession, staff does not recommend increasing Advocation Inc.'s fee compensation by the current local Consumer Price Index, as provided for in the Agreement as First Amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the First Renewal of the Agreement as First Amended with Advocation Inc., for legislative advocacy services for the 1995-96 Legislative Session, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to ex cute said agreement on behalf of the City. Presented by 2t; r fo sid W. Morris, Assistant Bruce M. Booga city Manager city Attorney -1-25 CJh~ pay£ blank! 4-2~ RESOLUTION NO. /133 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECOND RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT AS FIRST AMENDED WITH ADVOCATION, INC. FOR THE 1995-96 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula vista entered into an agreement (Original Agreement) for legislative advocacy services on March 1, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended on November 20,1990 to extend the Original Agreement for 2 additional years as well as to provide for two two-year options beginning January 1993; and WHEREAS, the first of those two year options, being exercised on November 25, 1992, expires on December 31, 1994; and WHEREAS, the results of Advocation Inc.'s efforts have been positive in that Advocation has proven its ability to influence the course of critical issues for the benefit of the Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS, staff recommends renewing the Agreement as First Amended for the 1995-96 Legislative Session with the effective dates of this second renewal being January 1,1995 through December 31, 1996; and WHEREAS, in view of the continuing recession, staff does not recommend increasing Advocation Inc.'s fee compensation by the current local Consumer Price Index, as provided for in the Agreement as First Amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the First Renewal of the Agreement as First Amended with Advocation Inc., for legislative advocacy services for the 1995-96 Legislative Session, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista is hereby au~="oo and directoo ~ ~~~e .aid ~ to" b If of ~e Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula V s . Presented by p ved s form Sid W. Morris, Assistant Bruce M. Boo aa d, Agency city Manager Attorney 4-:L7 A,AGENCY".R'. Clhi~ þCUjE- Clank! Jf _)f AGE!N~':J -¥-5 MEMORANDUM ITEM November 15, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ~, FROM: Chris Salomone, Community Development Director ~ ~ SUBJECT: REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - "WAL-MART" PROJECT In connection with the Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item No.5 (the "Wal-Mart" Project) for the November 1 5, 1994 meeting, attached hereto are the following documents: 1. City Attorney's Recommended Structure for the Conduct of the "Wal-Mart" Project Meeting of November 15, 1994 (the "Meeting Structure"). The Meeting Structure document was referred to in the staff report for this item. The Meeting Structure outlines the City Attorney's recommended otder and process for the City/Agency's consideration of the various land-use approvals for the project. The City Attorney is recommending this careful step by step process in order to assure that the multiple items up for approval are considered and approved in the proper sequence. This sequence is designed to minimize the chances that the project will be challenged by litigation. 2. Revised proposed Conditions of Approval (Nos. B.7 through B.1 O) for the Wal- Mart Project's Precise Plan {the "Revised Project Conditions"}. The postponement of the hearing on the project entitlements (originally scheduled for October 18, 1994) is the result of the developer's last-minute unwillingness to accept the risk that the balance of their project (not the Wal-Mart store) could not be constructed if the off-site right- of-way necessary to mitigate project related traffic impacts could not be obtained. Nevertheless, over the last few weeks, staff and the developer have reached agreement on this issue. This agreement ultimately shifts the risk from the developer to the City. This risk however, in staff's opinion, has been mitigated to an acceptable level due to: a. The belief that the off-site property necessary to construct the desired traffic mitigation improvements will be required either by the developer, Ot the City if necessary, without serious opposition. b. The requirement that the developer post ample security to fund all of the traffic improvements necessary, and that such security is to remain in place throughout a more than reasonable timeframe to acquire the property and construct the improvements. c. The requirement that the developer is required to "meet and confer" with the City in order to devise and implement alternative traffic mitigation measures in the event that the off-site right-of-way for the widening off Fourth Avenue and/or the Fourth Avenue/Brisbane intersection cannot be obtained. The Revised Project Conditions attached reflect a detailed compromise between staff and the developer with respect to the acquisition of the off-site property and construction of traffic mitigation improvements thereon. The Revised Project Conditions have been "black-lined" to highlight the changes made to the project Conditions of Approval delivered in the Agency packet for the November 1, 1994, meeting. C:lwp51 Ihayneslwalconds.mem -- . city Attorney's Recommended structure for Conduct of Walmart Project Meeting November 15, 1994 I. City Attorney explains the need to structure the meeting sequentially. II. City Attorney to explain previous Agency approvals. A. DDA (including incentive package) subject to conditions precedent, including certification of EIR and approval of all land use entitlements. B. Owner Participation Rights Exhaustion. C. 33431 Hearing D. 33433 Hearing III. Staff Report on Project IV. Open All Public Hearings regarding (1) Certification of EIR; (2) General Plan Amendments; (3) LCP Amendments; (4) Rezone (5) Coastal Development Permit; and (6) Project and Precise Plan Approval. V. EIR Certification/CEQA Compliance (Joint citv/Aqencv) A. Additional Staff Comments (if any). B. Public Comment on Environmental Issues. C. Close CEQA Hearing. D. City Council Comment on Environmental Issues. E. Joint Council/Agency Vote on CEQA Resolution Nos.17705 (City) and 1430 (Agency). VI. General Plan Amendment--From "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thouroughfare". (citv) A. Additional Staff Comments (if any). B. Public Comment on Proposed Amendment to the General Plan. C. Close the General Plan Amendment Public Hearing. D. City Council Comment on General Plan Amendment. E. city Council Vote on General Plan Amendment Resolution No. 17706. VII. Local Coastal Program Amendment--From "Industrial-General" to "Commercial Thouroughfare Subject to Central Commercial with Precise Plan- Modifier". (City) A. Additional Staff Comments (if any). B. Public Comment on change to the general Plan. C. Close the LCP Amendment Hearing. D. City Council Comment on LCP Amendment. E. city council vote on LCP Amendment Ordinance No. 2613 VIII. Zoning Map Amendment--From "I-L-P (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan" to "C-C-P (Central Commercial-Precise Plan". (Citv) A. Additional Staff Comments on Zoning Map Amendment (if any). B. Public Comment on Proposed Zoning Map Amendment. C. Close the Zoning Map Amendment Hearing. D. City Council Comment on Zoning Map Amendment. E. city Council Vote on Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance No. 2614. IX. Local Coastal Development Permit (Citv) A. Additional Staff Comments on Local Coastal Development Permit (if any). B. Public Comment on Proposed Local Coastal Development Permit. C. Close the Local Coastal Development Permit Hearing. D. city Council Comment on Coastal Development Permit. E. city council Vote on proposed Local Coastal Development Permit Resolution No. 17707. X. Project and Precise Plan Approval (Aqencv) A. Additional Staff Comments on Project and Precise Plan Approval. B. Public Comment on Project and Precise Plan (not required) C. Close Hearing for Project and Precise Plan Approval D. Agency Comment on Project and Precise Plan E. Agency Vote on Project and Precise Plan and Declaration that certain Conditions to Effectiveness of DDA satisfied per Resolution No. 1431. .: I hoo-I attorn_ylwaloart3. wp CIhi~ þ~£ Clank! Channelside Shopping Center Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Agency Resolution 1431 Unless otherwise indicated in the following conditions or in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project Environmental Impact Report, all conditions must be met prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project site. A. DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS (DRC-94-38) 1. Approval of this project shall be continent upon approval of GPA-94-02, PCZ-94-C and Local Coastal Program amendment. 2. If the Precise Plan adopted for the subject site are substantially different from the ones assumed at the time the project was considered and approved by the Design Review Committee, it shall be returned to the DRC for reconsideration and approval. 3. Design solution for sign type I (freestanding sign along the freeway) shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee along with data obtained from the flag test for consideration and approval. 4. Signs type II (Major Tenant 2) shall be limited to 150 square feet in area with no more than five tenants and a maximum height of 35 feet. 5. The sign program shall provide sign design critetia for the freestanding building. 6. Wall-mounted signs on the north elevation shall be limited to the two major tenant (tenants with more than 50,000 square feet of floor area). 7. Formal landscape and irrigation plans addressing parking screening solution shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval along with the building permit submittal package. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. Post security prior to the recordation of the Final Map, and be responsible for the installation of all improvements contained within this Section B (Engineering Department Conditions) to the satisfaction of the Chula Vista City Engineer. Security shall be provided to the City of Chula Vista in the form of, but not limited to, performance bonds, letter of credit and/or Wal-Mart corporate guarantee to the extend permitted by the City Attorney and the City Engineer. The next five Conditions, numbered B.2. through B.6. must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit: 2. Obtain and submit an updated soils/geotechnical report, consistent with the requirements of the City Grading Ordinance, and implement the results thereof to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Channelside Shopping Center Page 2 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 3. Comply with the floodplain regulations or obtain a exception from the Board of Appeals for the Dixieline owned portion of the project. 4. Provide calculations indicating that the channel on the south side of the project can convey a 50 year storm prior to issuance of a grading permit. 5. Include on grading plans an NPDES statement and comply with all permits required by the administering agency. 6. Install pre-treatment devices or facilities for the removal of urban pollutants from storm water runoff and provide a maintenance schedule indicating the facilities to be cleaned a minimum of four (4) times per year. 7. The next tRifteefl ten conditions, B.7 .a. through B. 7.ffi j., must be satisfied priorto issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the "Wal-Mart" building: mrn!ìjjmgí@~! (¡¡'9iipi'î¡Qiì~-i¡ii\¡~¡~iiipdw¡¡r~¡¡¡¡;¡¥¡¡¡ç~(Qÿ¡;¡¡¡p¡~¡Þø~¡ Revisions are shown thus. underlined; aeletieAs are s~e'."'A t~,s, s~rikee,ts. fl.1!.. Install a traffic signal at N. Fifth Avenue and "C" Street and restripe "C" Street as necessary to accommodate the signal. 8Q. Install "no parking" signs on N. Fifth Avenue, between "C" Street and its northerly terminus. of ç. Remove existing striping and restripe N. Fifth Avenue north of "C" Street to provide two southbound lanes, a continuous left turn lane and a northbound lane. It g. Install a painted or raised median on N. Fifth Avenue north of "C": Street to provide a shelter for trucks exiting from the most northerly GES driveway. The painted or raised median shall be designed to channelize southbound vehicles from the two shopping centers into the most westerly southbound lane. fl g. Provide an interim driveway with one lane of traffic out and one lane of traffic in northerly of Brisbane atthe existing driveway to Dixieline's back lot. Said driveway shall be restricted to right in and right out movements only. Uso of saia iAteriFA arivowa, will bo allo\\loa fer "Wal Mart" ana "DiJdeliAe" faeiliti05 only. if. Construct at! temDorarv access road between the project and N. Fourth Avenue which shall be aligned with the interim driveway. The access road shall be two lanes in width and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. ¡g. Modify the traffic signal at Broadway (National City Boulevard) and 35th Street to provide signal phasing for the new east leg connection. --.- Channelside Shopping Center Page 3 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 *h. Construct an access road, including a bridge crossing, between the project and the intersection of Broadway (National City Boulevard) and 35th Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The bridge crossing is to be privately owned and maintained. Obtain approval of the bridge construction from the Local Coastal Commission, State Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Coast Guard. 1) TAe åevele>er tetains tAe rifjAt te "FAeet anå eonfer" witA a>>repriate City personnel to aFAena Cenaitien B.7 .k. aeeve in the event tAat unforeseen circuFAstanees, or circuFAstances eeyenå tAB eentral af tAB åevele>er åela'{s tAB eriåfje eenstrldetion eoFA>letion åate eeyanå tAe antiei>ateå eoFA>letion åate ef tAe "Wal Mart" stereo Sueh reElldests te "FAeet aRa eeAter" te aFAeRå Cenåition B. 7 .Ie shall eo maae in 'Nritinfj at least ninety (90) åays >rier te tAB antiei>atea eeFA>letieR åate ef tAe "'.Val Mart" store. Ii. Remove existing striping on Broadway between the SR 54 bridge crossing and a point approximately 300 feet south of 35th Street and replace with new striping to provide a new southbound left turn lane for the projects access road. Said striping shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual striping plan reviewed by the California Department of Transportation (CAL TRANS) as indicated in a letter ftom the CAL TRANS dated August 22, 1 994. ffi j. ¥aeate Provide for vacation on the Darcel maD for the Droiect of that portion of N. Fifth Avenue ("N. Fifth Avenue Extension") contained within the project which will be privately maintained. The Aarea of vacation to be approved by the City Engineer. 1) The City of Chula Vista and its' Redevelopment Agency hereby agree te-+Iet to COODerate in aood faith in causina the vacation and aaree not to require "compensation" for the "N. Fifth Avenue Extension" street vacation as required under Condition B. 7.m-. 1. above. 8. Subiect to B.8.d below. :¡::the next three conditions, B.8.a. through B.8.c., must be satisfied prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy after the Certificate of Occupancy issued for the "Wal-Mart" building: J!. Obtain the off-site right-of-way dedications along N. Fourth Avenue adequate to provide for the installation of public improvements as required by this project adjacent to the National City MarketDlace PIaee Shopping eçenter as defined in condition &.2 B.8.b., below. Q. Widen N. Fourth Avenue on the west side of the street to provide 50 feet of roadway within a 58 foot half width right-of-way between Brisbane to approximately 150 feet south of the SR 54 east bound off ramp. A taper shall be installed from a point approximately 20 feet southerly of the Channelside Shopping Center Page 4 Conditions of Approvaf Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 National City MarketPlace PIaee northerly property line to the point 150 feet from the east bound off ramp of SR 54. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to. curb, gutter and sidewalk, a.c. pavement and base. storm drain and stteet lights. £. Install a raised median on N. Fourth Avenue from the SR 54 eastbound off ramps to a point 300 feet south of Brisbane Avenue. ag. OBtain the off site ri€ht of 'IIay EleElieatieAs te aile'll for the eeAstr¡,etian of the eeAeentrieally ali€neEi interseetian af N. Faurth AVeAl1e aAEI Brisbane within the Aertherly J3ertieA ef the Tar€et sheJ3J3in€ center. The aAge¡'At of ri€ht ef '....ay Aeeessary te satisfy this eonElition will Be s\,\bjeet te aJ3J3raval af the City En€ineer. Developer anticipates that it will obtain the off-site riaht-of-wav dedications described in B.8.a. above in connection with its acQuisition of a portion of the proiect from Dixieline Lumber Company. Inc. Notwithstandina the foreaoina. if developer is unable to acauite the off-site riaht-of-wav after a written offer to acQuire the property based on an independent appraisal followed bv a 30-dav period durina which developer makes aood faith efforts to neaotiate for the acQuisition of the riaht-of-wav. upon developer's written reQuest. City shall schedule and deliberate upon the acQuisition of the off- site riaht-of-wav bv the exercise of its power of eminent domain: provided. however. that (j) City shall not be obliaated to exercise its eminent domain authority except as it deems consistent with the reQuirements of the law; and (ii) City shall retain its full and unfettered discretion to reiect the use of eminent domain for any and all reasons. If developer reQuests in writina that City consider acQuisition of the necessary off-site propertv described in Condition B.8.a. above. throuah. if necessary. the exetcise of its eminent domain powers. then the developer shall. within thirty (30) days of makina such reQuest. post with the Citv security in a form acceptable to the City Enaineer and the Citv Attornev in an amount eQual to the sum of (A) the City Enaineer's aood faith estimate of 150% of the cost of constructina the improvements described in B.8.b and B.8.c. above. (6) the City Enaineer's aood faith estimate of 150% of the direct cost of acQuisition of the property described in B.8.a. above (inclusive of appraisal costs) and (C) $20.000 to covet leaal and other costs incurred bv the City in acauirina the property described in B.8.a. above throuah the exercise of its eminent domain powers. Notwithstandina the foreaoina. except for the amount in clause (C) above (which amount represents developer's maximum liability>. developer shall remain responsible for all actual direct costs. incurred bv the Citv in connection with the acQuisition described in clause (6) above and all actual direct and indirect costs incurred bv the City in connection with the construction described in clause (A) above. Channelside Shopping Center Page 5 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 If such orooertv is acQuired within six (6) months from the castine of such security. such securitv shall remain in Dlace until construction bv develoDer of the imDrovements described in B.8.b. and B.8.c. above. acceDtance of such imDrovements bv City and reDlacement of such security with maintenance security in accordance with City's standard reQuirements. If possession of such orooertv is not obtained within six (6) months from the Dostina of such security. such security shall remain in Dlace and thereafter develoDer shall have no further obliaation reaardina the acQuisition of such DroDertv. In that event. at the CitY's reQuest develoDer and City shall meet and confer in aood faith for an additional Deriod of four (4) months in order to attemDt to devise and imDlement suitable reDlacement mitiaation measures for the traffic imDacts aenerated bv the Droiect. includina the Droiect's Dro rata share of cumulative traffic imDacts. If the City and the develoDer aaree UDon reDlacement mitiaation measures reauirina the acQuisition of afternative off-site riaht-of-wav. and the Citv does not obtain Dossession of such off-site riQht-of-wav within six (6) months of such aareement. the construction of such reDlacement mitiQation measures shall be waived as a condition to the City's issuance of Certificates of OccuDancv with reSDect to further develoDment of the Droiect. However. in the event that the Darties are unable to aaree UDon suitable reDlacement mitiQation measures durinQ this four month Deriod. Conditions B.8.a. and B.8.boo above. shall be waived as conditions to the CitY's issuance of Certificates of OccuDancv with reSDect to further develoDment of the Droiect. but develoDer's security shall remain in Dlace for an additional two (2) years to be utilized bv the City for Durooses of comDletinQ (A) the oriQinaliv contemDlated acquisition and imDrovements (to the extent such acquisition and imDrovements later becomes feasibleL or (8) such other traffic mitiaation measures as are devised bv develoDer and City after meetinQ and conferrina as Drovided above or devised bv the City if develoDer and Citv are unable to aQree as to suitable traffic mitiQation measures. If the develoDer of the National City MarketDlace Droiect DOStS security satisfactorv to the City for its oro-rata share of the cost of such DroDertv acquisition and imDrovements. the securitv Dosted bv develoDer shall be reduced DroDortionatelv. If the develoDer of the National City MarketDlace Droiect does not Dost security for its Dro-rata share of the cost of such DroDertv acQuisition and imorovements. City shall COODerate in aood faith with develoDer in imDlementinQ a reimbursement DroQram wherebv develoDer will be reimbursed bv any future develoDer or develoDers of Droiects benefited bv such DrODertv acquisition and imDrovements. inciudinQ any future develoDer of the National City MarketDlace Droiect. in an amount equal to the Dro-rata share (of the cost of such DrODertv acquisition and imDrovements) of National Citv MarketDlace. as such Dro-rata share is determined Dursuant to a fair share analysis bv an indeDendent traffic enaineer aDDroved bv the City EnQineer. Channelside Shopping Center Page 6 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 9. If tAe a33lieaRt 3r838SeS t8 re~lJest the City !:Ise effÜReRt e8FRaiR 3r8eeeeiA¡s t8 ae~~ire the eff site ri§ht of way neeessary te eeRstruet the iFR3reVeFReRts, the al33lieaRt gRaIl 3re.iae te tRe City et CI1Ula Vista I.ritten e.iaeRee that an etter Based u3on an a33raisal has BeeR FRaEle aREI rejeeteEll3y tRe ewners re~uirea te e)(eelite a §rant ef street easeFRent. The sevele3er FRust aeFRonstrate te tAe satisfaction of the CoFRFRunity Develo3FRent Direetor that developer has takeR all Reeessary and reasonable aetiens te obtain the ri§ht of way threu§h 3rivate . Re§etiatians ineludin§ But not liFRited to 3roparin§ a property aß3raisal aReI FRaldn§ an efter te aeEluire based on the establisheel fair FRarlœt value for tAe 3re3erty. If elevele3er is unable to aeEluire the eff site ri§ht ef way after §ood faith best efforts to do so, u30n elevele3er's written re~liest City shall seheellile anEi elelil3erate u3on tAe ae~uisition of the eft site ri§ht af '....ay l3y tAe e)Œreise af its 3e'....er of eFRinent aeR'1ain, NetwithstanElin§ the fere§ein§, (a) the City shall net lae elali§ateel te ÐJŒreise its eFRinent deFRain autherity ÐJteept as it eleeFRs eensistent '.vith the roEluireR'1eRts ef tAB law; aReI (13) tAB City BAsIl retain its flJlI ane !:IAfettereel eliseretien te rejeet the use of eFRinent aeFRain fer any and all reasens. Subiect to B.9.c. below the next two conditions. B.9.a. and B.9,b, must be satisfied orior to issuance of any Certificate of Occuoancv after the Certificate of Occuoancv issued for the "Wal-Mart" buildina. Condition B.9.d. shall be satisfied concurrently with the construction of the traffic sianal and four-way concentric intersection described in B.9.b. below. whether such sianal and intersection are constructed bv the develooer or bv the City. as contemofated bv B.9.c. below. a. The de.ele3er retains the ri§ht te "FReet and eonfer" with ap3ropriate City 3ersennel to amens Conelitians B.8.a.,B.8.1a.,anel B.8,e. alaeve in tAB event that laeth the elevoloper and the City fail te elatain tAe neeessary ri§ht of way te eenstruet the si§nalizea eoneentrie intefseetieR at Felirth A. eR~e aReI BfislaaRe. The 3lir3ose of the ri§ht to "FReet and eonfer" .,...ill be to facilitate FReetiR§s aReI eliselissieRs ta jeintly aeterFRine the apßrepriate traffie iFR3aet FRiti§atieR FReaS~fes ReeeSSar'{ to allew fer the eontinued "buila out" ef the eeRtef-. Obtain the off-site riaht-of-wav dedications to allow for the construction of the concentricallv aliened intersection of N. Fourth Avenue and Brisbane within the northerly oortion of the Taraet shoooina center. The amount of riaht-of-wav necessarv to satisfy this condition will be subject to aooroval bv the City Encineer. !he-. Install a traffic signal and "four-way" concentric intersection at N, Fourth Avenue and Brisbane Avenue. The design of the Brisbane/Fourth Avenue signalized intersection will be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. ~ Notwithstandina the foreaoina. if develooer oroooses to request Citv use eminent domain oroceedinas to acquire the off-site riaht-of-wav necessary to construct the imorovements develooer shall orovide to City written evidence that an offer to ourchase based uoon the aooraisal of an indeoendent aooraiser has been made and reiected or not resoonded to bv the owners required to execute a arant of street easement. If develooer is unable to --- --- Channelside Shopping Center Page 7 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 acQuire the off-site riaht-of-wav throuah usina the means described above. upon developer's written reQuest. City shall schedule and deliberate upon the acQuisition of the off-site riaht-of-wav bv the exercise of its power of eminent domain. Notwithstandina the foreaoina. (j) City shall not be obliaated to exercise its eminent domain authority except as it deems consistent with the reQuirements of the law: and (ji) City shall retain its full and unfettered discretion to reiect the use of eminent domain for any and all reasons. Developer will exercise diliaent aood faith efforts to acQuire the off-site riaht-of-wav to construct the improvements. If developer makes such offer and such offer is reiected or not responded to for a period of thirty (30> days and developer thereafter reQuests in writina that City consider acQuisition of the necessary off-site property described in Condition B.g.a. above. throuah the exercise of its eminent domain powers. then the developer shall. within thirty (30> days of makina such reQuest. post with the Citv security in a form acceptable to the City Enaineer and the City Attornev in an amount eQual to the sum of (A) the City Enaineer's aood faith estimate of 150% of the cost of constructina the improvement described in B.9.b. above (b) the City Enaineer's aood faith estimate of 150% of the direct cost of acQuisition of the property described in B.g.a. above (inclusive of appraisal costs) and (C) $30.000 to cover leaal and other costs incurred bv the City in acauirina the property described in B.g.a. above throuah the exercise of its eminent domain powers. Notwithstandina the foreaoina. exceot for the amount in clause (C) above (which amount reoresents develooer's maximum liability!. develooet shall remain resoonsible for all actual direct costs. incurred bv the Citv in connection with the acQuisition described in clause (8) above and all actual direct and indirect costs incurred bv the City in connection with the construction described in clause (A) above. If such property is acQuired within six (6) months from the postina of such security. such security shall remain in olace until construction bv develooer of the imorovements described in B.9.b. above. acceotance of such imorovements bv City and replacement of such securitv with maintenance security in accordance with City's standard reQuirements. If oossession of such orooertv is not obtained within six (6) months from the postina of such security. such security shall remain in olace and thereafter developer shall have no further obliaation reaardina the acQuisition of such prooertv. In that event. at the City's reQuest. develooer and City shall meet and confer in aood faith for an additional period of four (4) months in order to attemot to devise and imolement suitable reolacement mitiaation measures for the traffic impacts aenerated bv the proiect includina the oroiect's oro rata share of cumulative trafficimoacts. If the City and the develooer aaree uoon reolacement mitiaation measures reauirina the acQuisition of off-site riaht-of-wav. and the City does not obtain oossession of such off-site riaht-of-wav within six (6) months of such aareement. the Channelside Shopping Center Page 8 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 construction of such reolacement mitiaation measures shall be waived as a condition to the Citv's issuance of Certificates of OccuDancv with resoect to further develoDment of the Droiect. However. in the event that the Darties are unable to aaree UDon suitable reolacement mitiaation measures durina this four month oeriod. Conditions B.9.a. and B.9.b. above. shall be waived as conditions to the City's issuance of Certificates of OccuDancv with reSDect to further develoDment of the Droiect: but develoDer's security shall remain in Dlace for an additional two (2) years to be utilized bv City for Durooses of comDletina (A) the oriainallv contemDlated acquisition and imDrovements (to the extent such acquisition and imDrovements later become feasibleL or (8) such other traffic mitiaation measures as are devised bv develoDer and City after meetina and conferrina as Drovided above or devised bv the Citv if develoDer and City are unable to aaree as to suitable traffic mitiaation measures. If the develoDer of the National City MarketDlace Droiect DOStS security satisfactory to the City for its Dro-rata share of the cost of such DroDertv acquisition and imDrovements. the security Dosted bv develoDer shall be reduced DroDortionatelv. If the develoDer of the National City MarketDlace Droiect does not Dost security for its Dro-rata share of the cost of such DroDertv acquisition and imDrovements. City shall COODerate in aood faith with develoDer in imDlementina a reimbursement Droaram wherebv develoDer will be reimbursed bv any future develoDer or develoDers of oroiects benefitted bv such DrODertv acquisition and imDrovements. includina an future develoDer of the National City MarketDlace Droiect. in an amount equal to the Dro-rata share (of the cost of such DrODertv acquisition and imDrovements) of National City MarketDlace. as such Dro-rata share is determined Dursuant to a fair share analysis bv an indeDendent traffic enaineer aDDroved bv the City Enaineer. e-..f-.!!., Construct aR Detmanent access road from the Brisbane/Fourth Avenue signalized intersection to the project site. The final design of the access road shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. In the eveRt that the sigRalizeEl eeReentrie interseetiaR at Fa¡'Jrth A'/eR\Je anEl BrisBane is to be eanstr\JeteEl as a condition ta the ElevelaßFRent or rode'iEJIo:JFRent af the Target Shaßßing Center or the NatiaRal City Marketßlaee ßrajeet, a ßra rata share of the iRterseetion iFRßroveFReRt Basts, including laREI ae~¡,¡isitioR, sholl Be borne BY the develoßer. IR the event that the Eleveloßer foils to contribute their ßra rate share, the City sholl ha'/e the right to Elro'.\' ußon Eleveloßer's see¡,¡rity to the ÐJttent Reeessary to fulfill Eleveloßer's ßra rata eontriB¡,¡tioR oBligation. Citv aames to coooerate in aood faith to cause the City of National City to aoDrove any Dlans and issue any Dermits reauired to be aDDroved or issued bv the City of National City necessatv to allow the construction of the imDrovements described in Conditions B.8 and B.9 above. Channelside Shopping Center Page 9. Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 11. Pay sewer capacity. Public Facilities Development Impact, Traffic Signal and other related fees as required by the Mastet Fee Schedule or Municipal Code at issuance of building permits. C. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. Submit letters showing proof of payment of required school fees from the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District to the Director of building and Housing prior to the issuance of any building permit. 2. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, submit a water availability letter from the Sweetwater Authority which shows that adequate water flow is available to the site. 3. Submit a development [phasing plan for approval by the Directors of Community Development, Planning, and the City Engineer prior to the submittal of any building permit application. 4. Submit an enhanced master landscape plan for approval to the Director of Planning prior to issuance of any building permit. Said landscape plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and shall be drafted by a registered landscape architect. 5. Install fire hydrants of a type and at locations specified by the Chula Vista Fire Department. Comply with this condition as determined by the Fire Department. 6. At time of submittal for building permits, submit all plans to the Crime Prevention Unit of the City of Chula Vista Police Department and implement all requirements as listed by the Crime Prevention Unit. Prior to opening for business, arrange a security survey with the Crime Prevention Unit and implement the results of said security survey. 7. Submit a lighting plan to the Director of Planning for approval prior to submission of any building permit application. Said lighting plan shall show and ensure that all lighting is directed away from traffic and nearby land uses, or otherwise shield so as to not allow glate from the Project Site to spill over the property line. Lighting shall illuminate the site but not beyond that considered appropriate and suitable for the use. 8. Participate in whatever water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula Vista may have in effect at the time of issuance of building permits, or agree to no net increase water consumption. Channelside Shopping Center Page 10 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. Environmental Impact Report In addition to complying with the requirements set forth in the Channelside Shopping Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) approved for the proposed project, the following conditions must be met: a. Grading Plans shall include erosion control measures as specified in the Final EIR that include soil stabilization, revegetation, watering of construction areas and transport techniques to reduce airborne soil. b. The project is required to mitigate impacts to biological resources through implementation of the mitigation plan presented in the Final EIR and consistent with the tequirements of the U. S. Coast Guard, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Copies of the executed permits/agreements shall be provided prior to issuance of Grading Permits. c. If breeding and/or nesting of the light-footed clapper rail or the Belding's savannah sparrow occurs within an area that experiences noise impacts from project construction in excess of 60 dB, construction techniques shall be modified or halted during the breeding/nesting season. A focused survey is required to determine the nature of impacts, if any, if construction is to take place during the breeding/nesting season prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. d. All structures shall be designed to conform to the 1 994 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Guidelines, and at a minimum, shall conform to 1 994 UBC Seismic Zone 4 factors. 2. Coastal Development Permit a. Approval of Coastal Development Permit #068 shall be contingent on the California Coastal Commission's approval of LCPA #12 and shall be subject to any conditions placed on LCPA #12 by the California Coastal Commission. b Approval of Coastal Development Permit #068 shall be contingent on the approval of and subject to any conditions placed on the U. S. Coastal Guard Bridge Permit (Rivers & Harbors Act - Section 10), the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers 404 permit (Nationwide permit under #154, #15, or #16), and the California Department of Game Streambed Alteration Agreement (1603 consultation). Channelside Shopping Center Page 11 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 c. Building pads must be elevated to comply with FEMA regulations and the developer shall comply with floodplain regulations or obtain an exception from the Board of Appeals for the Dixieline owned portion of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. d. The developer shall obtain a grading permit from the City and provide erosion control and determined by the City Engineer. When the grading plan for the project is submitted to the City of Chula Vista, separate coastal development permit review shall be required. e. The applicant is required to implement the Broadway Plaza Biological Program dated August 29, 1994 and as may be revised in the future by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. f. Signage for the project will be developed and reviewed in accordance with the site's Precise Plan guidelines and the Design Review Committee's Conditions of approval. g. Exterior lighting associated with the development, including the parking lot lighting shall be designed to not shine directly on or increase the background level of lighting on any coastal salt marsh habitat. h. The project shall comply with grading and drainage provisions set forth in Section 19.81.050 J. of the Bayfront Specific Plan, particularly the special provisions for the Inland Parcel in Section 19.81.050, J.2.d. Grading provisions shall be incorporated into the grading plan notes as appropriate. i. A complete floor plan shall be required to determine that disabled access and exiting regulations will have been met prior to issuance of a building permit. j. The development shall comply with Uniform Building Code Section 506 (b), Unlimited [building] Area which states that a building shall not be limited if the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system throughout and is entirely surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet in width. [LH\HAYNES\REPORTS\WALCON01.LST] fJhu þa;j¡; blank! JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item 5([,), t,~ e" f Meeting Date 1/~ì:iiq'1 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Joint Pubfic Hearing of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency regarding a 31.63 acre site of vacant land focated south of State Route 54 (SR-54) between Broadway Avenue (National City Boufevard) and Fifth Avenue within the boundaries of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area. The Joint Public Hearing will consider the following: , . 1. Review and certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 94-02), Addendum to the FEIR (EIR 94-02A), Findings of Feasible Mitigation Measures, Mitigation and Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a proposed 220,000 sq. ft. commercial retail shopping center to be anchored by a "Wal-Mart" store; and 2. General Plan Amendment (GPA 94-04) for the project site to change the General Plan designation from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare"; and 3. Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA #12) for the project site (the "Inland Parcel") to change the land use designation for both the Bayfront Land Use Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan from "Industrial General" to "Commercial Thoroughfare" subject to the "Central Commercial" zoning designation criteria of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; and 4. Zoning Map Amendment (PCZ-94-C) for the project site to change the zoning designation from "Limited Industrial - Precise Plan Modifier" to "Central Commercial - Precise Plan Modifier"; and 5. Coastal Development Permit (#068) for construction of the Channelside Shopping Center consisting of approximately 220,000 sq. ft. of commercial-retail floor area anchored by a "Wal-Mart" store at the project site. JOINT AGENCY RESOLUTION 1430 Certifying the Final Environmentaf Impact Report (EIR 94-02) and COUNCIL Adopting Addendum EfR 94-02A for the Channelside Shopping Center RESOLUTION 17705 Project; Making Certain Findings of Fact Relating to the Feasibility of Mitigation Measures and Project Alternatives; Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations COUNCIL: RESOLUTION 17706 Amending the General Plan land-use designation for the 31.63 acre Channelside project site located at the terminus of North Fifth Avenue from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial-Thoroughfare" COUNCIL: ORDINANCE 2613 of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Amending the Certified Chula Vista Locaf Coastal Program and Bayfront Specific Pfan in Accordance with Amendment #12 Reclassifying 31.63 Acres of the "fnfand Parcel", Subarea 4 from "Industriaf-Generaf" to "Commercial-Thoroughfare" Subject to the "Central-Commerciaf-Precise Plan" (C-C-P) Modifying District Pursuant to Chapters 19.36 and 19.56 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code S~/ --. Page 2, 'tem2 Meeting Dat~ 11 IS "'I- COUNCIL: ORDINANCE 2614 of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Amending the Zoning Map Established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to Rezone' the 31.63 Acre Project Site Located at the Terminus of North Fifth Avenue from "Industrial-Limited with Precise Plan Modifier" (I-L-P) to "Central-Commercial-Precise Plan" (C-C-P) COUNCIL: RESOLUTION 17707 Authorizing the Issuance of Coastal Develop.(TJent Permit #068 for the Construction of the Channelside Shopping Center Located at Southeast Quadrant of National City Boulevard (Broadway) and State Route 54 Subject to Conditions of Approval AGENCY: RESOLUTION 1431 Approving the Channefside Shopping Center Project and Precise Plan, Subject to Specific Project Conditions; and Declaring that Certain Conditions Precedent to Effectiveness as Set Forth in the Disposition and Development Agreement Between the Redevelopment Agency, Chula Vista Town Center Associates, and Waf-Mart Stores, Inc., Have Been Satisfied SUBMITTED BY: C,mm,,", D""opm,SÞit'" C S. Planning Director REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ I:¡r ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No.1Ll Council Referral No. ~ BACKGROUND: In December 1993, the City Council and Redevefopment Agency approved a Semi-Exclusive Negotiating and Covenants Agreement (SENA) with Gatlin Development Company and National Avenue Assoociates. The SENA granted staff the authority to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) to provide for the development of a commercial retail center for the vacant 31.63 acre site located at the northwest quadrant of Fifth Avenue and C Street just south of State Route 54 in the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area. In August 1994, the Council and Agency approved the DDA contingent upon approval of all discretionary land-use approvals by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. Concurrent with the negotiations relevant to the DDA, the developer agreed to fund and proceed with the processing of the Environmental Impact Report and all of the above- referenced discretionary approvals. The "kickoff" for the EIR was February 1, 1994, with the entire project receiving expeditious processing through a team oriented "Project Manager" system with the Community Development Department as the lead department. Additionally, the Agency approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of National City in order to help facilitate cooperation between the two jurisdictions on the processing of separate, but related, projects. The "National City Marketplace" project is proposed to be devefoped on the existing Dixieline property immediately to the east of the project site. The "cooperation" centered upon facilitating similar, but not identical, architectural design, landscaping and shared responsibilities with respect to traffic improvements. The site plan for the combined project is included as Attachment 1 for your information. 5~Þ- Page 3, Item~ Meeting Date 1 j91j4. II IS 'f'f As identified above, this item requests that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency hold a public hearing, deliberate, and take action for each of the required discretionary approvals. Since afl of the items are being presented to the Council and Agency for their consideration at one time, the consideration of each item must foflow in the order outlined. Please see the "Recommendation" section below for a complete explanation. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that, in aççordance with the instructions and incremental sequence recommended by the City Attorney (set forth below) the City Council and Redevelopment Agency (1) open the pubfic hearing for afl pubfic hearing agenda items; (2) receive and consider the staff reports and public testimony with respect to each such item; (3) incrementafly close the public the hearing with respect to each such item; and (4) incrementafly, in their joint or respective capacities, as appropriate, approve and adopt the foflowing resofutions and ordinances in the order presented: 1. Agency Resolution # 1430 and Council Resolution # 17705 which 1) certifies Environmental Impact Report #94-02 and addendum thereto, 2) makes Findings of Fact on the feasibility of mitigation measures and project alternatives, and 3) Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Council Resolution # 17706 which amends the General Plan land-use designation for the project site from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial- Thoroughfare" 3. Council Ordinance # 2613 which amends the Certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program with Amendment #12 reclassifying the land-use designation for the "Inland Parcel", Subarea 4, (the project site), from "Industrial Generaf" to "Commercial- Thoroughfare" subject to the "Central-Commercial-Precise Plan" modifying district 4. Council Ordinance # 2614 which amends the Zoning Map designation and rezones the project site from "Limited Industrial with Precise Plan Modifier" to "Central Commercial with Precise Plan Modifier" 5. Council Resolution # 17707 which authorizes the issuance Coastal Development Permit #068 for construction of the Channelside Shopping Center subject to Conditions of Approval 6. Agency Resolution # 1431 which approves the project and the project Precise Plan (subject to specific project conditions) and declares that certain conditions precedent to effectiveness in the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency, Chula Vista Town Center Associates, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., have been satisfied The City Attorney has recommended the above-described "incremental" approval of the resolutions and ordinances presented herein in order to assure (1) that afl necessary CECA analysis has been completed and the Final EIR certified prior to any Council/Agency action on discretionary project approvals; and (2) that afl discretionary project approvals, which must be obtained in order to permit the proper consideration and approval of other dependent discretionary project approvals, are considered and approved in the proper sequence. Such 5"-3 Page 4, Item 5 Meeting Date "'f':'4- /I 15 'Ie.¡. careful and ordered consideration of these items is believed to be warranted because of the prospects of a legal challenge to the project. In order to facifitate the conduct of this incremental public hearing and approval process. the City Attorney will distribute an outline of the steps necessary in order to implement this approach. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: ,. 1. The Design Review Committee reviewed and approved (4-0) the Design Review Application on July 25. 1994. (Minutes included as Attachment 2) The DRC recommended project conditions are included in Section VI of this report. 2. The Resource Conservation Committee recommended the certification of the Environmentaf Impact Report (4-1) on July 25, 1994. (Minutes included as Attachment 3) 3. The Planning Commission unanimously approved (5-0-2) the Final Environmental Impact Report. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Statement of Overriding Considerations. General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Rezone unanimously on September 28. 1994. (Minutes included as Attachment 4) 4. The Town Centre Project Area Committee, unanimously, recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Local Coastal Program Amendment at their meeting of October 6, 1994. (Minutes included as Attachment 5) DISCUSSION: The proposed project consists of an approximate 129,000 sq. ft. "Wal-Mart" store with another 52,600 sq. ft. major retailer, a 6,500 sq. ft. restaurant pad, and an additional 1 0,790 square feet of specialty retail shops. Major access points are from Fifth Avenue on the south, a bridge crossing from Broadway on the west side, and from Fourth Avenue through a 30 foot easement access road across the southern Dixieline property line to the east. This project has generally been concurrently processed with an adjacent commercial retail shopping center on the "Dixieline" property in the city of National City. The "body" of this report provides an analysis for each of the discretionary approvals in the required chronological order. All supp.,rting documents are referenced and attached for your review and information. I. CERTIFICATION - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT {EIR 94-021 A. BACKGROUND National Avenue Associates, in partnership with Gatlin Development is proposing to construct an approximately 220.000 square foot shopping center on a 31.63 acre site at the northern terminus of Fifth Avenue, bordered by SR 54 to the north and Broadway/National City Boulevard to the west. The proposed development would create a regional shopping center with a 149,289 square foot anchor store (including the 20.000 sq. ft. future expansion), a S-Lj -q Page 5, Item2.. Meeting Date 1'1'74 II IS 1'f 52,640 square foot co-anchor, 10.790 square feet of additional retail space and a 6,500 square foot pad proposed for retail/restaurant. Various projects have been previously proposed for portions of the project site, including a golf range/sports center, and an industrial/office development. The site is currently undevefoped but has been graded. The portion of the site proposed for grading and devefopment (approximately 22 acres of the 31.63 acre site has been disturbed by previous grading activities. An addendum to the Final EIR has been prepared to address the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) that has been conditionally approved by the Agency for the project. The conclusions of the Addendum are that no additional significant environmental effects would result from satisfaction of the "Conditions to Effectiveness" of the DDA. This Addendum was not submitted to the Planning Commission in their review of the project. However, an information memorandum has been sent to the Commission and discussion of the DDA was undertaken at the Planning Commision public hearing for the project held on September 28, 1994. 1. Public Comment As a result of circulation of the Notice of Preparation, three comment letters were received. Letters from both the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District requested full mitigation for school impacts from the project. Additionally, Cal- Trans submitted suggestions regarding the scope of the traffic study. Nine letters of comment were received as a result of the publio review period which began June 16, 1994 and ended August 10, 1994. Those comment letters and responses to each comment have been included as a part of the Final EIR. An informal public forum was held in the Council Chambers on June 30, 1994, in order to present the proposed project and solicit input. The Draft EIR was presented at the meeting, at which two members of the public were in attendance. As stated previously, the Resource Conservation Commission considered the Draft EIR on July 25, 1994. The RCC voted 4 - 1 to recommend its certification. Member Myers dissented because of concern over the addition of more commercial property. (Minutes included as Attachment 3). The Planning Commission considered the Final EIR on September 28, 1994 and voted 5-0-2 to recommend its certification (Minutes included as Attachment 4). The complete report to the Planning Commission which includes the analysis provided below, is included as Attachment 6. B. ANALYSIS The following is a summary analysis for each of the potential environmental impacts evaluated as part of the project. Should additional information be required, please refer to Section 4 of the Final EIR which was provided to the Council under separate cover. S- --5 -... Page 6. Item~ Meeting Date I t V~4 . If Is' 9 1. Land Use Impact Summary: Significant, itigab~ Impact: Project impacts to coastal saft marsh would be inconsistent with the Local Coastal Program and impacts to the Chula Vista Greenbelt designation are considered significant. Mitigation: Impacts to coastal salt marsh are mitigated through revegetation at a ratio of 3: 1 . Impacts to the Greenbelt would be mitigated through provision of enhanced landscaping on the project's northern border. 2. Aesthetics Impact Summary: Less than Significant 3. Air Qualitv Impact Summary: Significant. Not Mitigable Impact: Vehicle emissions contribute to the regional (cumulative) air quality impact; short term construction impacts. Mitigation: Construction impacts are mitigated through implementation of dust control measures and proper use of emission control on construction equipment. 4. -Noise Impact Summary: Less than Significant 5. Fiscal/Economic Impact Summary: Beneficial Impact 6. Bioloaical Resources Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impact: Impacts to .06 acre of unvegetated drainage channel and. 15 acre of coastal salt marsh Mitigation: Revegetation on site at a ratio of 3: 1, to the satisfaction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. 7. Public Services and Utilities Impact Summary: Significant. Mitigable a. Fire - No significant impact. b. Police. No significant impact. c. Schools - Potentially significant impact mitigated through negotiated agreement with the developer. (i) The Final EIR stated that current State-mandated school impact fee is adequate mitigation for the enrollment impacts that would be caused by the project. The school districts disagreed with this conclusion and had indicated that State-mandated fees are not adequate in lieu of their current capital cost per student. To offset this imbalance, the developer had agreed to provide mitigation beyond the State-mandated fees in the form of offering one relocatable classroom per district. That mitigation has been agreed upon by the school districts. / 5-(p .Page 7, Item..£ Meeting Date ;~~ï~ d. Sewer - No significant impact. e. Water - No significant impact. f. Parks and Recreation - No significant impact. 8. Traffic Circulation Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impacts: '. a. Project traffic would significantly impact offsite roadway intersections including 4th Avenue/Brisbane Street and 5th Avenue/C Street. b. Project traffic would incrementally contribute, in conjunction with buildout of the City General Plan, to significant impacts to the left turn at SR-54 westbound offramp at Highland and to Broadway and E Street. Mitigation: a. The project applicant shall signalize the intersections of 4th Avenue/Brisbane Street and 5th Avenue/C Street. b. Improvements to the SR-54 westbound offramp at Highland and at Broadway and E Street will be undertaken by the City and/or Caftrans when the level of Service warrants. 9. Geoloqy Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impact Significant impacts have been identified for soil suitability, seismic hazards and liquefaction Mitigation The applicant is required to conduct a surcharge operation that wilf compress soils to a suitable state for construction to reduce soil and liquefaction hazards to less than significant levels. Structural design to resist seismic impacts is required. 10. Hydroloqy/Water Quality Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impact Drainage facility capacities and introduction of urban pollutants and sedimentation have been identified as potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Demonstration that the drainage facilities can convey the appropriate flow levels and installation of water quality protection devices is required. C. ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires a description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project", and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The discussion of alternatives "shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse effects or reducing them ..5"- 7 Page 8, Item~ Meeting Datu 11i~1~4 to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some de~ :;: t~:t ' attainment of project objectives, or would be more costly." The folfowing discussion presents a brief summary of each alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR. 1. "No Proiect" Alternative No changes to land use would q,qcur under the No Project Alternative, and project objectives would not be met. 2. "ADDroved Use" Alternative This alternative would leave the site as is, with its present designation and ability to develop as industrial uses. Impacts would be reduced with this alternative, however, air quality and noise would remain significant and not mitigable. The project objectives would not be met with this alternative, but it has been determined to be the "environmentalfy superior" alternative, due to a reduction in significant impacts (though not to a lever below significance). 3. "Reduced Densitv" Alternative Development of 146,877 square feet of commercial floor area would occur, rather than the 219,219 as proposed by the project. Generalfy, impacts would be reduced, though the not- mitigable impacts to air quality would remain. This alternative would meet the project objectives, however, to a lesser degree than the proposed project. 4. Alternative Sites Three alternative sites were evaluated in order to determine whether another site might be environmentalfy superior. Generalfy, similar impacts or scale of impacts would occur with each of these, and project objectives may not be met due to the non-viabifity of the respective market areas. D. CONCLUSION In summary, the proposed Channelside Shopping Center project would result in significant and unmitigated impacts to air quality. Otherwise, alf significant impacts can be reduced to a level below significant. Project alternatives resulted in the same impact summary (with the exception of the "No Project" alternative), though the existing General Plan alternative reduced impacts resufting in its identification as the "environmentalfy superior" alternative. II. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IGPA 94-041 A. BACKGROUND National Avenue Associates requested an amendment to the Chura Vista General Plan for the 31.63 acre project site. The request consists of an amendment of the Land Use Diagram of the General Plan from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare." The proposed General Plan Amendment is necessary to enable the development of a 220,000 sq. ft. retail shopping center, which includes Wal-Mart as the major tenant. An amendment .s~¡ Page 9, Item..£ Meeting Date 11'111.4 - II IS' '1'1 to the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan is not necessary since the redevelopment plan defers to the General Plan, and automatically incorporates any changes thereof. The complete report to the Planning Commission (that also indudes the analysis on the rezoning request) is induded as Attachment 6. B. DISCUSSION 1. ExistinCl Site Characteristics The subject site is located in the northern portion of the city bounded by Fifth Avenue on the east, Broadway (National City Blvd.) on the west, State Route 54 (SR-54) on the north, and the northerly line of the industrial development to the south. The site consists of a total of 31.63 acres, is presently vacant, and contains approximately 10 acres of sensitive undeveloped open space. An existing unimproved storm drain traverses the property from east to west, discharging into a recharge area of the existing Sweetwater River. The river recharge area extends from the SR-54 right-of-way, south along the westerly edge of the property, where it then crosses under Broadway. The site currently has direct access to an extension of Fifth Avenue and will have access to Broadway from the west via a future bridge/crossing and from North Fourth Avenue to the east via a30 ft. access easement along the southern edge of the existing Dixieline Lumber Company site. 2. Adjacent ZonjnCl and Land Use North Freeway Freeway SR-54 Freeway South Research and Limited "I-L-P" Limited Light industrial Manufacturing Industrial subject to warehousing Precise Plan East Research and Limited C,V," "I-L-P" Light industrial Manufacturing Industrial warehousing subject to Precise Plan N.C," "CG-PD" Lumber yard General (future retail comm.) Commercial- Planned Development West Research and Limited N.C." "CH-CZ" Light Manufacturing Heavy industrial/commercial Commercial- and open space Coastal Zone " C.V. - Chula Vista / N.C. - National City J./f Page 10, ltem2 Meeting Date 1/~;/~~ 3. ProDosed General Plan Amendment The proposed amendment to the General Plan for 31.63 acres involves a change in the Generaf Plan land Use Diagram designation for the subject site from "Research & Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare." The land Use Diagram also depicts the Chula Vista "Greenbelt" traversing east/west along the northerly edge of the project site, as well as afong the westerfy edge of the site. The "Greenbelt" is described in the General Plan as a "continuous 28-mile open space and park system around the city" linked by a trail system. The proposed Generaf Plan aQ1¡!ndment from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare" does not propose to modify the "Greenbelt" designation currently depicted on the land Use Diagram. A relatively narrow strip of developed "Research and Limited Manufacturing" designated property will continue to front on Fifth. Avenue and between existing major retaif areas to the east and the project site. C. ANALYSIS Future development of the light industrial land uses at this location will be constrained by the refatively small size of the development area, the high visual exposure of the area to adjacent major roadways, and the transition of adjacent areas to commerciaf. Existing retail commercial property is located to the east, at the northwest quadrant of North Fourth Avenue and C Street, and the City of National City has plans to develop the existing Dixieline Lumber Company site into a retail commerciaf center. Access to the project site will occur via a 30 ft. wide easement across the Dixieline site. Development of the project site as retaif commercial would continue a transition of the area from light industrial uses to commercial uses and would serve as an advantageous location for the proposed retaif center, due to its location, access to major thoroughfares and adjacency to State Route 54. The redesignation and rezoning would allow the area to evolve and encourage its present direction of commercialization in an orderfy and planned manner. Additionally, the proposed amendment would foster the economic and physical revitalization of the Central Chula Vista Community and urban core of the City. Application of the "P" (Precise Plan) Modifying District to the property and the requisite review by the Design Review Committee of a Precise Plan is deemed necessary in order to assure compatibility of a variety of different land uses in the area, and implementation of the Chula Vista "Greenbeft." The proposed interlinking traif system envisioned as part of the "Greenbelt" will occur on the levee of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel, north of the project site; however a visual open space buffer will be pursued with development and redevelopment of properties along the southern edge of SR-54, consistent with the "Greenbelt" designation. A Precise Plan guideline calling for a 15 ft. to 25 ft. wide landscape buffer is being proposed as a project condition as part of the action proposed with the Redevelopment Agency resolution. Additionally, the proposed project preserves significant open space within the Sweetwater River recharge area along the westerly edge of the property, consistent with the "Greenbelt" designation. III. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT (LCPA #121 A. BACKGROUND The following amendment (Amendment #12) to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) is proposed: 5-/0 Page 11, Item.£- Meeting Date 11~%4 1/ /ff. f'f Amendment #12 entails changing the land use designation of 31.63 acres of undeve oped property located in Sub Area 4, the Inland Parcel, from Industrial General to Commercial Thoroughfare subject to the Central Commercial zoning criteria with a Precise Plan Modifying District. Both the Land Use Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan will need to be modified to implement the amendment. (Amendment #12 is attached as Exhibit A to the Ordinance.) Amendment #12 has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning and a General Pfan amendment for the proposal to develop about 31.63 acres of the "Inland Parcel" in the Chula Vista Coastal Zone with the Ct!¡¡nnelside Shopping Center. The amendment will make the project consistent with the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. Environmentaf Impact Report EIR-94-04 of possibfe significant environmental impacts from the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator. B. DISCUSSION: The Channelside Shopping Center has been proposed to be developed on about 31.63 acres of vacant property located within the Chula Vista Coastal Zone. The site is located south and adjacent to State Route 54, west of Broadway (National City Boulevard). This subarea of the coastal zone is removed from the Chula Vista Bayfront and does not have direct coastal access. It is surrounded by urban devefopment, although the historic Sweetwater River runs along the western edge of the property. There -is potentially sensitive habitat on the site which will be addressed with the specific development project and coastal development permit. The LCP determines the land uses allowed to be developed within the coastal zone. The site is currently designated for Industrial General use in both the Bayfront Specific Pfan and the Land Use Plan (the two main documents of the LCP). The Channelside Shopping Center project proposal consists of the development of a retail commercial shopping center totafing approximately 220,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed LCP Amendment #12 will change the current industrial land use to a commercial designation which will be consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment, rezoning, and shopping center project. In both the Bayfront Specific Plan and Land Use Plan, the land use designation is proposed to be changed to Commercial Thoroughfare subject to Central Commercial zoning with a Precise Plan Modifying District as described in Chapters 19.36 and 19.56 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. This land use classification will allow: retail stores, shops, services, financial institutions, restaurants, and related types of commercial uses. (For specific uses and development criteria, see Sections 19.36 and 19.56, Attachment 1.) The proposed commercial land use will be compatible with the existing and planned land uses for the properties adjacent to the Inland Parcel. Currently, adjacent development includes a strip of small commercial and limited industrial uses afong "C" Street to the mini storage, truss manufacturing, and warehouse offices, and a retail discount store (Target) located to the south east. The National City Market Place, a retail commercial shopping center also is planned adjacent to the east of the proposed Channelside Shopping Center. (See Figure 4.1 .1 of EIR-94-04.) State Route 54 runs parallel to the Inland Parcel's northern boundary and the site is highly visible from the freeway. The proposed land use change requires that the site development be subject to the Precise Plan Modifying District which will ensure design control and appropriate review of density, open space, and such at the City Council level. Although the SrI! --- Page 12, Item S Meeting Date 11æ~.d ~ IllS; 'fif site will be subject to traditional zoning devefopment criteria, the site will continue 0 be subject to the Bayfront Specific Plan and the Land Use Plan policies which will insure consistency with coastal related issues. 1. ChaDter 3 FindinQs The Inland Parcel is not located within the Chula Vista Bayfront. The Parcel is located approximately 1/2 mile (northeast) traveling distance from the Bayfront's main, "E" Street entry. The land use designa~qn of the Inland Parcel, therefore, will not directfy affect Bayfront "coastal resource" planning. The Inland Parcel does not have access to coastal resources such as: the sea, the bay, or dry sand and rocky coastaf beaches; therefore, the change in land use designation will not affect such access. The Inland Parcel has no oceanfront land suitable for water-oriented recreational activities or coastal dependent aquacultural uses. A portion of the historic Sweetwater River is located along a portion of the western edge of the Inland Parcel. This is considered potentially sensitive habitat and will be enhanced and protected when development occurs on the Inland Parcel. The proposed Amendment #12 is a change in land use only and will not affect the site's sensitive habitat designation or the site's sensitive habitat. The Inland Parcel is visible from the north (State Route 54). however, there are no coastal views or vistas from or to the Inland Parcel. The land use change will include a Precise Plan Modifying District which will require the development of specific design and land development criteria to ensure the visual quality of the Inland Parcel. IV. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT /PCZ-94-CI The applicant is also requesting a rezoning from "I-L-P" (Limited Industrial with Precise Plan modifier) to "C-C-P" /Central Commercial with Precise Plan modifier). The formal modification, if approved, will be applied to the Zoning Map. The background and analysis previously provided under Item II, the General Plan Amendment, and in the Planning Commission report attached as Exhibit A, is applicable and incorporated herein. The following paragraph is provided for additional clarity. The proposed project involves an amendment to the zoning on the property, changing from "I-L-P" /Limited Industrial subject to a Precise Plan) to "C-C-P" /Central Commercial subject to a Precise Plan). Staff is recommending the application of the Precise Plan modifier designation /"P") in order to establish necessary development guidelines for development of the property. Please see the findings necessary for the application of the "P" modifying district and the proposed Precise Plan Guidelines contained within the attached draft City Council Ordinance. V. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT /#068) A. LAND USE/SITE DEVELOPMENT This Coastal Development Permit is being processed concurrently with a Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment which will modify the project site's land use to allow the proposed retail commercial project. If the LCP amendment is approved, the site will be developed in accordance with Central Commercial zoning subject to a Precise Plan modifying district. The .s~/Y Page 13, Item~ Meeting Date 1 ~~~ project is also subject to a General Plan amendment, Design Review, subdivision map requirements, a grading permit, and approval by the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, Federal 404 Permit, Cafifornia Fish & Wildlife and Coast Guard review. Compfiance with alf conditions of approval from reviewing bodies wilf be required by the coastal development permit to ensure consistency with the provisions of the California Coastal Act. B. SWEETWATER RIVER BRIDGE The project includes an acces~ þridge approximately 115 feet long by .60 feet wide to be located on the west side of the site over the Sweetwater River to provide access to Broadway (National City Boulevard). The bridge will consist of a 4-lane paved roadway including sidewalks, curbs and gutters. In order to accommodate bridge construction, the project proposes to cross a portion of the historic route of the Sweetwater River that was isolated with the channelization of the river. This isolated portion of the river lies along the western project boundary of the project site. The bridge wilf extend from the western edge of the Center's parking lot to the intersection of National City Boulevard and 35th Street to the west. Approximately 10 acres of open space/coastal related lands currently exist around the on-site Sweetwater River and a drainage ditch located afong the southern boundary. On-site enhancement and restoration is proposed for the wetland and buffer areas to compensate for potential impacts to wetlands resulting from the implementation of the access bridge. (The proposed drainage area along the south property fine is located outside the coastal zone boundary, therefore modification to it is not discussed in this report. U.S Fish and Wildlife and California Fish and Game permits wilf be required.) Preliminary planning efforts identified three potential bridge designs and subsequent construction scenarios. The bridge design identified as the environmentalfy superior alternative, Alternative #3, a 115ft. spanned bridge was selected for the project. The proposed bridge will span the river and adjacent Coastal Salt Marsh thereby minimizing potentiaf project impacts to the wetlands. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. (PSBS) prepared an analysis of the bridge and wetlands which is presented in their report, "Broadway Plaza Biological Mitigation Program". PSBS concluded that the proposed bridge construction zone would encompass an area approximately 140 feet wide and 270 feet long (37,800 sq. ft. or 0.87 ac.). The bridge construction would result in the direct, permanent loss of 0.15 acre of Southern California Coastal Salt Marsh habitat (bridge footprint). 0.08 acre of direct. temDorarv impacts to Southern California Coastal Saft Marsh habitat (construction access), and 0.12 acre of direct, permanent impacts to Mule-Fat Scrub habitat (bridge footprint). Mitigation proposed for the bridge construction includes restoration of approximately 0.08 acre of Salt Marsh adjacent within the existing on-site channel resulting from temporary impacts and creation of approximately 1.34 acres of Southern California Coastal Salt Marsh habitat along the eastern and southern portions of the existing Salt Marsh vegetation. This wilf result in the restoration of the lost wetland at an average 3.3: 1 ratio resulting in restoration of 1.16 acres of wetland vs. the .35 acre loss of wetland. In addition, revegetation is proposed for the upland slopes and a majority of the adjacent areas situated within the wetland buffer area. Revegetation of 3.4 acres of sensitive habitat wilf include native coastal sage and succulent scrub vegetation and planting of barrier vegetation along the buffer perimeter adjacent to the parking lot. Enhancement of the existing Salt S~ /3 --. Page 14, Item~ Meeting Date""1 '~~91 II ¡h fy. Marsh and Southern Willow Scrub habitats is anticipated through removal of on-site palm trees and elimination of refuse and debris. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) staff has reviewed the proposed bridge design and wetland enhancement program. In a letter dated September 7, 1994, USFWS staff indicted that the mitigation measures proposed by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, "would effectivefy mitigate unavoidable impacts to fish and wildlife resources resulting from the proposed work." The USFWS wifl evaluate the final mitigation program when reviewing the project's federal 404 Permit apeljcation and the State application for a Streambed Alteration Permit. C. WETLAND BUFFER The wetlands wifl be buffered from the project by an average 107 foot buffer (80 ft. minimum and 130 ft. maximum) as required by the Broadway Plaza Biofogical Mitigation Program. The Mitigation Program also provides that a dense hedge of landscaping material be planted at the outer edge of the parking/lot development to discourage encroachment into the buffer. All areas within the buffer that support non-native vegetation wifl be revegetated with native sage scrub or southern wiflow scrub species (whichever is appropriate to the site-specific situation) to enhance the quality of the habitat and provide additional buffering. The Local Coastal Program does not identify any required width for wetland buffers within the Inland Parcel subarea of the Coastal Zone. The LCP addresses buffers within the main bayfront area only and makes special provisions for the F-G Street marsh. It appears that the buffers proposed for the subject project wifl be adequate to protect the on-site wetlands, particularly in view of the sites grade differential, proposed average 107 foot buffer, revegetation plan and USFWS comments. D. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT The Bayfront Specific Plan indicates that sensitive habitat exists within the Inland Parcel but is undelineated. Further, it requires that all environmental resources be analyzed by and environmental professionaf and that an Environmental Management Plan be adopted to protect any sensitive habitat discovered prior to the commencement of any additional development. The FEIR for the project and the Broadway Plaza Biological Mitigation Program identifies the environmentally sensitive habitat on the site and provides a thorough analysis with a comprehensive mitigation plan to avoid impacts to the habitat. The USFWS has reviewed the mitigation program and has concurred with the concept. Implementation of the Mitigation Program will be required as a condition of this coastal development permit. 1. Exterior Liahtina Because the wetland areas receive limited use from wildlife species listed in the project's FEIR, lighting is unlikely to have an adverse effect. However, it is required that lights associated with the development, including the parking lot, be designed so that they do not shine directly on or increase the background level of lighting on any coastal salt marsh habitat to insure no impact will occur. 5"- I 'f Page 15. Item 5" Meeting Date 11~'~-4 '? 2.~ IllS q y: Signs for the project will be developed and reviewed in accordance with the site's Precise Plan guidelines and the Design Review Committee's conditions of approval. 3. Traffic Conditions of project approval include major street improvements such as the widening of Fourth Avenue, installation of S(!yeral traffic signals, construction of access roadways, street restriping, and other public improvements. Implementation of these conditions are anticipated to negate any potential traffic impacts from the project. In view of the proposed mitigation and sinc.e the project site is not located near or adjacent to the bay or the beach and does not provide access to coastal recreational facilities, no direct or indirect effect on coastal related traffic will occur. E. FINDINGS Adoption of the Coastal Development Permit resolution, the City Council will be finding, based on the following findings and subject to conditions of approval listed in Attachment I, that the proposed Channelside (Wal-Mart) Shopping Center project is in conformance with the policies of the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. 1. The project site is currently undeveloped and does not provide coastal reliant recreational facilities or access to coastal reliant recreational facilities. The proposal, if undertaken, will not conflict with or impact existing or anticipated recreational or visitor-serving facilities within the coastal zone and the proposed development is in conformity with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3 of the Public Resources Code. 2. The project is not located near or adjacent to the coast or bay, therefore, traffic generated by the project will not interact with coastal traffic and the project will not interfere with coastal access or coastal traffic circulation 3. The proposed land use will be allowed by Local Coastal Program Amendment #12 to the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. The proposed land use has been reviewed and found, subject to conditions, and contingent on the approval of LCP Amendment #12, to be consistent with the policies of the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. 4. A portion of the historic Sweetwater River is located along a portion of the western edge of the project site. The project proposes to upgrade and supplement the onsite wetlands and create and landscape a substantial wetland buffer, therefore, coastal sensitive habitat will be enhanced and protected as part of the project development. VI. AGENCY PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS The Redevelopment Agency is requested, after consideration and approval of the other discretionary applications by the City Council, to formally approve the proposed Channelside Shopping Center project by adopting the attached Agency resolution. In addition to taking the same action on the EIR as was taken by the City Council (if applicable), the Agency 5-/f --- Page 16, ItemL Meeting Date 11.1'94- Il I>' f/f resolution adopts the project "Precise Plan" and declares that the previously approved Disposition and Development Agreement is effective. The "Precise Plan" includes: A. Design Review Committee Submittal B. Project Conditions of Approval 1. Design Review ,. 2. Engineering Department 3. Planning Department 4. Community Development Department All of the departmental conditions of the "Precise Plan" are included as Attachment 1 to the Agency resolution for your review. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the planning entitlements by the City Council, and approval of the FEIR and project by the Council and Redevelopment Agency will allow for the construction of a 220,000 sq. ft. community shopping center along the northern boundary of the city limits. As mentioned previously, the project was the subject of a conditionally approved Disposition and Development Agreement that contained significant project deal points. In the staff report and the required "Summary Report" provided at the August 23, 1994, Council/Agency meeting, the following DDA financial information were provided: A. Basic Deal Points 1. Wal-Mart is not obligated to construct the store. However, if Wal-Mart fails to construct and open the store within two years of the approval of the DDA, the DDA is terminated. 2. The subsidy of $1,915,000 was determined to be necessary in order to make the project financially feasible and stimulate the development of the remainder of the site. The Summary Report provided the basis for this determination. In short, the subsidy is required due to the extraordinary construction costs (bridge from Broadway to the site) necessary to develop the site for high- volume retail-commercial use. Other extraordinary site development costs that were considered include the expected costs of compacting potentially expansive soils and compliance with enhanced seismic standards. Verification of the need for this subsidy to make the project feasible was contained in the financial analysis previously provided. The justification for the subsidy is based on the projected development costs for the site and the rate of return on the developer's investment in order to make the project financially feasible. 3. The subsidy is the primary obligation of the Agency. The subsidy is to be paid over a maximum 15 year period. During this period the amount owed to Wal- Mart accures interest at the rate of 4% per year. Any principal or interest which remains unpaid at the end of the 15 year period is forgiven. The subsidy is to be paid in quarterly installments. The amount due in anyone quarter is to S-Ib --- Page 17, Item.-£ Meeting Date ~Jf,;ßY be measured by a perecentage of the amount of sales tax revenue received by the City from the Wal-Mart store during the quarter immediately preceding such quarterly payment. In order to account for the project "transfer" effect (ie., transfer of sales from one outlet to another) the percentage amount of repayment obligation in year 1 through year 4 is 20%, 30%, 35% and 45%, respectively. By the end of the fourth year, the transfer effect is projected to be nullified, and therefore, the annual repayment obligation will be equal to 50% of the sales tax generated from the Waf-Mart Store. (Please review the Market Analysis conducted by Onaka and Associates as part of the project EIR for clarification i1 necessary). 4. While the obligation to pay this subsidy amount is an Agency obligation, it is likely, that the tax increment generated by the project (an estimated $90,000 for the Waf-Mart store and an estimated $135,000 for the entire project) would not be sufficient to make the entire annual subsidy payment owed to Wal-Mart. Therefore, the City General Fund is likely to be obligated to make a significant portion of these payments. Note: This obligation would never be greater in amount than 50% of the sales tax generated by the Wal-Mart store and received by the City General Fund in anyone year. 5. Agency is to use its best efforts to cause the City to enter into a Cooperation Agreement with the Agency which requires the City to provide the Agency with sufficient funds to make any annual payments in any given year, if necessary. Wal-Mart would be a third party beneficiary of this agreement and therefore would have the right to require the City to make payments to the Agency if necessary for the Agency to fulfill its obligations to Wal-Mart. 6. If the Wal-Mart store closes or is transferred to another user, the Agency obligation to pay the subsidy immediately terminates. 7. Wal-Mart covenants for a period of 20 years that it shall not use the property for anything other than the retail uses permitted by the entitlements. The Wal-Mart store, if subsequently approved and constructed, will provide an estimated $90,000 annually in increased property tax increment revenue to the Agency. Additionally, the Wal-Mart store is estimated to generate approximately $400,000 in annual sales tax revenue to the City's General Fund in the first full year of operation. This figure is projected to increase in subsequent years. If constructed, it is estimated that the "overall project" proposed for the site (Wal-Mart plus the additional retail and restaurant space) will generate $135,000 in annual tax increment to the Agency and $500,000 of sales tax revenue in the first full year of operation. Finally, the project is estimated to employ approximately 400 temporary construction workers for a period of nearly 12 months, and 450 new permanent full and part-time jobs in the center. The tables below provide an estimated projection of the relative costs to, and revenues for, the City and Agency with respect to the DDA and the Wal- Mart project: S-:'--17 _. . Page 19, Item 5 Meeting Date" '~1';¡1 I" Is' t¡Y- PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT WAL-HART STORE WAL-HART NET SUBSIDY NET TAX TOTAL SALES TAX PROJECTED WAL-HART % PMT TO SALES TAX INCREMENT REVENUE YR PROJECTION TRANSFERS SALES,:rjIX SBARE WAL-MART TO CITY REVENUE TO CITY 1 $(00,375 $2(0,375 $160,000 20.00% $80,075 $79,925 $90,000 $169,925 2 H2(,OS6 $180,266 $2(3.7.90 30.00% $127,217 $116,573 $90,000 $206,573 3 $U9,U8 $120,317 $328,831 35.00% $157,202 $171,629 $90,000 $261,629 ( $(75,H7 $60,002 $U5, H5 (5.00% $2U ,086 $201,659 $90,000 $291,659 5 $UO,0(3 $0 $UO,O(3 50.00% $2(5,022 $2(5,022 $90,000 $335,022 6 $504, HO $0 $50(, HO 50.00% $252,370 $252,370 $90,000 $3(2,370 7 $519,B9( $0 $519,B9( 50.00% $259,9(7 $259,9(7 $90,000 $3(9,9(7 8 $535,5U $0 $535,5U 50.00% $267,757 $267,757 $90,000 $357,757 9 $S51,557 $0 $S51,557 SO.OO% $27S,779 $27S,779 $90,000 $365,779 10 $S68, 082 $0 $568,082 SO.OO% $284,OU $284,OU $90,000 $3H,OU 11 $582,28( $0 $582,28( 50.00% $291,U2 $291,U2 $90,000 $381,U2 12 $596,8U $0 $596,8U 50.00% $(6,171 $550,670 $90,000 $6(0,670 13 $611,762 $0 $611,762 50.00% $0 $611,762 $90,000 $701,762 U $627,056 $0 $627,056 50.00% $0 $627,056 $90,000 $717,056 15 $U2,733 $0 $U2,733 50.00% $0 $U2,733 $90,000 $732,733 TOTALS $2,500,808 H,878,OU $1,350,000 $6,228,06( SUBSIDY REPAYIlERT SCHEDULE BASED OR ABOVE REV'ERUE PROJECTIORS nT. PRIRCIPAL IRTEREST PRIRCIPAL TOTAL YR RATE BALARCE PAYMERT PAYIlERT PAYIlERT 1 4.00% $1,915,000 $76,600 $3,(75 $80,075 2 (.00% $1,911,525 $76,(61 $50,756 $127,217 3 (.00% $1,860,769 $H,(31 $82,771 $157,202 ( (.00% $1,777,998 $71,120 $U2, 966 $2U,086 5 LOO% $1,635,032 $65,(01 $179,620 $2(5,022 6 (.00% $1,(55,U2 $58,216 $1U,15( $252,370 7 (.on $1,261,258 $50,(50 $209,U7 $259,9(7 8 (.on $1,051,762 $(2,070 $225,687 $267,757 9 (.00% $826,075 $33,0(3 $2(2,736 $275,779 10 (.00% $S83,339 $23, 33( $260,707 $284,OU 11 (.on $322,632 $12,905 $278,237 $291,U2 12 (.on $U,395 $1,776 $U,395 H6,171 13 (.on $0 $0 $0 $0 U 4.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 15 (.on $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTALS $585,808 $1,915,000 $2,500,808 Finally, during the approval of the FY 1993-94 Agency budget, Councilman Rindone requested that information be provided in the "Wal-Mart project staff report" to clarify the effect, if any, that the proposed "subsidy" to the project would have on the Redevelopment Agency's budget in future years. As indicated in #4 above, the subsidy obligation is an obligation of the Agency with the strong likelihood that the annual repayment obligation in any given year would exceed the amount of tax increment revenue generated to the Agency from the project. Therefore, absent the proposed City/Agency "Cooperation Agreement" described in #5 above, 5-/f -." Page 19. Item~ Meeting Date-tf.;?4 II I$, 9 Council/Agency Board for consideration in the near future. In any event, at no tim will t~ repayment obligation be greater than 50% of the sales tax revenue generated to the City's General Fund and therefore, the project will have an overall positive fiscal impact as provided previously in the fiscal impact tabfes. C:IWPS1 IHAYNESIREPORTSIWALFINAL. 113 j--I? ,- ~ p~¡;; !Blank! ..Ç- ;Z 0 ~ /'-IEt) RESOLUTION NO. C~ /7765 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 94-02) FOR THE CHANNELS IDE SHOPPING CE~1'ER; ADOPTING ADDENDUM EIR 94-02A; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the area of the land which is subject of this resolution consists of approximately 31.63 acres located at the terminus of North Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula vista, California within the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area, and further identified as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 562-324-02 and 562-324-04 ("Project site"); and, WHEREAS, a person having control over all or a portion of the development of the Project Site, National Avenue Associates ("Developer"), has proposed the development of an approximately 212,000 square foot retail shopping center currently known as the Channelside Shopping Center, including a Wal-Mart Store as a major tenant, as such project is more particularly described in Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR-94-02, ("Project"); and WHEREAS, on January 21, 1994, in connection with the Project, the Developer filed applications with the city of Chula vista ("City") for (1) a General Plan Amendment from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare", and (2) Rezoning from "I-L-P" (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan) to "C-C-P" (Central Commercial-Precise Plan) ("Discretionary Approvals Applications"); and, WHEREAS, concurrently, the Developer requested that the city process an amendment to the certified Chula vista Local Coastal Program ("LCP Amendment") and issue a Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") thereunder. WHEREAS, concurrently, based on a preliminary review of the Project the staff ("Staff") of the city and the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula vista ("Redevelopment Agency") has determined that the Project may have an adverse impact on the environment; and 1 6,,) \ -- Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the Staff has determined that the Project is not exempt, neither statutorily or categorically, from compliance with the statutory duty, as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to prepare an Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, City' retained the services of a Consultant to prepare the Environmental Impart Report for the Project; and WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 1994, evaluating the Project was prepared and was transmitted by the Redevelopment Agency, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of availabili ty of the draft Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law and by policy of the City; and WHEREAS, a public forum on the project was held on June 30, 1994 which included a presentation on the draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, written and comments from the public on the draft Environmental Impact Report were accepted from June 16, 1994 to August 10, 1994; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1994 the Resource Conservation Commission accepted the draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR-94- 02, by a vote of 4 to 1; and WHEREAS, the city Planning commission held a public hearing, accepted public testimony and closed the public review period on the draft Environmental Impact Report on August 10,1994; and WHEREAS, public comments have been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project dated September, 1994 ("FEIR 94-02"); and WHEREAS, a public hearing on FEIR 94-02, the Discretionary Approvals Applications and the LCP Amendment was duly noticed and held before the Planning commission at the meeting of September 28, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on september 28, 1994, considered FEIR 94-02, the Discretionary Approvals Applications and the LCP Amendment, took evidence as set forth in the record of its proceedings, made 2 5, ,,~ -"" Resolution No. Page 3 certain findings as set forth in their Recommending Resolution GPA- 94-02/PCZ-94-C, and recommended that city council certify FEIR 94- 02 and approve the Discretionary Approvals Applications subject to certain terms and conditions; and, WHEREAS, an Addendum to FEIR 94-02 ("Addendum 94-02A") was prepared in accordance with section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City council of the City of Chula vista on November 1, 1994 on FEIR 94-02, Addendum 94-02A, (collectively "FEIR 94- 02"), the Discretionary Approvals Applications, the LCP Amendment and the CDP to receive the recommendations of the Planning commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, the City council of the City, as the Responsible Agency, and the Redevelopment Agency, as the Lead Agency, have reviewed, analyzed and considered FEIR 94-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project; the Findings of Fact ("CEQA Findings"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the City council and the Redevelopment Agency have found, in their independent judgment, that FEIR 94-02, the CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overridlng Considerations have been prepared in accordance with requirements of CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula vista. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency do hereby resolve as follows: 1. FEIR certification, CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. A. certification of Final EIR and Adoption of Addendum. The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency do hereby certify that the final Environmental Impact Report, FEIR- 94-02 has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines and does hereby adopt Addendum 94-02A. 3 5..13 -p Resolution No. Page 4 B. Adoption of CEQA Findings. The city Council and the Redevelopment Agency do hereby approve, accept as their own, incorporate as if set forth in full her~~n, and make each and everyone of the findings contained in the CEQA Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A. C. certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted. As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 94-02 and in the CEQA Findings, the city council and the Redevelopment Agency hereby find pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, that the mitigation measures described as feasible in the above referenced documents, are feasible, and will become binding upon the party assigned thereby to implement same. . D. Infeasibility of Alternatives. Each of the alternatives to the Project which were identified as potentially feasible in FEIR 94-02 are found not to be feasible since they could not meet both the objectives of the Project and avoid the identified significant environmental effects through implementation of feasible mitigation measures for the reasons set forth in the CEQA Findings. E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. As required by the Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") attached hereto as Exhibit B and find that the Program is designed to ensure that during Project implementation the permittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the Project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings and the Program. F. Statement of Overriding considerations. Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the Project, or cumulatively, will 4 5~~~ Resolution No. Page 5 remain. Therefore, the ~ity Council and the Redevelopment Agency hereby ~ssue, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15093, the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit C which identifies the specific economic, social, and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. G. Independent Judgment. The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency hereby find and determine that their certification of FEIR 94-02 and the related findings and adoptions made in connection therewith, were the product of their exercise of their independent review and judgment. II. Notice of Determination. The Environmental Review Coordinator of the City/Agency is hereby directed to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego at such time that the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency may approve the Project. III. Invalidity; Automatic Revocation. It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the City so determines in its sole discretion, this ordinance shall be deemed to be revoked and of no further in force and effect. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Bruce M. Boogaard Director of Planning City Attorney M: \Shared\Attorney\walceqa. res 5 5-')5 - . .., fJh.ú Pa;¡E- !Blank! 5' ~lt; EXHI:BITA BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE: PROPOSED CHANNElSIDE SHOPPING CENTER FINDINGS OF FACT I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The 32.5-acre project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Chula Vista in the County of San Diego, approximately one mile east of the San Diego Bay. The City of National City borders the west, north and a portion of the eastern project limits. State Route 54 extends along the northern project boundary; local access to the site is provided by Nalional City Boulevard (Broadway) to Ihe west and 5th Avenue to the south. The historic Sweetwater River flows through the western portion of the project site. The Channelside Shopping Center project consists of the development of a regional retail commercial shopping center totaling 219,219 square feet in floor space. Within the 22-acre area proposed for development, specific uses would include a 149,289 square foot anchor store, a 52,640 square foot co-anchor retail store, 10,790 square feet of additionaf retail space and a 6,500 square foot retail/ restaurant. Approximately 10 acres encompassing the historic Sweetwater River in the western portion of the site and a drainage in the southern portion of the site are not proposed for development, with the exception of a fill bridge proposed to cross the historic Sweetwater River. The fill bridge would provide vehicular access from National City Boulevard to the project site. Discretionary actions associated with the proposed project include amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan and Town Center II Redevelopment Plan from limited-Industrial to Commercial- Thoroughfare. A rezone, local Coastal Program amendment and Coastal Development Permit would also be required. Construction of the fill bridge through the historic Sweetwater River may require permits from the U. S. Army ,Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and/or the California Department of Fish and Game. II. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth in the following pages, the administrative record of the City Council decision on this project shall consist of the following: 1. The Draft and Final Supplemental EIR for the project; 2. All reports, memoranda, maps, fetters and other planning documents prepared by the environmental consultant and the City that are not privileged communications under the Public Records Act; 3. All documents submitted by members of the public, and public agencies in connection with the proposed project; 4. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all public meetings and public hearings held by the City; Channelside Shopping Center fiR Pg.l 5~~1 _... 5. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at public meetings and public hearings; and 6. Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not fimited to, the following: a) Chula Vista General Plan -2010 b) Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance c) Chula Vista Threshold/Standards Poficy d) Town Center 1/ Redevelopment Plan e) Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dixiefine Drainage Channef Realignment (IS-93- 037) f) Chula Vista, City of. 1~1;¡3a. Addendum Mitigated Negative Declaration 91-508 Fifth Avenue CoIf Range Sports Center. January 19. g) Chula Vista, City of. 1991. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chula Vista Industrial Complex, Case No. 15-91-50. May. h) Chula Vista, City of. 1992. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fifth Avenue Coif Range/Sports Centér, Case No. 15-91-50. June 23. III. TERMINOLOGYITHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidefines requires Ihat, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions. The first is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR." The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion is that [s]pecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternative identified in the Final EIR. As regards the first of the three potential finding, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these term~ therefore must be gleaned from other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources Code Section 21081, on which CEQA Guideline Section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory-term is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21001, which declares the legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significant environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects. For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" wifl refer to the abifity of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. fn contrast, the term "substantially lessen" will refer to Ihe ability of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to a lever of insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or hàs simply been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant). Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that Channels/de Shopping Cente, fiR Pg_2 5,).<6 an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will, wher~ appropriate, nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR. IV. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS To Ihe extenllhat these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Finaf EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista (City) hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effeot when the City adopts a resolution approving the project. V. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As tequired by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the City and other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures. That program is described in the document entitled, Channe/side Shopping Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. VI. SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Final EIR identified one significant and several potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that the proposed Shopping Center development would cause. These potentially significant effects will be adopted through the adoplion of feasible mitigation measures, while one cannot be avoided. Potentiallv Sil!:nificant Effects The following environmental effects, which would be significant (or potentially significant) in the absence of mitigation measures, can be avoided because of the adoption of mitigation measures. Page numbers of the Final EIR where the impacts are discussed follow each impact. ~ 0 Implementing the crossing from National City Boulevard to the site would result in impacts to coastal salt marsh. This is considered to be a significant land use inconsistency with the LCP which calls for preservation of wetlands (FEIR, p. 4.1-13). 0 The project as designed would result in impacts to the Chula Vista Greenbelt designation on the project site. Impacts associated with encroachment into the Chula Vista Greenbelt are considered to be significant (FEIR, p. 4.1-12). Air Ouality 0 Implementation of the proposed project during the construction phase would result in a significant short lerm local and cumulative impact to air quality (PM,o) (FEIR, p. 4.3-7). 0 The project's impacts to ozone levels contribute to a cumulatively significant regional impact that is not mitigable at the project level. Channels/de Shopping Center ElR f)~ ¡q Pg.3 -. . Biological Resources 0 Direct impacts to 0.06 acre (250 linear feet) of unvegetated drainage are considered significant because the drainage represents waters of the U.s. under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and wetlands under Ihe jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). 0 Direct and indirect impacts to coastal salt marsh habitat as a result of bridge construction are considered significant. Coastal salt marsh is a rare and depleted habitat type; it is recognized as wetland habitat by the Califotnia Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, it may support the salt marsh skipper (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). 0 Direct impacts to Coulter's salt marsh daisy are considered significant (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). 0 Potentiaf indirect impacts to the light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow as a result of construction noise are considered significant (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). Public Services and Utilities 0 Implementation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of use on the site and would result in significant impacts to schools (FEIR, p. 4.7-10). Traffic Circulation 0 Implementation of the proposed project without a connection to the National City Boulevard/35th Street intersection is not proposed since this option was not analyzed and total project traffic impacts are not known under this untested scenario (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). 0 Implementation of the proposed project would result in unacceptable LOS « 0) for the 5th AvenuelC Street intersection if left unsignalized (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). 0 Implementation of the propo,sed project would result in an adverse traffic impact at 4th Avenue and Brisbane Street without signalization and additional capacity for the southbound and eastbound approaches (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). 0 Implementation of the proposed project would slightly worsen an unacceptable future LOS peak hour condition on SR-54 west bound off-ramp at Highland Avenue and Broadway and E Street (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). ~ 0 Because of the moderate to high erosion hazard, unsuitable imported fill material, and low strength an high settlement characteristics of the site geology, development of the site in its existing condition would be a potentially significant impact to proposed structures (FEIR, p. 4.9- 8). 0 The seismic hazard potential is considered high and is therefore a potentially significant impact to proposed structures and public safety (FEIR, p. 4.9-9). Channels/de Shopping Center ElR Pg.4 5'30 -. . 0 Due to the presence of potential seismic activity, existing shalfow groundwater and silty sandy soils, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction occurring on-site is high and represents a potentialfy significant impact to proposed structures (FEIR, p. 4.9-9). HydrologvlWater Ouality 0 The potential for a hydraurïc capacity deficit in Ihe earthen channel which runs along the southerly portion of the project site to convey 50-year ultimate storm flows in accordance with City design and threshofd standards is considered a potentialfy significant impact. ~. Short-Term - Erosion and sedimentation impacts resulting from earth movement and grading would be significant during construction of the proposed project. Long-Term - Urban runoff from the proposed project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to water quality. Si!!nificant Effects The proposed project would result in the following irreversible environmental changes: 0 Significant impacts to air quarïty associated with project implementation have been identified. Although the project's impacts to ozone levels are not considered individualfy significant, they contribute to a cumulatively significant regional impact Ihat is not mitigable at the project level (FEIR, p. 4.3-7). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impacts are acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. The subsections below restate'all of the above-identified impacts and the mitigation measures are recommended to be adopted to avoid impacts (or the reasons the mitigation measures or alternatives are infeasible due to specific economic, social or olher considerations). There are no measures or alternatives that are wilhin the responsibility and jurisdiction of anolher public'agency to adopt or implement. A. LAND USE Potentiallv Sienificant Effect: Implementing the crossing from National City Boulevard to the site would result in impacts to coastal salt marsh. This is considered to be a significant land use inconsistency with the LCP which calfs for preservation of wetlands (FEIR, p. 4.1-13). finillng: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated intb, the project which wilf avoid the potentialfy significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The folfowing mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.1-15;4.1-16). Channels/de Shopping Center fiR PC, S .5"3\ 0" The land use impact associated with the inconsistency of the project with the wetlands preservation goals of the LCP, which have resulled from impacts to sensitive wetlands habitat and species, will be mitigated by on-site revegetation at a 3:1 ratio. Mitigation for this impact is further described in Section 4.6,]liQJQgy. This mitigation woufd reduce inconsistency with wetland preservation goal impacts to a less than significant level and would serve as the Environmental Management Program as required by the LCP. Potentiallv SÍ1mificant Effect: The project as designed woufd result in impacts to the Chula Vista Greenbelt designation on the project site. Impacts associated with encroachment inlo the Chula Vista Greenbelt are considered to be signific~~t (FEIR, p. 4.1-12). Findim~s: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in Ihe Final EfR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required eilher as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.1-16). The land use impacts associated with Chula Vista Greenbelt inconsistencies on the project site shall be mitigated by providing a 15-25 ft. wide landscape striplbuffer along the northerly property line. In addition, enhanced landscaping necessary to implement the visual aspects of the Greenbelt, in concert with the ongoing landscape program for the SR-54 freeway right-of-way, shall be installed within this landscape striplbuffer as well as along the back edge of the 10D-ft. wetlands buffer. Plant materials for each of these areas shall be subject 10 approval of the City's Landscape Architect and shall also be consistent with the goals of the current LCP and Coastal Development Permit for the Sweetwater River area. B. AIR QUALITY Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project during the construction phase would result in a significant short term local and cumulative impact to air quality (PMloJ (FEIR, p. 4.3-7). ~: Changes or alterations hàve been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3.1-5). 0 Revegetation of disturbed areas shall be conducted within 15 days of completion of grading. 0 Active grading sites shall be watered at least twice daily. 0 Spoil, import, export, or other stock piles (sand, gravel, etc.) excluding surcharge material, shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily. 0 Trucks hauling dirt, sand or gravel or other loose material shall be covered and should maintain a two-foot freeboard. Chann.elside Shopping Center fiR Pg.6 5..3;).. -. . 0 Vehicle wheel washers, or other methods acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be installed where vehicles exit the project site. 0 Ultimate deposition of export material off-site woufd require that the applicant demonstrate the inclusion of erosion control measures and compliance with other requiremenls as determined necessary by the City of National City or the City of San Diego. Sil!nificant Effect: The project's impacts to ozone levels contribute to a cumufativefy significant regional impact that is not mitigable at the project level (FEfR, p. 4.3-7). ". Findinl!s: No mitigation measure(s) is/are presently available to avoid this impact at the project level. Mitigation of this impact relies on regional programs to reduce regional air pollution. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City CouncH has determined that this impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and/or other considerations. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effect: Direct impacts to 0.06 acre (250 linear feet) of un vegetated drainage are considered significant because the drainage represents waters of Ihe U.S. under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and wetlands under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). Findinl!s: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3.1-5). Proposed mitigation for impacts to the drainage include reconfiguration and maintenance of a new drainage channel. It is likely that an individual Section 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act wilf not be required because the impact is less than an acre. Owing to the limited acreage involved, the project is likely to be covered by the Nationwide permit process. However, a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to the California Fish and Game code will be required prior to construction activities. Application for the 1603 agreement will need to. be accompanied by biological documentation of the site and a conceptual revegetation and monitoring plan. This plan may include measures such as limitations on grading, erosion control measures, revegetation and plant survival criteria, subject to the approval of permitting agencies. Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects: Direct and indirect impacts to coastal salt marsh habitat as a result of bridge construction are considered significant. Coastal salt marsh is a rare and depleted habitat type; it is recognized as wetland habitat by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. fn addition, it may support the salt marsh skipper (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). ~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Channels ide Shopping Conte, fiR Pg.7 5- 3?J Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). Impacls to coastal salt marsh are the direct result of Ihe proposed bridge connecling the project with Broadway to the west of the site. For purposes of this impact analysis, a "worst case scenario" has been assessed, i.e., the most intrusive bridge design has been evaluated. It is strongly recommended that the bridge design that is the least intrusive into the coastal saft marsh habitat be selected, thereby minimizing impacts to Ihis sensitive habitat type. The "worst case" design not only results in the direcl loss of approximately 0.15 acre of salt ()1.arsh habitat, through fill and shading, but may adversely affect the salt marsh to the north of the proposed bridge. Regardless of the final design, impacts to coastal sail marsh shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 by area, preferably on-site. Hence, excavation and salt marsh revegetation should be conducted in Ihe soulhwestern corner of the site adjacent to existing coastal salt marsh habitat. It is likely Ihat a Section 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act will not be required because the impact is less than an acre; i.e., the impact is likely to be covered by the Nationwide permit process. However, a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code wifl be required prior to construction activities. Application for the 1603 agreement wifl need to be accompanied by biological documentation of the site and a conceptual revegetation and monitoring plan. Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects: Direct impacts to Coulter's saft marsh daisy are considered significant (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). .Ei.n.d.i.nä: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which wifl avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). Direct impacts 10 C.oulter's salt marsh daisy shall be mitigated through salvage and transplantation on- site prior to grading for constructio.n. Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects: Potential indirect impacts to the light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow as a resull of construction noise are considered significant (FEIR,. p. 4.6-7). .Ei.n.d.i.nä: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). Potential indireci impacts to the light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow shall be mitigated by scheduling construction activities to avoid the breeding seasons of these two bird species, which extend from March 15 to August 1. If the project applicant wishes to proceed with construction activities during the breeding season, a focused survey must be conducted to ensure that neither species is breeding and/or nesting in Ihe salt marsh habitat onsite. If breeding and/or nesting is occurring, no construction activities that exceed 60 dB at the nest location shall be performed during the breeding and/or nesling season. Channelslde Shopping Center fiR Pg. B .t)-~4 D. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Potentiallv Si¡:nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project woufd increase' the intensity of use on the sile and would result in significant impacts to schools (FEIR, p. 4.7-10). . Findinl!s: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmentaf effect identified in the Final EIR. Miti¡:ation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and has been required as a condilion of approvatchrough these findings (FEIR, p. 4.7-10). The applicant shall pay State-mandated impact fees of $0.28 per square-foot of building area. E. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION & PARKING Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project without a connection to the National City Boulevard/35lh Street intersection is not proposed since this option was not analyzed and total project traffic impacts are not known under this untested scenario (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environ menial effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condilion of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). The project applicant shall add a 4th leg (crossing) to the intersection of National City Boulevard at 35th Street. Project improvements include a connection between the project parking lot and National City Boulevard, restriping on National City Boulevard, and signal modifications to provide for full turning movements. Potentially SÏlmificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would result in unacceptable LOS « 0) for the 5th Avenue/C Street intersection if left unsignalized (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). ~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. MitÏl;ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasibfe and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). The applicant shall signalize the intersection of 5th Avenue at C Street. Potentially Significant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would result in an adverse traffic impact at 41h Avenue and Brisbane Street without signalization and additional capacity for the southbound and eastbound approaches (FEfR, p. 4.8-26). Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EfR. Channels;de Shopp;ng Center fiR 6"35 Pg.9 Miti!!ation Measures: The foHowing mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the Cily through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). 0 Project applicant shall construct an access road connection between Ihe site and 4th Avenue. The roadway should align across from Brisbane Avenue and have two left-turn lanes and one through/right-turn eastbound approach lanes and two westbound lanes. 0 Land use buildout of the Channelside Shopping Center, National Cily Marketplace and Target, plus project cumulative traffic Wi)1 necessitate that the access road be aligned concentric with ßrisbane Street at Fourth Avenue (ultimate improvements). For short term, prior to the redevelopment of the property of the south (Target), the access road can be aligned approximately 60 feet north of Brisbane Street creating an offset intersection at Fourth Avenue to avoid encroachment onto the property occupied by Target. 0 The ultimate objective however, is to achieve the concentric alignment with Brisbane. To this end, staff has agreed if the ultimate improvements are not achieved at the time that the Channelside Shopping Center/National Cily Marketplace projects proceed, the offset intersection will be allowed providing that the cost of the interim improvements are borne by the Channelside Shopping Center or National Cily Marketplace devefopers. Furthermore, these two projects shall be conditioned to provide for the ultimate improvements. As such, a condition will be placed on the approvals for the Channelside Shopping Center/National Cily Marketpface projects to provide a pro-rata share of the ultimate improvements. Final design approval will be subject to financial securily via a bond, promissory note, or other such financial mechanism to ensure participation. The terms of this condition will be further defined in the agreement between the Cities of Chula Vista and National Cily regarding costs and responsibilities for public improvements. 0 If Channelside Shopping Center and Nationaf cily Marketplace developers proceed with their projects in advance of their abilily to achieve the ultimate improvements, the project applicants shall be responsible for not only the inlerim improvements, but for their pro-rate share of the ultimate improvements wh~n those improvements occur. 0 Project applicant shall pay fair share cost to widen 4th Avenue on the west side between SR-54 and the project driveway to provide a southbound right-turn lane. 0 Project applicant shall pay fair share cost to install a traffic signal at the 4th Avenue/Brisbane Avenue intersection. Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would slightly worsen an unacceptable future LOS peak hour condition on SR-54 west bound off-ramp at Highland Avenue and Broadway and E Street (FEfR, p. 4.8-26). Findinl!s: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the Cily through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). Channels/de Shopping Center fiR Pg.IO 5 <?io 0 SR-54 westbound off-ramp at Highfand Avenue. Appficant to pay fair share cost to widen the ramp to aHow a second westbound left-turn lane. 0 Broadway at E Sireet. Applicant shaH pay fair share cost to add eástbound left- and right-turn lanes and a westbound right-turn lane. F. GEOLOGY PotentiaHy Significant Effects: Because of the moderate to high erosion hazard, unsuitable imported fiH material, and low strength and hÎßh settlement characteristics of the site geology, development of the site in its exisling condition would be a significant impact to proposed structures. Findin¡:s: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentiaHy significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The foHowing mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (fEIR, p. 4.9-8). 0 To mitigate adverse soif conditions, the applicant has been conducting surcharge operations on the portions of the site that wiH accept loading from structures. The buiJding areas are being overburdened with soil to compress underlying soils to the point where they are suitable for development. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shaH provide evidence to Ihe satisfaction of the City Engineer that satisfactory soil conditions have been achieved. Potentially Significant Effects' The seismic hazard potential is considered high and is therefore a significant impact to proposed structures and public safety. Due to the presence of potential seismic activity, existing shaH ow groundwater, and silty sandy soifs, the potential for seismicaHy induced liquefaction occurring on-site is high and represents a significant impact to proposed structures. £inilings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentiaHy significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Miti¡:ation Measures: The foHowing mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.9-8). 0 Structural components of the proposed project shaH be designed by a professionaHy California State licensed structural engineer with specific experience in designing similar structures. Structures shaH be designed in accordance with the 1994 UBC guidelines. At a minimum, structural design shaH be done in accordance with the 1994 UBC Seismic Zone 4 factors. Preliminary design shaH be submitted to the Department of Buifding and Housing and shaH be in conformance with the current UBC at the time the application for a building permit is submitted. Channelside Shopping Center fIR Pg. 11 5-31 G. HYDROLOGYIWATER QUAlITY Potentiallv Shmificant Effects: The potential for a hydraulic capacity deficit in the earthen channef which runs along the southerly portion of the project site to convey 50-year ultimate storm flows in accordance with City design and threshold standards is considered a polentially significanl impact. Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The foliowing,O1,itigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.10-15). 0 The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the channel in the southerly portion of the project site can provide for 50-year ultimate storm flows in accordance with City design and threshold standards prior to issuance of a grading permit. Potentiallv Significant Effects: Erosion and sedimentation impacts resulting from earth movement and grading would be significant during construction of the proposed project. ~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effectïdentified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.10-15). 0 Development of Ihe Channelside Shopping Center project shall comply wiih all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and stormwater discharge and any regulations adopled by the City of Chula Vista thereto. Further, the applicant shall file a notice of intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain èoverage under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater for Discharges associated with construction activity an implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion control and pollution prevention measures listed below under 4.Hk and Mitigation Measures 4.3 as listed in Section 4.3, Air Oualitv. pursuant to the City's Grading Ordinance. Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects: Urban runoff from the proposed project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to water quality. Findin\!s: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentiafly significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitiçation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.10-15). Channelside Shopping Center fiR Pg. /2 5'3<ö 0 Acceptable pre-treatment devices or facilities installed on the on-site stormdrain system shall be effective in the removal of urban pollutants. Adequate effectiveness shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approvaf of the grading permit. A maintenance schedule shall also be submitted to Ihe City Engineer. At a minimum, pre-treatment devices or facilities shall be cleaned on a quarterly basis and prior to the rainy season (November 1). VII. INFEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081 [B]) The approval of the project would\C8use significant unavoidable cumulative impacts by contributing to existing regional air quality impact. The only way to mitigate this impact is to disapprove the project and to not allow existing approved uses to be carried forward. Essentially, all future discrelionary projects would have to be denied. The decision makers reject this approach because it woufd not achieve the City goals for productive use of the subject site. It is an explicit goal of the Chula Vista General Plan and Town Cenler II Redevelopment Plan to increase the retail base of the City. Additionally, the General Plan states as a goal to maintain or improve quality of life through responsible management of growth, while providing services and amenities to residents and visitors, including housing, open space and recreation shopping opportunities. In addition, the decision makers find that Ihe project will generate permanent jobs and result in a net positive fiscal impact from sales tax revenue. The decision makers have considered whether any of the project alternatives discussed in the EIR could feasibly substantially lessen or avoid the identified significant effects. As will be explained below, the decision makers conclude that none of the project alternatives could both meet the objectives of the project and lessen or avoid the identified significant effects. There were seven (7) alternatives including the proposed project evaluated in this Supplemental EIR. Their characteristics are: Alternative Description Project Two major retail anchors and accompanying commercial/reslaurant uses. No Project Maintain site in its current condilion. Existing General Plan and Zoning Development of the project site in accordance with the adopted research and limited manufacturing land use designations and zoning. Reduced Density Commercial Building areas would be reduced by one third. Alternalive Site (1) Otay Rio Business Park Alternative Site (2) EaslLake Business Park (Phase II) Alternalive Site (3) Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Cenler Channe/side Shopping Center fiR Pg.13 5~3q No Proiect Alternative Adoption of the No Project Alternative would avoid potential impacts associated with the proposed project. However, implementation of Ihis alternative would not achieve the objectives of the adopted General Plan and Town Center II Redevelopment Plan which call for providing retail uses within the Central Chula Vista area. Additionally, this alternative does not as effectively expand Ihe retail tax base of the Cily of Chula Vista, or provide the project's level of sales tax revenue to the City to enhance public services city-wide. '" The No Project alternative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Land Use Element. Additionally, implementation of this alternative would reduce the anticipated sales tax revenue to the City. The alternative is, therefore, rejected as infeasible. Existing General Plan Designation and Zonin~ Development of the site in accordance with the adopted Research and Limited Manufacturing land use designations would reduce, but not eliminate, environmental impacts of the proposed project and woufd result in significant unmitigable impacts to air quality. As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quafity of the FEIR, cumulative impacts to air quality are due to regional conditions. Only adoplion of the No Project Afternative would avoid the project's contribution to the air quality impacts. Short of denying this project and future projects, these cumulative'impacts will incrementally increase. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with the General Plan. However, it would conflict with the goals of the General Plan and the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan. As discussed in Section 4.1, ~ of the FEIR, it is a goal of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as well as the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan to provide for retail facilities in the Central Chula Vista area to improve employment levels and the availability of retail uses. Based on these factors, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of the Town Center II Redevelopm~nt Plan and the General Plan Land Use Element and therefore is rejected as infeasible. ' Reduced Density Commercial Impacts associated with this alternative would be of a similar type to those anticipated under the proposed project. However, for most of the impacts, the intensity or extent of the impact would be reduced but not avoided under this alternative. Implementation of this alternative would result in significant unmitigable impacts to air quality. Cumulative impacts to air quality are due to regional conditions. Only adoption of the No Project Alternative would avoid the project's contribution to the air quality impacts. Short of denying this project and future projects, these cumulative impacts will incrementally increase. Under Ihe reduced square footage alternative, the project would not likely support a large, high volume, discount retailer, thereby requiring a different type as well as size of commercial use than is currently proposed. As a result, fiscal benefits would be reduced. Channe/side Shopping Center fiR Pg.14 5;40 As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided under Ihis alternative and the economic benefit to the City would be reduced as compared to the proposed project. The afternative is, therefore, considered to be infeasibfe. Alternative Sile (1) With the exception of potentiaf biological, hydrology, and greenbeft impacts associated with the proposed project, implementation of the project at this location would not eliminate any significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed location. As discussed in Section 5, Alternatives of the FEIR, potentialfy significant land use impacts are associated with this site due to the current land use designation of the site, Research and limited Manufacturing, as weIr as potential conflicts associated with siting a commercial use in a business park. Potentialfy significant traffic impacts are also associated with this site due to access concerns. Implementalion of a commercial use in an alternative site would have similar impacts to air quality, schools, public utilities, and geology, as would impfemenling a commercial project at the proposed site. Additionalfy, implementation of the project at this location would not be consistent with the goals of the General Plan and the Town Center If Redevelopment Plan. As discussed in Seclion 4.1, ~ of the FEIR, it is a goaf of the land Use Element of the General Plan as weIr as the Town Center If Redevelopment Plan 10 provide for retail facilities in the Central Chula Vista area to improve employment levels and the availability of retail uses. As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of Ihe proposed project would not be avoided under this alternative. Additionalfy, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of the Town Center II Redevelopment pfan and General pfan land Use Element. Based on these factors, the alternative is rejected as infeasible. Alternative Site (2) With the exception of potentiaf impacts to biological resources and hydrology associated with the proposed project, implementation of the project at this localion would not avoid any of the significant impacts associated with the proposed location. As discussed in Section 5, Alternatives of the FEIR, land use impacls under this alternative would be considered potentialfy significant due to the current land use designation of the site, Research and limited Manufacturing, as weIr as potential conflicts with siling a commercial use within a business park. Future projections indicate tbat traffic impacts on surrounding roadways would also be potentialfy significant. Implementation of a commercial use in an altern alive site would have similar impacts to air quality, schools, public utilities, and geology, as would implementing a commercial project at the proposed site. Additionalfy, implementation of the project at this localion woufd not be consistent with the goals of the General Plan and the Town Center If Redevelopment Plan. As discussed in Section 4.1, ~ of Ihe FEfR, it is a goal of the land Use Element of the General Plan as well as the Town Cenler If Redevelopment Plan to provide for relail facilities in the Central Chula Vista area to improve employment levels and the availability of retail uses. As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided under this alternative. Additionalfy, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of the Town Center If Redevelopment Plan and General Plan land Use Element. Based on these factors, the alternative is rejected as infeasible. Channelslde Shopping Center fiR PH. IS - 5" tH --- Alternative Site (3) Implementation of the project at this alternative site is not considered to be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Implementation of a commercial use at this alternative site would have similar impacts to air qualiiy, schools, public utilities, and geology, as would implementing a commercial project at the proposed site. Additionally, the infrastructure necessary to support the proposed project is not available and are not scheduled for completion for the next five to ten years (FEIR, p. 5.0-6). Development of the proposed project is scheduled for 1995 and 199Q .and, therefore, infrastructure would not be available to serve Ihe project. For this reason, Ihe Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center site is not considered to meet the objectives of the project. As discussed above, Ihe significant unmitigaled impacts of Ihe proposed project would not be avoided under this alternative. Additionally, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project. Based on these factors, the afternative is rejected as infeasibfe. Channelside Shopping Cente, fIR Pg.16 5" 4;). _. . CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER EXHI:BIT 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring Program Description and PUI:pose ... The California Environmental Quality Act requires alead orresponsible agency that approves a project where anEnvironmental rmpactReport (ErR) has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City ofChula Vista is the lead agency for the Channelside Shopping Center project. A Draft and Final ErR were prepared for tlús project which addressed potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, either recommended mitigation measures to reduce identified significant impacts below a level of significance or a recommended alternative to avoid the impact. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. The City ofChula Vista will adopt tlús Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) after considering the Final ErR and if approval of the project occurs. Roles and Responsibilities TheMMRP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project, including final design, pre-grading, construction and operation. The City ofChula Vistahas the primary enforcement role for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) will provide fmal approval for the completion of the implementation of mitigation measures. The ERC will appoint a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) who will be responsible for the actual monitoring of the implementation of the mitigation measures. The M CC will interface with the ERC, the City Engineer, the City Landscape Architect, the Construction Supervisor, and the Construction Inspector(s), all who have some responsibility for the implementation of the mitigation measures. ~~~ MMRP - I 9/1S/" , . fJI'zú PClJ~ !Blank! 5A!4 - - ë1 . ~ c E ij c . :: Q :: Eo< 00 .. ~ : u ~ . U ..!! u'5 a. u e ~.Ë ~€.::. ~III ~ !~ ~ !t .!I ¡¡ j.1 ~ ~ :;¡.6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tt -';'j! u"" :'13 ~ .- .-. 'S .'" ~~ .... U¡¡: 13 U ¡;.¡O u~ o. .0. o. ø.. go:! ¡:¡.~ ¡:¡.~ ¡:¡.~ ~~ -':0 gj. gj. gj. as as .~ :¡ J; ~ .;; ~ .;; ~ ø.. Eo< ~~::~::~ ::i ø..~ ~~ -':0 -':0 00 .... "- .... ~ø.. ~ ~~ ~. 8~ -¡¡: ~~ 00 ag CD- a - ~ '",\: ~ ::!.5 III !~ ~go .~~ ~ & ~ .""€ g,!! 1! ~ :ig, ~.2> ~ -;, ~ 6~.:ï .g 0 U OS ~ UEo< CD ~ .... z .~=~~~s ~iid~~~~*&~~s~.~ æii!~ 0 :..lsE] 13~'i.~..~.lii~;! ii!~~ .... "".'5'~-- ~a."'0-.0t'1!...-¡;- :,:e.1i ~ ~~-~.~~ ~.-c~~ ~..!!_E~~...~ ~a.. Z -õã ii!-å'i~ì=~ '::;:-å-~-å!!:Ë.2i:.!ig,!i .x-å'iã e.. - "- a. .0Sa a --.-~ 80 -¡¡. 0 ae .~:2f>¡¡ g.¡; ;;::;¡;gl.":2~'5~""=&~;¡; 'iã°_M .... :;a. O~~- -"J! "'._~... ..~.~ '.B~¡¡ ~::'¡;iä ~ ~. 5ii-å~~~~ ~M!.:ï -åi!~JI:~I~~ :Jê~ ~ ~ . __a¡,¡ U"~-r-u~~ua.u_u~ Ca.U- ~ J6 ¡'¡a~~i~~ ~1ii!~~~~I11~:;:~~~ik ~'iã~. .... 1iõ-.. Ir-å-:.!"':;;"'j uu;;.!!':gi -;;=1!u~."ijlll 1!--5-= ~ .goo;; '--'jj!~&"""'- ~.s'!ft;u;;..51i.5;~::u~~¡¡ 8.f!8~ .-c .0a.Ei-:!-S. . ii'ë..5.Ei-'5l!_;~.81i" ì= a~!i. :;¡ij... Sg.¡¡~~;.f!.q ;1il!~0!2~[~.:ï-'~~l!f>i:::¡ 'i'~!!-! w ~2-- ~Çv ~.=~á~u."__~oO~ "" °a.o => Ii."eii!~u...c cC:;;Ujj;'uf2-.OSou...",_w:o 'Ëa-~ ~ :e-5~~jj'!! ~~:~~~~~f~:~~~~~ ~ :~¡j "" '" -.u...~i! E'>-,""c_u~"--"'o"'~ao:; ~--o ~ 1-. a._~c-w ~ -"a.c~.J!o_--"'_u- - O-..a.- 8 "'~:;, ¡¡¡J!.f ~ 60 'i~~ u ~ ~~ v v v 1)...14 ~ .. '" j ~ .:¡ " c " a ;:. .. ,. ~ :¡¡ :L. I! .~ i ~ .- c .. "..,... i!~ :;~1iû!ê¡; ",-", =.sg1;...!!! Æ§ Ó¡æë~~ >-:¡¡ 1;ii:ë!!' 1:::; - >- ..eõj1; ~- 5 ~~E c~~ II !if ~~ 12~ ...B!! N ~E ! :ë ~w c'" "'0 ~:¡o ~~ ~~ .~ ~~ Ñ ~ ~ ... ~~ !,B Ñ i1 :Si.~ ;P,B":=]'f=~¡¡'~:~J!;:;¡ ~..!; ~f š '1!~ 1š~],; ¡¡¡1lin§é'o~i1;s'~.è!:"" - ~~ 5u ; ~..Þ-~¡d::'¡; .!ti!.¡'ä'¡¡i';!!i:it;~1J.~u';¡'~ èi: ..-=:;;1;.:¡ .l!~.:!I"::""ii.R .èll'~I!&-ã-i-S~ë~'¡¡'Ñ:-Š'~ =~ ~-:]:!. 'ii o'ii!:!i~gii~ ãë ;;J~¡¡:i! 'i""~~!!oã~1;1! :'" 'ii:!;.:!1 ii :Sii!".:!!'h:!D .f-i!.¡¡:¡¡~"'I5.!..i!:"'ãi::~~!i~ :¡¡~ 9 ii:;;~~~ II ~~¡¡~~~.:!!~ . ~~~;~j..JI~~= ¡¡~ã g~ ~ ..lI.:!I=.s .;¡ .¡¡'~:;;'6'1i;¡.¡¡ . .¡¡~'&!!~ü.i!..l;J!~1.;i!!¡:¡.~ ~o c :S'1;J_°-5 ~~¡¡ Ñ~-ë's.. "'~"-""""",":iJ'~..-.g.",æ!!Ñ :::,.", ~ NN5c'- s.:!l ..r~,§ 1!õ3... '".. ,S--N ""0: "'¡¡;~i'J1D :¡;'g 5 ~;i'~~d.~.!:!i~:S~::'~1:i1 .p..:.'¡¡;¡¡.!J'~'~~Eh'¡¡¡ii.g~ :¡¡,:¡ ;: ~¡¡¡-si.ü~::!.¡~'i.:!~~...: ;¡&~~i~3:. ]!~~~!ic¡¡..!! ~ -W!!=~~Æ~.~"u"~~,, >- ~~2"~-5cl~~%8~.!!£" ~ 1~I!~ã_J:.=~~-5~;:'1 ~ ~~ã:~~~D=~~_~~~.1 c:I uo - -u a.. ~ 'ë:11¡¡¡ë!'¡¡"'~I~;q¡;2ë:1jg ;;¡: 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¡¡; l-s'!i.!t~...lj~~ ¡~û! B~l;B D ",g::. ¡¡¡Ji~ ~ .2 e j~~ 5 ~ :¡¡:æ t:;...~/n -n .. ... j " E 8 i ~ :: .. .. " .!! ..""ii~ ..""¡¡"Ï ...... "ie2- "ie2- ;;,5 >é"l!a >é,,~a [~ j it ì}.:; U j ì} it", ~ i =~ uaa~u5 uaa~u~ ~::s '3.!¡'i.i[~ 'I;.!¡"i:1i[~ f~ 5~~æ< 5~~~< ~u'l; ~Ua 0_" a-Ii Ij ¡if ¡'il ~~ [2~ [2~ ~8Ë ~8Ë ..... ~ 51 * * .. I: u u :'.t ~~ ~~ 't: .. "u "u ~~ .gg¡ .gg¡ ~g, -i -i .:¡ ~ ~ ~~~~~ii""~lõ~'I;S".~J~"~.~=~~~~~~~". i~~ ~-~=-..~~~~~..",,~~~~=~ ~-i"i~e~-~~i ui- :E-š'~:~~~~~~t~!I!!;&~!~~!~:~~..~:~ iDI ~1i'l; ~'..J!~.¡;¡j.¡;f~]1! ::~,::.!i'!íi~¡ã!-š:e¡\;,;~" 8';;.!! ~ ¡:~ -- D¡;_."~ ~OO-~ aoo..).,lõ ":"." ,._~,"-B~~ oo~.. e= ~8::S~"i2M~~.~~ ~-=~~~=~~~a ~5D-~ ~"a ~e ~...~=.~~~=,,~i~=¡a~8~~~!~1õ~!~~""'1;~ ~ - ~I ~.-š~=~~¡~~fl::~81:!-šil~~¡I~~~~~] !". ,,'I; ...::::;.~jl!:.--:'~a;"[5~:1j~=ii!~'I;~~~&l;JJi'i..!¡§¡; )¡-g.; .~ ~ ==¡~oo~I~~-~~I1iã!£:=oo~:~~iã!..-~øæ~~ ~e. ~E ~ ßg,~~.J!""e~~~Y-",=;""~!ie..~~Aii~~a~.~1õ U~'I; E1 . ~[~¡~~~~~~~j~;~.I,~'8i!iJ]~¡1:~ilf ~~" ::Su ~ :-š:=~~~.~' ,-~~~~~¡;~~~~~~~~<~~~~~ ~1õ~~ ¡ :'I;~~~~¡j~=I!~~~~~~IËi:0~1~~~~I~.1 .II~ .!! ~~Y~:"II!:.I~~-š":i:~~....~t:i~l~ii:~~~" Y ~~ ¡¡¡ .§'i¡'[.f511nh~~-WI!!!!~~d~';.HJ-š."hæ8~l;~ iŠ~;;¡¡ 00 =~D ¡¡¡.!i,f .:¡ ~ 00 i~~ ~ ~ ... 00 ~ ~ ~::s ~~IJ'1 - '" Ë1 - ~ C C ~ ~ u c: > - ~ - -.,; :! '" '" .!! C5!:::i 5!..: c- c- ~.5 ~~€-1; !i ~~" ~ii- !~ j~~~U ji ~~fi -!It-Ii .:J!° U~';:1!!U'~ U,; u",.g,1i i3,;.s1i ...::; 'a.sE-'ê~ 1; CD 1;l!'ofi¡¡- 1;1!',fi'¡¡- i.:! 5~~æ"" ...'1 5~ '" 5'¡ '" ... u 1; ~ ¡¡: ... ¡¡: s-" ~~:f ~~~ j~~ CD ~o.!! u_~ I!.S~ ~.s~ :!! if i 1; i: 1; 11 ~ 11 ~ ~:i ~2¡¡' ëã!Šc. ~=.!i ~=.!i ,:r8;:; u:;;"'!L-" .s.:!!.;; .c.:!!';; - !lE.!~ ~;B JJ;B '<t" -g5 * ~ i i ~.t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡; '5::' 6~ t;;¡¡. ~ t 'i1r ';~ 1;:;;~.. ~i ~ i~¡]¡ ~ ~ "" ~B ¿¡ ¿¡ ]B~1;~~rJ~.~~ ~~ ~5~~1~ ~ ~~~~~:~¡¡.'ì!~~;¡.ë~.!! ~~lJ.§; ~ ;g.iti:!!=::1!1ã.¡¡!;:¡¡.a '" ~2 c'l! Æ" 0 w= m¡UI!'.~~æ.t~~ ~!~ ~~..:s.1 ~ ¡¡~ æ¡¡.§1i!~';~:ïI!'¡¡Sg ¡: JH! c1;¡:. ~ .!! c~ S>~U-5-¿iiC";'-'l::- '" --. 'Ii!i",ii¡¡'I.s ~~ -:i:ã!..!;-B:¡ .2!i!&! '" ¡'¡CD'~ -5'ü"'¡;';'" ~ CD Ü.-'fiu-~::!.!!1!!-_mCD Z i1'.¡jE _II UZ.~ u .so 9 ~1!'--5~-"~--2~Æ "" -=:!:. 5"~c~~ ~ 1;;.,!j ~ .Sii"",,'~~go.!!go.~8'iiii æ ],¡¡CD ¡g ,J¡.."iM:!"i! ä,ãÏ .go:;;.5 -"'~i!~:1i'¡¡'i3¡¡o-5o!:! .:!!-.¡j ¡;¡ ~u ~:;¡.g ."f! :is ~ !!~~-';:!f!c!!-':"'!; > 50.-" '" -51ã'-!!,~" 'lit;; u o 'i3".!!o."-~O~-CD"'" ffi eõ~ "" _0 -:!:ISo -5u ~ ;¡ë.~;~;-1!!~...:g'E~: '" i!.!!~ ~ .~-ä"E!1t .~ -1ã go ~~'ê~~IIi--:.;¡~~ã!.¡j g £JI!!~ it ¡¡'¡¡hi:~.!! j~ ~ ~1~~~~~~I~;gJ ~ ~~~ ~ ~1~Jt~~ ,~ m "'~~ ¡¡¡.!,f .:J! S 0 i. æ~ ;¿; ,..:. "" ;:;: ~~ ... """'" ~#UQ ... Ë1 . .:! ~ . Ê iJ . ¡¡ . . a ;: . ,. . :s ,¡ ;§go ~¡¡ M ¡¡ 1i . € .p l~ t!!.;~ ~~ :.!!'.fi~ . - ." !! a.. u. ¡;: ~ ~ Ii I s;; ~ï¡'Q g,!1 'i ~~ :=::=: ~_.,!;! 'ê l! "" ~Š8 ~ ... II ~~ u 1i go !! ." i: l! ~i : a: ,.. ~ i~j~j I'~~i~¡~~~f J~i~BJ~!~~~~~I~~~ M>.M'" g..'M".lõSM.!i!;;;g!g. '5{!..g.....'Q1õe"'!!...,g.¡¡.¡¡;o ;<~i'5 ~~;~~~~-!<~ - ~.g.~~~¡¡¡~~.~.~-~ I~ ~ ~i~!i ~.;j:li;~~ji~ ~j~~~:f;~¡¡¡~~ïll~¡~i~ .~ 0 ~ M5 æQ""'<u,, --- im~~-.Q! M.~ .Q. > t~ t g!!il~ tl~l~ii1ij: ~!]~!li~¡I;s~~lllf ~., ~ ~~~~~J ~ ~Z~..M~Se ~~~~S~8~~tM~;O ~M_. ~~ ~ ~~~:.~ !B~i1õ~~~~~~~ .~:!JI¡~~:~~g~B~~¡ Ei! ¡:¡ ¡¡¡!~ ¡; ~1! 61! ~ M 10....::: .~= e ~ :g~l!.': ~!51;¡.;gJ!'6'~iä~... å .!! :=:iJ < ~Z:~Z1õ ~SU;~~¡¡¡~.~~~ .~ ~~.;O~B.~ g~g~~; ~ ~g~~I~ !~¡¡U~!~ Si.... ~~~~~J!~~¡I~.UM~.!: ~ ¡I~~I~ ~~I~~~I.I.11 ~~;;>a.~¡B~:.;g.]I.;g~i ;¡¡ 'ë'!!;;:¡e';; ~¡¡~-:!!!~...~!:iJ.¡¡ .u~~ 'Î;jã1õ.?:;1;tf~¡¡'¡;i>-~ ~ a..¡¡~<~i .:!Uã..g';¡.E!!I::Ii't¡S¡¡ ~~g.",!i:=:.s¡¡~ü~~¡¡ItU~.E;M . a: ¡¡ . wJ¡; .:! .11 I!! ~s.g : :¡¡:=: K-I..JG\ M ~ Ë .:¡ e 8 C D D é1 ;: , . M ~ .!! D M +>~I- e." -- ii-Ë 5 5 M 00 M ~M~ 1f"Š ]!.Ë i!'c DO U UC.. a: :;¡ - ...Ei t ~ 0 O.Ei ;¡¡ ~:! - ~ §j.! o.,¡; :~~ :ii !$~ goD 11e2 115 1iI!;E II i!! i! iff. Ii ~ Ii E J:¡ ¡¡¡.,; ~ ¡ ~; .¡¡ '" ~i i" i g.,t ¡¡ ~ Æ .¡: .. 0 " - $~ ~t ~u ~~ ~.t ~§ ~.:¡ U~.g .to; 1~-1I~~ IJJl-1IiJ ~~r~~~. s~~ ~~~ ~~~~ M_~ ~;s~-.¡- D-eMD~5i >¡¡:~ ~~~ ~i~U '¡¡~¡¡j"':; :Ž!ïiD"'O;;;'¡; :;¡.i!;ë:;...'ii "'$:i "':i;!!. .J1!iiI'¡¡~ '¡¡u8~ ~~$D~~i ~ :a~-= 1~§ ~~- Mi=~ ~I w ~~!~~~ =~.;S¡~... ~-1If¡~;J ~!-å :~1 i ~~ c~ c lOM"oaf! -,,~..!;i >-5i"'-~¡;' "'"II M"'~ """ :::: .s 1;."'1§..!!!:;.. Ii"'~-~;§-&i :!!. 1!"""';¡~ 108> .!!:!; "'8~;¡¡ D", - ;su'¡¡'ü..E U".ü M5t -D_!;=;¡¡ e> "'e- M 0" ~ ':; 8 0 iDe f!;g ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~.fi:1! ~ f i ä ~:g = 8-11 :s.'~ 0 C - !; '" ~ ;S >- -§ '",'¡¡ ~ t " ".Iõ - ~ D E - E D 'r" ¡¡ ... M ¡¡ -11 C ~.!! ~ f!~c~Q. ~te~f!¡e~ Iii ;¡çolii-lii =~" ~o~ -$_8 .g.oã ~ :E¡;¡c~u.2 t5~¡;¡.Iõ~f¡j~¡¡ .!i~cé::~M:!! r°.;.; ¿¡'::" .!!~"!!; :¡¡:; S g!,g11i-¡¡;1I ~j~D~¡;'§:: ä:1i~~i"iii.a :!!..!! ~~~ ';¡.¡¡.~.¡¡ U ~ -oa~c~ -~M-~- - _~DW~~D ~OM --M -~D U ~¡¡5i~'!!;§ .;1'Š.Ei¡¡"~-1I~ .!!.'¡¡!i.".Eiij ~=$ :'~Ë >- ~~i"¡: ~ ~ë:I~~:Ž!~ ~:;¡B~i~~¡; £$1$l$~ ~~f i~. ~ ~~a~ ~ o"5;Sf!~ß. Õ~'¡¡'D'ã.;¡¡f!- '9'ã.-~ ë:;.ë'~ æ ~11!!:8 I- ;;;'¡::':;~liif! =U;;;';S¡¡¡'.5.f1.~ C c g¡~~..!! ",~.11'.§ ~ ",8~~ D a:~:::' ¡¡¡.æ~ .:¡ .§ f! ~¡¡¿ ~ ~: :¡¡:;¡ .I=\...t:) () M ... !! . &! c . ~ 8 a c . c ;: M . C ~a ~¡¡' :!È~'\;g> :!.r - C i '. 5 ~ " - ." 5 - . gii ËJ! ...1iitiJ! ....s¡ ¡¡"i .'" ..ægocË", ..æ.fiË -:.:i ð~.- :¡;i.r!~ :¡;;it :¡ ~ -š 'f; .~ i .1! 1! 'f; .~'ê c ... '" '" U ¡;:.fi. '" u it!. - - a a ~~ g] g~ I~ !i :!i ä: ä: " ~~ sg ~ :~ .~ t ~a ~j = ~ ~ ..!!! fj -Ë :i æ. ~ ~ .~ = !~ ~ ."~1!~g> ~.~~~=~ t:"'~~~ifj~~~~'" ~~~ê1!- ;;ij.ü-~>a -= !;~a!!.a .!!.S'ü!!¡ ¡¡¡a~1ii"'- ~-.!i.a-'\; ~--š-~'f; ;~i.]~~ ~~~~8_~i~~;;1 a;;~~~- -ïi ~-'" a -:;...::.~ ~~."¡¡¡'E!!-~i:;¡~ --S-:!'..!! - 'ë.¡;,l; .g~ go1!.:;:;"...ii:: :c~~~~ _"""as=>a ..._-S"",!!: -- aal! ~- ~- u " 'C 0=.. 8- ~'E. -5 .--.5. ~~ :r~¡;!~~ ~ã1j'ê'.1i'f~ [.~:il;l<'¡N'§j¡¡n r: ~'!i"'5': : ~ ~ ~ ~ a ¡¡ ¡¡¡ ~ ~ -;:! ='¡¡¡'~ -Š i '~'.'S; = ~ '11 .8 :g ~ -:: ~ ~ .n ¡ ! -S : :;- ã:!~Sã-. --~~~.~>a '\;e~a~S~~=.-S~ c ~.~6~~ "a <a "'~¡¡¡i a::!a~Ñ1iiE'f; .~-'I!.¡¡"ii=...a-=.,2 = u'C'" ~ t~ ~ !~~¡;:¡~ ~8-~t~~: ¡::'~.'¡~I~1ii~ji ~ ~-Š-Š.g~ .goO¡; 1:i ~:1!-Ë~ -~::!-Š-~~¡¡ ã1iS':¡l!.:'ã.=>.~.i!8'¡;¡ ~. ~~'Ë.a ~5 8 .~Ii~:. I~.'\;~~¡¡¡ã rã.is~~~~':¡,\;~~ ~ ~'\;~I~~. ~ l;!~.~';¡ :5~i¡¡J!'~.g= ~~¡¡Bi"'~:;~¡¡.,2:¡j g ~.g.Ë!i..';;8. ~ 1!1!l!~~.~~ ='!ä~I~!~~ I~~.~~§!t!-S.~~!j-S.~ ~ ~J!]¡;¡':~¡¡, ~ ~j~'\;~~ð <~~8l~g~ ~~~~~-š~j~ðßj~ ~ ~~~~~~1 . =~:J, ¡¡¡~.::: ~ i§~ i ~ c ~:; ... ... ~-~\ " "" j c e Ê ~ " c e ~ > " e c ~= =1 =1 'Me š!"" š!e" t~ ]!j .;:H :g UoiJ¡¡ BoiJ¡¡ ~~ ì.!f g. :.!f g ,r.~ ,di 5 ~ ~ ~ - - " " ~: i1'~ g'~ :; $ ~:!:. ~ :!:. ~~ ~f ~f ~ ~ co ~ 5 11 !! ~:1: ;. .. -II z~ c.Eë .go,¡: :Ë~ 1!!:::11ì '1:= !o" ]"= ~~ i11 $.~~ :¡¡:t j" ;¡¡~ ~ .:¡u '~~i '" - - .~~=~I!~~~~~leE'~!~~ ~~~.~~~~i ~ .f~~~.fi :!:.~.æ:Ë.g.~." ¡¡~ ¡;,~-: å 5 ~ ~,¡¡lh¡.;"':'ii g ~~~~â 5~€!O$~=5~~.e~~ --"Km~=-. -- ~ e~.aëß;.æ¡¡~m~l~i~~gl :;&:~ti.~~ ~t ~ ]:Ë::>gl1ì~]~ .;¡~~!!. ':;10 r!ï; ,¡ ~'~~.88::':;:J!;::; :~ ~ ~:~~~~=g.ä~~~~;]'~I!~~' ~ ~~~~;~5~f.§ ~ ü~~c- 2°;.""'~E!' > '" ." -"e"" .¡j ~~ ffi ~~]~j5]~~!~~~~£u~~!i~ ~~ii{l~i~~ ~3 a -~~~~E~~š!~~~c~~~~~c~~ ~1~Æ:;<i:gg 31 ~ ~:~~~~~~.=::;~e,,~ ,¡¡~~~ ~~~¡¡.~~~~~= ~U ~ ëA:~se~i~I~~:;g~!!&~~c :~~~.:;~J~~: ~ ~KI~€t~~-~~&~I~I~!§~5 ~it~.::~~t g¡ ~!.!!!.ê.e. .=,J!¡ "J¡¡" ¡¡¡ ê;!; : e !O':,š Ii!-'ii::: g.u~~"';::,š >-: j¡.i! ~ '" 0; j g. ~ .~ g;:; t $ g $ :Ë ¡¡ ~ M...'." ~ ~ :: :9 ~ ~ ~ .5.:! " ---~"~-~ue~u~u~ 1iiu.o - -...o-_œ.E"- . ..~::. w,E,r. ~ .!:i e .0 ." ~=~ :é ~ ~:;! .¡ .¡ h'-h') .EXHIBIT C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Seclion 15093, Ihe Chula Vista City Council, in approving the various actions that are the subject of the Channelside Shopping Center FEIR, having considered and independentfy judged the information contained in the FEIR and having reviewed and considered the public testimony and record, makes the following Statemenl of Overriding Considerations in support of the Findings and the action of the City Council approving the project. ". The City Council finds and concludes that the public benefils of the project oulWeigh the identified significant and unmitigated impacts to air quality set forth in the Findings. The decision makers find that the following factors support approvaf of the project, despite the identified significant environmentaf impact. Therefore, the City Council sets forth the foHowing Statement of Overriding Considerations: 1. The project will benefit the City by providing needed commercial goods and services in the Central Chula Vista portion of the City, by serving a growing population base in that area and by achieving stated goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Town Center H Redevefopment Plan. 2. The project will result in a substanlial net posilive fiscal impact upon Ihe City thereby allowing for enhanced City services. 3. The project will benefit the City by generating approximately 350 new jobs, contributing to an improved jobs to housing balance in the Central Chula Vista area. 4. As set forth in the Findings, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project or made binding on the applicant through the adoption of the Findings, which to the extent feasible, reduce impacts to below a level of significance. 5. The City Council has c;arefully balanced the benefits of the project, as proposed, against its unavoidable environmental risks and has determined that the risks are "acceptable" because of the fiscal benefit to the city as well as the contribution of the project to achieving the land use goafs of the General Plan and Town Center H Redevelopment Plan. Consequently, the Council believe that the proposed project is the superior alternative despite the significant impacts to air quality that would result from implementation of the project. Channelside Shopping Center fiR Pg.17 5-53 ... C1I'zu P~E. !Blank! -5..54 RESOLUTION NO. /776 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 31. 63 ACRES LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF NORTH FIFTH AVENUE FROM RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING TO COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE WHEREAS, the' 'area of the land which is subject of this resolution consists of approximately 31. 63 acres located at the terminus of North Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, California within the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area, and further identified as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 562-324-02 and 562-324-04 ("Project Site"); and, WHEREAS, a person having control over all or a portion of the development of the Project Site, National Avenue Associates ("Developer"), has proposed the development of an approximately 212,000 square foot retail shopping center currently known as the Channelside Shopping Center, including a Wal-Mart Store as a major tenant, as such project is more particularly described in Final Environmental Impact Report, FEIR-94-02, ("Project"); and WHEREAS, on January 21, 1994, in connection with the Project, the Developer filed applications with the City of Chula Vista ("City") for (1) a General Plan Amendment from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare", and (2) Rezoning from "I-L-P" (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan) to "C-C-P" (Central Commercial-Precise Plan) ("Discretionary Approvals Applications"); and WHEREAS, concurrently, the Developer requested that the City process an amendment to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program ("LCP Amendment") and issue a Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") thereunder; and WHEREAS, concurrently based on a preliminary review of the Project, the staff ("Staff") of the City and the Redevelopment Agency of the Ci ty of Chula Vista ("Redevelopment Agency") has determined that the Project may have an adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Staff has determined that the Project is not exempt, neither statutorily or categorically, from compliance with the statutory duty, as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to prepare an Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, City retained the services of a Consultant to prepare the Environmental Impart Report for the Project; and 1 5"5'5 --- WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 1994, evaluating the Project was prepared and was transmitted by the Redevelopment Agency, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of availability of the draft Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law and by policy of the City; and WHEREAS, a public forum on the project was held on June 30, 1994 which include~ a presentation on the draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, written and comments from the public on the draft Environmental Impact Report were accepted from June 16, 1994 to August '10, 1994; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1994 the Resource Conservation Commission accepted the draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR-94- 02, by a vote of 4 to 1; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing, accepted public testimony and closed the public review period on the draft Environmental Impact Report on August 10, 1994; and WHEREAS, public comments have been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project dated September, 1994 (IIFEIR 94-02"); and WHEREAS, a public hearing on FEIR 94-02, the Discretionary Approvals Applications and the LCP Amendment was duly noticed and held before the Planning Commission at the meeting of September 28, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Pla=ing Commission, at a public hearing held on September 28, 1994, considered FEIR 94-02, the Discretionary Approvals Applications and the LCP Amendment, took evidence as set forth in the record of its proceedings, made certain findings as set forth in their Recommending Resolution GPA- 94-02/PCZ-94-C, and recommended that City Council certify FEIR 94- 02 and approve the Discretionary Approvals Applications subject to certain terms and conditions; and, WHEREAS, an Addendum to FEIR 94-02 ("Addendum 94-02A") was prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on November 1, 1994 on FEIR 94-02, Addendum 94-02A (collectively, "FEIR 94-02") the Discretionary Approvals Applications, the LCP Amendment and the 2 5'5~ CDP to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, as the Responsible Agency, and the Redevelopment Agency, as the Lead Agency, have reviewed, analyzed and considered FEIR 94-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project; the Findings of Fact ("CEQA Findings"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Joint City/Agency Resolution No. (the "CEQA Resolution") the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have jointly certified FEIR 94-02, adopted Addendum 94-02A, made the necessary CEQA findings with respect thereto, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to the CEQA Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed, taken and considered public testimony on, and decided to approve the General Plan Amendment for the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the RedevBlopment Plan for Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area (the "Redevelopment Plan"), the amendment of the City's General Plan also has the effect of amending the land uses permitted under the Redevelopment Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. Certification of Compliance with CEQA. The City Council does hereby adopt and incorporate herein Resolution No. of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency certifying FEIR 94-02, and adopting Addendum 94-02A, the CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. II. General Plan Internally Consistent. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Plan is internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following the amendment thereof by this Resolution. III. Conditional Approval of General Plan Amendment. The Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Diagram is hereby amended as set forth and diagrammatically shown on the attached Exhibit A to change the Project Site from "Research 3 6" 5~ and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare", subject to the following conditions subsequent: A. Other Discretionary Approvals Becomes Effective. The remaining Discretionary Approvals, the LCP Amendment the CDP, and a Precise Plan for the proj ect shall be introduced, adopted and become effective and Developer shall comply with all terms and conditionns thereof. B. Project Site'is Improved with Project. Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project. C. Implement Mitigation Measures. Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all mitigation measures required by the CEQA Resolution. D. Implement the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program required by the CEQA Resolution. IV. Consequence of Failure of Conditions. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution. V. 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, if the 4 5-~ City so dete:rmines in its sole discretion, this ordinance shall be deemed to be revoked and of no further in force and effect. Presented by Approved as to fo:rm by ,. Robert A. Leiter Bruce M. Boogaard Director of Planning City Attorney M, \shared\Attorney\WALCSQA1. Ree) 5 5-!5q "'.. ~ YJC1.fjt; !Blank! 5 ~l.rD . .!. I I ~ . I 1--. -_..J . . I ,- -~~ ~_... , ---- ' ~ , \ ..,. ,- j ~ I , ¡ , , ,~-.i, , (. 0, -- """,.",.~""""..,.-. ""e" #, , ~ .. , . '" ' ' .. .. '" " ¡ CBULAvtSTA PL,*NNING, ,DE'P,ÂRTMENTYt:" . ' .. ,; ,,' "" CJ"",,', ',"",' AP, PLiCANT:NatioDai Av, ea, ue -Áøocia,~"""'têS PROJ,E CT, DEiCRIPTION:, "", '!,';C',;,-,:,','l,.J,."",r,~">;'!"',",~,--.,'. ," ¡, . . - ," , ' ' CHANNEL SIDE SHOPPING/CENTER:; . , ADDREIS. SECBroacIwa¡udSR'54 I .... """', ., ~"... - ..., , ' a..ng. G8n8I8J Plan dMlgrllllon 110m "RNMid18'1C1 = " , ' .' SCALE: FILF. NUMBER: LmledManuf8c:lultV'ID"CommecdIIIThoIOughfarv""'-;¡ -0__- ... - CAA' roD" A" nA -- - ~ . fJ/'zu PlLfJE; !Blank! S..&-J. ORDINANCE NO. d.. ~ 13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH AMENDMENT #12 RECLASSIFYING 31.63 ACRES OF THE INLAND PARCEL, SUBAREA 4 FROM INDUSTRIAL GENERAL TO A COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE LAND USE DISTRICT SUBJECT TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 19.36 AND 19.56 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, a proposal for the development of 31.63 acres of the Inland Parcel, Subarea 4 of the Chula Vista Coastal Zone into the Channelside Shopping Center as such project is more particularly described in the Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR-94-02, has been reviewed and found to require a land use amendment to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepated an amendment to the LCP ("Amendment #12") which entails a land use change for 31.63 acres of the Inland Parcel from Industriaf General to Commercial Thoroughfare subject to Central Commercial zoning with a Precise Plan Modifying District and said land use change has been found to be consistent with the poficies and objectives of the certified LCP; and, WHEREAS, the reorganization and clarification of land use sections of the Bayfront Specific Plan and associated sections of the Land Use Plan for consistency has been found to be desirable; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepared and disseminated a Notice of Availability of LCP Amendment #12 in accordance with Title 14, Division 5.5 of the California Code of Regulations at least six weeks prior to the scheduled City Council public hearing on said amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Pfanning Director set the time and place for a Planning Commission public hearing on said amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director gave notice of the said hearing, together with its purpose, by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and said notice was distributed in accordance with Title 14, Division 5.5 of the California Code of Regulations; and, WHEREAS, said public hearing considering LCP Amendment #12 was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m. on September 28, 1994 in the City of Chula Vista City Council Chambers located at 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the City Cferk set the time and place for a City Council pubfic heating on said amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director gave notice of the said hearing, together with its purpose, by publication in a newspaper of generaf circulation in the 5"~3 Ordinance xxxx city and said notice was distributed in accordance with Title 14, Division 5.5 of the California Code of Regulations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on September 28, 1994, considered FEIR 94-02, the Discretionary Approvals Applications and the LCP Amendment, took evidence as set forth in the record of its proceedings, made certain findings as set forth in their Recommending Resolution GPA-94-02/PCZ-94-C, and recommended that City Council certify FEIR 94-02 ¡¡Qd approve the Discretionary Approvals Applications and the LCP Amendment subject to certain terms and conditions; and, WHEREAS, an Addendum to FEIR 94-02 ("Addendum 94-02A") was prepared in accordance with Section 1 51 64 of the CECA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on November 1, 1994 on FEIR 94-02, Addendum 94-02A (collectively "FEIR 94-02"), the Discretionary Approvals Applications, the LCP Amendment and the COP to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear pubfic testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, as the Responsible Agency, and the Redevelopment Agency, as the Lead Agency, have reviewed, analyzed and considered FEIR 94-02, the environmentaf impacts therein identified for this Project; the Findings of Fact ("CECA Findings"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Joint/City Agency Resolution No._, (the "CEOA" Resolution), the City Council and the Redevefopment Agency have jointly certified FEIR 94-02, and Addendum EIR 94-02A thereto, made the necessary CEOA Findings, and adopted the Mitigation Montitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to the CECA Resolution; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 4:00 p.m. on November 1, 1994 in the City of Chula Vista City Council Chambers located at 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed, and The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I. Certification of Compliance with CECA. The City Council does hereby adopt and incorporate herein Resolution No. of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency certifying FEIR 94- 02, and adopting Addendum EIR 94-02A, the CEOA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION II. Consistencv with General Plan Findinas The City Council does hereby find that the LCP, as amended by Amendment S..(P4 Ordinance xxxx #12, is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan as amended. SECTION III. Cafifornia Coastal Act Findinqs The City does hereby find that the subject Amendment #12 compfies with Chapter 3, Coastaf Resources Planning and Management Policies, of Pubfic Resources Code, Division 20 in accordance with the following findings: , . The Inland Parcel is not focated within the Chula Vista Bayfront. The Parcel is located approximately 1/2 mile (north east) traveling distance from the Bayfront's main, "E" Street entry. The land use designation of the Inland Parcel, therefore, will not directfy affect Bayfront "coastaf resource" planning. The Inland Parcef does not have access to coastal resources such as: the sea, the bay, or dry sand and rocky coastal beaches, therefore, the change in land use designation will not affect such access. The Inland Parcel has no oceanfront land suitable for water-oriented recreational activities or coastal dependent aquacuftural uses. A portion of the Historic Sweetwater River is located along a portion of the western edge of the Inland Parcel. This is considered potentially sensitive habitat and will be enhanced and protected when development occurs on the Inland Parcel. The proposed Amendment #12 is a change in land use only and wifl not affect the site's sensitive habitat designation or the site's sensitive habitat. The Inland Parcel is visibfe from the north (State Route 54), however, therefore no coastal views or vistas from or to the fnfand Parcel. The land use change will include a Ptecise Plan Modifying District which will require the development of specific design and rand development criteria to ensure the visuaf quality of the Inland Parcel. SECTION IV. The City Council hereby directs the Mayor to submit Amendment #12 to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission in accordance with Section 13552 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regufations. SECTION V. Amendment #12 Exhibit #3 - Land Use Districts, Sections 19.81.040,19.81.050,19.81.070 of the certified Chura Vista Local Coastal Program - Bayfront Specific Plan and Exhibit #3 - Land Use, Table 3-1, Policy loU.6.B, Table 3-2, Table 3-2A, Section IV.D. of the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan are amended in accordance with Local Coastal Program Amendment #12 attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION VI. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the 31 st day after its adoption or immediately following approval of Amendment #12 of the certified Local Coastal Program by the California Coastal Commission, whichever is later. SECTION VII. Invaliditv: Revocation 5-1tS .-- Ordinance xxxx It is the intention of the City Council at its adoption of this ordinance is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provision or conditions are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal,or unenforceable, this ordinance shall be deemed at City's erection fully revoked and of no further force and effect. , . Presented by: Approved as to form by: Chris Salomone Bruce Boogaard Community Development Director City Attorney a:lwalmartlwallcpa.ord . 5- (PiP EXHIBIT A ...., LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 12 IIft---- DeletieBS slf'ik-e eat 5- /P 7 ~. ~ Pa;}E. !Blank! 5 -tJ6 LCP Amendment #12 Page 29 Bayfront Specific Plan 19.81.040 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION A. Purpose and Scope The Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan provides for the classification of land use and the regulation of development by Land Use District. These c~cations, "Districts", are depicted on Exhibit #3, herein. Each Land Use District contains a set of regulations setting forth the standards for development within that District. This section provides the development standards relating to permitted nses within each District. Additional specific use regulations are included in Chapter VII, Subarea Specific Development Standards, herein. B. Commercial Land Use Districts 1. Visitor - Commercial: This use is permitted only in the Midbayfront, Subarea 1. Refer to Chapter VII, Subarea Specific Development Standards for Subarea 1. 2. Thoroughfare Commercial: All 1ands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as Thoroughfare Commercial s1tal1 be permitted to accommodate the following uses: a. For Subarea I - Midbayfront Subarea Refer to Chapter VII, Subarea Specific Development Standards. b. For Subarea 2 - Industrial Subarea I) Food Sales Commercial 2) Convenience Sales and Service Commercial 3) Transient Habitation Commercial 4) Automotive Servicing Commercial 5) Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial 6) Automotive Fcc Parking Commercial 7) Group Assembly Commercial 8) Parking Services Civic 9) Community Assembly Civic 10) Administrative Civic 11) Utility and Vehicular Civic 12) Special Signs 13) Development Signs 14) Realty Signs 15) Civic Signs 16) Business Signs iV .T¡~~IRf(j~ l8~f¡~j ¡~ :!::.t 1:~Wt~fjj¡~".f:.{fi.!&'3.~It~ 3. Commercial - Professional and Administrative: A111ands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated on Professional and Administrative (mcluding portions within the Central Resort District), s1talI be permitted to accommodate the following uses: 29 5//1 ~ . ~ . ~ p~¡; !Blank! 5-70 ~<D ('I) I::: cu~ Q;! I .....J x w II - If ill L ' ~~ tr ~ ~ ~ _f I @ 1m ~ 5 - ~ ~ / - '., ~ ~ .~ ~ J ~ - 011 011 c% .!i ~ ~ , ! ~g 08~~D . 1 ..1: "" ,;¡ e I 11l;ij / ~J ¡; , j ij i~ i J /~ :ï: '5 Æ ~ ¡g § ð. ~ æ 0@8ß8B " ~.- ~ ~ 5..11 ~~ ~ ueld J~J~Jads ~uo~J^e8 ' 7T~ v£ aBed "'~"'n"~"'u ,~~ , . fJI'zú Pa:JE; !Blank! 5.~J. LCP Amendment #12 Page 35 Specific Plan 19.81.050 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA A. Purpose and Scope This Chapter of the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan provides development criteria for each Land Use District with the plan area. Additional development'rnteria are included in Chapter VIT, Subarea Specific Development Standards, herein. B. Permitted Uses Permitted Uses for each Land Use District' are listed in Chapter IV, Land Use Classification. C. Development Intensity The development intensity is established by using a Floor Area R1Itio (FAR), a specific maximum square footage allowance, or through setback and height controls, depending on the subarea. Following are the applicable development intensities for each land use category listed by subarea: 1. Subarea I - Midbayfront: The development intensity for the Midbayfront subarea is established by the specific square footage allowances described in Chapter VII herein. 2. Subarea 2 - Industrial Area: a. Industrial - General: Maximum FAR 0.5 b. Industrial- Resean:h & Limited: Maximum FAR 0.5 G. CeiBl!'ieroiai 'Th.eIeøgllfore. HaximwB P.'\R 0.23 d. Public-Quasi Public: Area designated for landscaped parking may be incorporated into the adjacent land use area for FAR calculations. e. Parks & Recreation: Development intensity limited by minimal1y permitted uses. f. Open Space: DOne g. Special conditions "C" and "F" on Exhibit 4, Building Heights: see special standards in Chapter VII for Subarea 2. ' - - - 3. Subarea 3 - Southern Puce!: The only land use in this subarea is Industrial - General which is limited to an FAR of 0.5. 4. Subarea 4 - Inland Parcel: "'~~.B!íR~é oBI} laæI use if! IIiis SIib- is lBàuslfial Geae<al. T the maximum development intensity is estab1ishcd by the Height Regulations, Section 19.81.050 D. and Site Development Standards, Sections 19.81.050 I. and Section 19.81.010 D. 5. Subarea 5 - Faivre Street subarea: The only land use in this subarea is Industria1 - General. The maximum development intensity is estab1ishcd by the Height Regulations Chapter V-D; and, Site Development Standards, Chapter V-I and Chapter VII-E. 35 5-13 LCP Amendment #12 Page 41 Bayfront Specific Plan 5) To provide standards of a=ptability for signs in order to facilitate the review and approval process by Ihe City of Chula Vista. b. Scale of Signs for the Miqþ¡1yfront subarea: The two most prominent signs in the Midbayfront will be the Midbayfront gateway monument and the high- and mid-rise hotel building wall signs. Because of the importance of these signs, the following specific regulations are provided: 1) Midbayfront Gateway Monument: The sign element containing copy shall not exceed a maximum height of 5'-6". The architectural element containing the sign shall not exceed 12 feet in height. The maximum copy area per sign face shall not exceed 50 square feet. Illustrations of a gateway monument meeting these standards follow as a guideline. 2) High-rise Hotel Building Wall Signs: Only allowed on hotel buildings greater than eight stories in height. Two signs per building, 300 square feet maximum each sign. Individual letters or logo only; maximum sign height shall be 7 feet. An illustration of Ihis type of sign follows as a guideline. Sign design and lettering shall not permit perching by avian predators of the California least tern, light-footed clapper rail, or Belding's Savannah sparrow. F. Form and Appearance 1. Form and Appearance Objectives The following objectives shall serve as guidelines for use of land and water resources to preserve a sound natural environment: a. Preserve existing wetlands in a heallhy state to ensure Ihe aeslhetic enjoyment of marsh<;s and the wildlife which inhabit them. b. Change the existing industrial image of the Bayfront, and develop a new identity consonant with its future prominent public and commercial recreational role. 41 5-7q --- LCP Amendment #12 Page 91 Bayfront Specific Plan j. Compact parking stalls shall be perntitted with dimensions of 7.5 feet wide by 16 feet in length. The number of these stalls may be authorized to a maximum of 20% of the required parking. D. Irdand Parcel Subarea ~. Development §~.œfi1At@!íi!I@U~ in this Subarea is subject to the I-General Industrial zone, Chapter 19.46 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, except as modified by the provisions of this Specific Plan. E. Faivre Street Subarea Development in this subarea is subject to the regulations of the San Diego County Zoning ordinance for general Impact Indnstrial use zoned M-54 (FP), manufacturing industrial zone with flood plain overlay zone, except as modified by this Specific Plan. F. PaImar!Bay Baulevard Subarea Development in this subarea is subject to the I-L-P. Limited Industrial Zone with Precise Plan Modifying District, as described in Secûons 19.44 and 19.54 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code except as modified by this Specific Plan. 91 5~16 ~ , 9I'zú g:>WJE; !Blank! 5-~~ "E CD U) C') Cl)t-:-!:: Cd::>~~ --1 . r- èlJ Q2 0 ~ . ~. ~. r ~~ E ~ i i~~ ~ ~ !J IIi I ¡ ~ IŒ ~ 5 . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 - '" ~ i .Ii ~ ! I ! Š~ 0§~E1D . J 0"'> e ~ I I t 111~ i b~ '" ~ j..j ~Il J ] 8 000a~8B 5-17 UI? ld asn PUl?l 7TH 111;\111011;\1111/ ~~, c , . fJI'zú p~£ !Blank! 5-í/8 LCP 'Amendment #.12 Land Use Plan Page III-II TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF PERMITTED LAND USES BY SUBAREA (Approximate area - in acres) SUBAREA ¡.AN) USE ..... TOTAL k ... ¿ ~ .[ §. 1- Residential, high 18 18 Commercial - Visitor 11 11 - Thoroughfare ~~ [# - Professional" Administrative 12 . 12 Industrial - Research" Limited 81 10 8 63 - General --- !3Z 155 98 ~!Ii Public" Open Space - Public" Quasi-Public 18 6 12 - Parks" Recreation 37 34 3 - Water 8 8 - Open Space 301 22 11 268 - Circulation/Other 27 14 8 3 2 Special Plan Area - Central Resort District 40 40 Major Circulation 159 - - -- - - - - TOTALS 1013 161 215 101 36 8 63 270 -h____- . Allocatad within Central Re""rt Diotrlct ae a permitted waa NOTB, ""r..g...... indicatad to the na.....t acre "'.ed on plani..tar reading. and available inforaation. Minor ~f~n~;n:~~d ~I:.~~;t c~~ct~; ~~~=-r.~~ ::~~~e~~~o:a O~~~d ~~õ~,w/~i~e=~nt to III-ll 5- r¡q ". fJI'zú Pa;}E; !Blank! . 5-?/) LCP Amendment ill Land Use Plan Page ill-7 Policy L.U.6.B. recreation uses; 4) limited business and personal services (business services shall be defined as ancillary support services which serve the travelling businessperson [i.e., copy centers, postal oUtlets, ~ ¡¡tc.]); and, 5) public and quasi-public uses such as public transportation facilities, places of worship, and day care facilities. Allocation: approximately 11 acres (1 percent of development area,. not including major circulation). [Note: These uses are also provided with the Central Resort District where allocations among uses may vary.] Tharau""fare Visitor m"hwav. This land use designation includes primarily motel and restaurant facilities similar to the existing development that principally serve auto-oriented traffic and require clear visibility from the 1-5 corridor. Additional permitted uses would include gas stations and sinúlar traveler directed goods and servi d uses not permitt wit n t is designation are those which would principally serve pedestrian traffic or those that would be more appropriate in connection with the Central Resort District provided for elsewhere in the Plan. These non I'ecmiked uses include. convenience retail, reed and lI...erage retail 6ales, lIusines5 and l'et'Sonai s_iees, aad entertainment feeilities. Allocation: approximately ~ f acres (ll'ereeøt of d...elol'ment area, not ineluding major eirealation. Professional and Administrative Commercial. Two areas for Professional and Administrative Commercial are provided. The first is Indicated on Land Use Map, Exhibit 3, page ill-3, within the Industrial subarea. This area is approximately 12 acres. The permitted uses Include administrative office and support uses for the atijaceut Industrial uses. The second area is a permitted use within the Central Resort District of the Midbayfront subarea, which permits 60,000 sq.ft. of Professional and Administrative, Including; administrative and executive office, financial offices and services and medical offices. III-7 5-~1 ... ~ fPa;}E; !BlanC! 5#g;t LCP Amendment #12 Land Use Plan Page III-15 TABLE 3-2 PERMITIED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY SUBAREA/LAND USE DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY ~. Subarea I - Midbayfront Central Resort District (See Table 3-2A) Residential - High Residential: 949,000 sq. ft./700 du Visitor Commercial Western Parcel: 204,000 sq. ft./250 hotel rooms; Eastern Parcel: 200,000 sq. ft./250 hotel rooms Public & Open Space Uses Intensity limited by minimal permitted uses; except Cultural Arts Facility 75,000 sq. ft. (2,000 seats) Subarea 2 - Industrial Industrial (IR & IG) FAR 0.5 except Special Condition "CO (see notes) Commercial - Visitor/Highway FAR 0.25 except Special Condition "F" (see notes) Commercial - Prof, & Admin. Special Condition "CO (see notes) Landscaped Parking May be included in adjacent parcel for FAR cal- culation with required improvements and use agreement. Parks & Recreation Intensity limited by minimal permitted uses Subarea 3 - Southern Parcel Industrial FAR 0.5 Subareas 4, S, and 6 Industrial l.~ Existing Zoning ¥f.~illl'~ftÆ![4fM ~ ~f:.~1f@T .., Subarea 7 - SWeetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge Open Space Determined by USF&WS _Un NOTES: FAR - Floor area ratio or ratio of gro.. building area to net developable land area. Special Condition "C": FAR of o. 7S permitted subject to special conditiono - See Special Condition "C" (Bayfront Specific Plan Seo. V.D) and Subarea 2 Standard. of the Bayfront Speoific Plan, provided that the corresponding demolition/removal of exiøting struotures elsewhere on the ROM campus oommenourate with the allowed bonus will occur in a timely fashion and associated traffio impact. will be mitigated to LOS "D" or better at the Bay Blvd./"E" Street/I-S interchange. Special Condition "F": In the event additional land area is gained for development of propertie. located at the northeast and southea.t corners of Bay Boulevard and "J" Street by covering adjacent drainage channels, the on-.ite FAR and setback. may vary in accordance with Special Condition "F" (Bayfront Specific Plan Seo. V.D) and Subarea 2 Standard. of the Bayfront Specific Plan. III-IS 5,g3 ,,", ~ PagE- !Blank! ý2~ LCP Amendment #12 Land Use Plan Page IV-13 C. Subarea 3 - Southern Parcel 1. Soecial Subarea Conditions The southern parcel is located south of 'L' Street and west of 1-5. This area is within the Coastal Zone but is not covered by the Bayfront Plan. The entire area contains approximately 90 acres. The majority of this area (65 acres) is part of the SDG&E gene~ring plant. In addition, there is a small area (4 acres) wltich is used as part of the salt works, and an area (21 acres) wltich is developed with light industria1 uses. According to an existing agreement among the State, National City, and the salt marsh operator, the salt works will be incorporated into a State wildlife preserve over a twenty year period. The remaining area is designated for industrial use on the General Plan and is zoned I (Indnstria1), consistent with its use. It is anticipated that the SDG&E facility will remain in operation on a permanent basis, wltile the salt works will continue into the foreseeable future. The industrial land is located between Bay Boulevard and 1-5 and does not have any direct Bay frontage. 2. Subarea ObiectiveslPolicies Objective S3.A Provide for maintenance of appropriate existing development and long term conversion of potential habitat areas to protected open space. Policy S3.A.l Preclude any visitor-serving facilities here because of the proximity of the freeway and the generating plant. In addition, no uses shall be located on this property which would economically compete with the Bayfront. D. Subarea 4 - Inland Parcel I. Soecial Subarea Conditions The inland parcel is located north of 'C' Street and west of Broadway. This area contains approximately 80 acres. A major portion of this area has been used for SR-54 and the Sweetwater River ChãrineI. The property is dcsig¡¡ated for 2.Suharea ObiectiveslPolicies Objective S5.A Allow, community oriented commercial development 85 a eeaåiti.eøal. lI§e, eOlBBlefoial 'gran]! IIÐsembly' de>.,eI8fJæeB! aÐ<l &eeossery uses with assurance that improvements are adequately protected from flood IV-13 5,~5 ~. ~ ~a.gE; !Blank! , 5"~{P ORDINANCE NO. :<~J'f AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REZONE 31. 63 ACRES LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF NORTH FIFTH ~YENUE FROM I-L-P (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL- PRECISE PLAN) TO C-C-P (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL-PRECISE PLAN) WHEREAS, the area of the land which is subject of this ordinance consists of approximately 31. 63 acres located at the terminus of North Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, California within the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area, and further identified as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 562-324-02 and 562-324-04 ("Project Site"); and, WHEREAS, a person having control over all or a portion of the development of the Project Site, National Avenue Associates ("Developer"), has proposed the development of an approximately 212,000 square foot retail shopping center currently known as the Channelside Shopping Center, including a Wal-Mart Store as a major tenant, as such project is more particularly described in Final Environmental Impact Report, FEIR-94-02, ("Project"); and WHEREAS, on January 21, 1994, in connection with the Project, the Developer filed applications with the city of Chula Vista ("City") for (1) a General Plan Amendment from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare", and (2) Rezoning from "I-L-P" (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan) to "C-C-P" (Central Commercial-Precise Plan) ("Discretionary Approvals Applications"); and, WHEREAS, concurrently, the Developer requested that the City process an amendment to the certified Chula vista Local Coastal Program ("LCP Amendment") and issue a Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") thereunder. WHEREAS, concurrently based on a preliminary review of the Project the staff ("Staff") of the city and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula vista ("Redevelopment Agency") has determined that the Project may have an adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Staff has determined that the Project is not exempt, neither statutorily or categorically, from compliance with the statutory duty, as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to prepare an Environmental Impact Report; and 5-~ry Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS, city retained the services of a Consultant to prepare the Environmental Impart Report for the Project; and WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 1994, evaluating the P~oject was prepared and was transmitted by the Redevelopment Agency, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of availability of the draft Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law and by policy of the City; and WHEREAS, a public forum on the project was held on June 30, 1994 which included a presentation on the draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, written and comments from the public on the draft Environmental Impact Report were accepted from June 16, 1994 to August 10, 1994; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1994 the Resource Conservation commission accepted the draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR-94- 02, by a vote of 4 to 1; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing, accepted public testimony and closed the public review period on the draft Environmental Impact Report on August 10,1994; and WHEREAS, public comments have been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project dated September, 1994 ("FEIR 94-02"); and WHEREAS, a public hearing on FEIR 94-02, the Discretionary Approvals Applications and the LCP Amendment was duly noticed and held before the Planning Commission at the meeting of September 28, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on September 28, 1994, considered FEIR 94-02, the Discretionary Approvals Applications and the LCP Amendment, took evidence as set forth in the record of its proceedings, made certain findings as set forth in their Recommending Resolution GPA- 94-02/PCZ-94-C, and recommended that City Council certify FEIR 94- 02 and approve the Discretionary Approvals Applications and the LCP Amendment subject to certain terms and conditions; and, 5"' ~~ Ordinance No. P ãgëJ WHEREAS, an Addendum to FEIR 94-02 (" Addendum 94-02A") was prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a 4.~ly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on November 1, 1994 on FEIR 94-02, Addendum 94-02A (collectively "FEIR 94-02"), the Discretionary Approvals Applications, the LCP Amendment and the CDP to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, the city Council of the City, as the Responsible Agency, and the Redevelopment Agency, as the Lead Agency, have reviewed, analyzed and considered FEIR 94-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project; the Findings of Fact ("CEQA Findings") , Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Joint City/Agency Resolution No.-- - (the "CEQA" Resolution) , the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have jointly certified FEIR 94-02, made the necessary CEQA Findings, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to the CEQA Resolution; and. WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at which this Ordinance was introduced for first reading (November 1,1994), the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted Resolution No. , by which it amended the City's General Plan, and Resolution ~ , by which it amended the City's Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed, taken and considered public testimony with respect to, and decided to approve the proposed rezoning for the Project site from I-L-P to C-C-P. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: I. Certification of Compliance with CEQA. The City Council does hereby adopt and incorporate herein Resolution No. of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency certifying FEIR 94-02, and adopting Addendum 94-02A, the CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 5"~ Ordinance No. Page 4 II. Rezoning. The Zoning Map or Maps established by section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code are hereby amended by adding thereto the follow~ng rezoning of property ("Rezoning"): That certain property consisting of approximately 31.63 acres, located at the north terminus of North Fifth Avenue, more particularly known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 562-324-02 and 562-324-04 (the "Project Site"), is hereby rezoned from I-L-P (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan) to C-C-P (Central Commercial-Precise Plan). III. Finding for Approval of Rezoning. The City Council finds that the Rezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, as amended, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice support the Rezoning. IV. Findings for Application of the P Precise Plan Modifier. The City Council finds that the "P" Precise Plan Modifier is appropriate for the Project site in that: A. The subject property is unique by virtue of its access and traffic circulation in that its westerly point of access requires the construction of a bridge across a wetlands, and its easterly access enters subject site from the adjoining municipality of National city. B. The property to which the "P" modifying district is being applied is an area adjacent and contiguous to zones or land uses allowing different land uses, to wit, SR-54 to the north, IL (Limited Industrial) to the south and southeast, CH-CZ (Heavy Commercial-Coastal Zone) (City of National city) to the west, and CG-PD (General Commercial-Planned Development) (City of National city) to the east, and the development of a precise plan will allow the area so designated to coexist between land usages which might otherwise prove incompatible; C. The area to which the "P" modifying district is applied consists of two properties under separate ownership wherein coordination regarding access, on-site circulation, site planning, building design and identification is necessary to enhance the public convenience, health, safety and general welfare; thus 5J~O --- Ordinance No. Page 5 requiring special handling of the development on a precise plan basis. V. Precise Plan Guidelines. The City Cou~~il does hereby approve the application of the following Precise Plan Guidelines to development of the Project site. Unless otherwise specified, all Conditions, Guidelines and Code Requirements shall be fully completed to the City's satisfaction prior to the approval of occupancy. Unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Precise Plan Guidelines: A. Freestanding signage may be allowed adjacent to the SR-54 corridor in lieu of wall signage (height and size to be determined), subject to review of an approval of the Design Review Committee. B. A 15' to 25' landscape buffer with enhanced landscaping complementary to landscaping within the SR-54 right-of- way shall be provided along the northerly property line as a component of the Chula Vista Greenbelt. VI. Consequence of Failure of Conditions. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Ordinance. VII. Invalidity; Automatic Revocation. It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this ordinance at the 5øl11 Ordinance No. Page 6 city's election, in its sole discretion, shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further in force and effect. VIII. Effective Date. This ordinan~~ shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by ~ Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning (M: \shsred\sttorney\Walrezon. oed) 5.11~ RESOLUTION /17IJ7 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #068 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNELSIDE (W AL-MART) SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF APPROXIMA TEL Y 220,000 SQ. Fr. OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD (BROADWAY) AND STATE ROUTE 54 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ,. WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) has been certified by the California Coastal Commission; and, WHEREAS, said LCP includes coastal development procedures determined by the Commission to be legally adequate for the issuance of Coastal Development Permits and the City of Chula Vista has assumed permit authority for the Chula Vista Coastal Zone; and, WHEREAS, on January 21, 1994, in connection with the Project, the Developer filed applications with the City of Chula Vista ("City") for (I) a General Plan Amendment from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare", and (2) Rezoning from "I-L-P" (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan) to "C-C-P" (Central Commercial-Precise Plan) ("Discretionary Approvals Applications"); and, WHEREAS, concurrently, the Developer requested that the City process an amendment to the certified Chula Vista Loca1 Coastal Program ("LCP Amendment") and issue a Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") thereunder; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepared and disseminated a Notice of Availability of LCP Amendment #12 in accordance with Title 14, Division 5.5 of the California Code of Regulations at least six weeks prior to the scheduled City Council public hearing on said LCP Amendment #12; and, the Community Development Director gave notice of a City Council public hearing on LCP Amendment #12, together with its purpose, by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and said notice was distributed in accordance with Title 14, Division 5.5 of the California Code of Regulations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director gave notice of a City Council public hearing on Coastal Development Permit #068, together with its purpose, by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and disseminated said notice in accordance with adopted Coastal Development Permit procedures; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on September 28, 1994, considered FEIR 94-02, the Discretionary Approvals Applications and the LCP Amendment, took evidence as set forth in the record of its proceedings, made certain fmdings as set forth in their Recommending Resolution GPA-94-O2/PCZ-94-C, and recommended that City Council certify FEIR 94-02 and approve the Discretionary Approvals Applications and the LCP Amendment subject to certain terms and conditions; and, S..q3 WHEREAS, an Addendum to FEIR 94-02 ("Addendum 94-02A") was prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on November 1, 1994 on FEIR 94-02, Addendum 94-02A (collectively "FEIR 94-02"), the Discretionary Approvals Applications, the LCP Amendment and the CDP to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, the,Gity Council of the City, as the Responsible Agency, and the Redevelopment Agency, as the Lead Agency, have reviewed, analyzed and considered FEIR 94- 02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project; the Findings of Fact ("CEQA Findings"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Joint City/Agency Resolution No.- (the "CEQA" Resolution), the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have jointly certified FEIR 94-02 and Addendum EIR 94-02A thereto, made the necessary CEQA Findings, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to the CEQA Resolution; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 1994, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing on LCP Amendment #12 in accordance with Title 14, Division 5.5 of the California Code of Regulations; and, WHEREAS, subsequently, on November 1, 1994, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing on Coastal Development Permit #068 in accordance with adopted Coastal Development Permit procedures; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of Chula Vista, as Coastal Development Permit "approving authority" has reviewed the Channelside (Wal-Mart) Shopping Center proposal to construct approximately 220,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial floor area to be located at the southeast quadrant of National City Boulevard (Broadway) and State Route 54; and, WHEREAS, the City Council fmds, based on the following findings and subject to conditions of approval listed in Attachment I and contingent on the approval of LCP Amendment #12 by the California Coastal Commission, that the proposed Channels ide (Wal- Mart) Shopping Center project is in conformance with the policies of the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby fmd, order, detennine and resolve 1. The City Council does hereby adopt and incorporated herein Joint City Council and Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. certifying Final Environmental Impact Report EIR 94-02, and adopting Addendum EIR 94-02A thereto, the CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding 5114 Considerations. 2. The project site is currently undeveloped and does not provide coastal reliant recreational facilities or access to coastal reliant recreational facilities. The proposal, if undertaken, will not conflict or impact existing or anticipated recreational or visitor-serving facilities within the coastal zone and the proposed development is in conformity with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3 of the Public Resources Code. 3. The project is not located near or adjacent to the coast or bay, therefore, traffic generated by the project ~iII not interact with coastal traffic and the project will not interfere with coastal access or coastal traffic circulation 4. The proposed land use will be allowed by Local Coastal Program Amendment #12 to the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. The proposed land use has been reviewed and found, subject to conditions, and contingent on the approval of LCP Amendment #12, to be consistent with the policies of the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. 5. A portion of the historic Sweetwater River is located along a portion of the Western edge of the project site. The project proposes to upgrade and supplement the onsite wetlands and create and landscape a substantial wetland buffer, therefore, coastal sensitive habitat will be enhanced and protected as part of the project development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves Coastal Development Permit #068 subject to conditions listed in Attachment I herein attached. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary and Bruce M. Boogaard Community Development Director Agency General Counsel [LCPA#12 disklcdp68.rso] 5/15 ~ . ~ POf/E; !Bfant.! 5.q1o A'ITACHMENT I Coastal Development Pennit #068 Channelside (Wal-Mart) Shopping Center , . November 1, 1994 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Approval of Coastal Development Permit #068 shall be contingent on the California Coastal Commission's approval of LCPA #12 and shall be subject to any conditions placed on LCPA #12 by the California Coastal Commission. B. Approval of Còastal Development Permit #068 shall be contingent on the approval of and subject to any conditions placed on the U.S. Coastal Guard Bridge Permit (Rivers & Harbors Act - Section 10), the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 404 permit (Nationwide permit under #14, #15, or #16), and the California Department of Game Streambed Alteration Agreement (1603 consultation). C. Building pads must be elevated to comply with FEMA regulations and the developer shall comply with floodplain regulations or obtain an exception from the Board of Appeals for the Dixieline owned portion of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. D. The developer shall obtain a grading permit from the City and provide erosion control as determined by the City Engineer. When the grading plan for the project is submitted to the City of Chu1a Vista, separate coastal development permit review shall be required. E. The project shall incorporate all conditions of approval set forth in Tentative Parcel Map #95-03. F. The developer shall comply with applicable regulations of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). G. The applicant is required to comply with all requirements set forth in the Channelside Shopping Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) approved for the proposed project. H. The applicant is required to implement the Broadway Plaza Biological Program dated August 29, 1994 and as maybe revised in the future by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 5,q1 1. Freestanding signage may be allowed adjacent to the SR-54 corridor in lieu of wall signage (height and size to be determined), subject to review of an approval of the Design Review Committee. J. Site development shall be subject to Design Review Committee (DRC-94-38) conditions of approval. K. Site development shall be subject to City of Chula Vista Line Department conditions of approval including those,ronditions set forth by the Redevelopment Agency. L. All landscaping within the wetlands and buffers shall be in compliance with the adopted Broadway Plaza Biological Mitigation Program dated August 29, 1994 as may be revised by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. M. A 15' to 25' landscape buffer with enhanced landscaping complementary to landscaping within the SR-54 right-of-way shall be provided along the northerly property line as a component of the Chula Vista Greenbelt. N. Exterior lighting associated with the development, including the parking lot lighting shall be designed to not shine directly on or increase the background level of lighting on any coastal salt marsh habitat. O. The project shall comply with grading and drainage provisions set forth in Section 19.81.050 J. of the Bayfront Specific PIau, particularly the special provisions for the Inland Parcel in Section 19.81.050, J.2.d. Grading provisions shall be incorporated into grading plan notes as appropriate. P. A complete floor plan shall required to be submitted to the Building and Housing Department to determine that disabled access and exiting regulations wilJ have been met. Q. The development shall comply with Uniform Building Code Section 506 (b), Unlimited [building] Area which states that a building shall not be limited if the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system throughout and is entirely surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet in width. R. All landscaping, plant material, irrigation, revegetation, and fertilization programs shall be prepared and implemented in compliance with the final mitigation plan approved by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. S. Issuance of Coastal Development Permit #68 is contingent on approval of the Precise Plan by the Redevelopment Agency and shall be subject to conditions setforth in such Precise Plan. [LCPA#12 diskICDPMT68.CON] 5,q6 . RESOLUTION NO. /13/ A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF I CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE PROJECT AND THE PRECISE PLAN THEREFOR SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC PROJECT CONDITIONS; AND DECLARING THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO EFFECTIVENESS' 'AS SET FORTH IN THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CHULA VISTA TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, AND WAL- MART STORES, INC., HAVE BEEN SATISFIED WHEREAS, the area of the land which is subject of this resolution consists of approximately 31.63 acres located at the terminus of North Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, California within the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area, and further identified as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 562-324-02 and 562-324-04 ("Project Site"); and, WHEREAS, a person having control over all or a portion of the development of the Project Site, National Avenue Associates ("Developer"), has proposed the development of an approximately 212,000 square foot retail shopping center currently known as the Channelside Shopping Center, including a Wal-Mart Store as a major tenant, as such project is more particularly described in Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR-94-o2, ("Project"); and WHEREAS, on January 21, 1994, in connection with the Project, the Developer filed applications with the City of Chula Vista ("City") for (I) a General Plan Amendment from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare", and (2) Rezoning from "I-L-P" (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan) to "C-C-P" (Central Commercial-Precise Plan) ("Discretionary Approvals Applications"); and, WHEREAS, concurrently, the Developer requested that the City process an amendment to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program ("LCP Amendment") and issue a Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") thereunder. WHEREAS, concurrently, the Developer submitted a proposed "Precise Plan" application to the Redevelopment Agency staff; and WHEREAS, concurrently, City and Redevelopment Agency staff commenced environmental review of the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1994, the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the Precise Plan for the Project, subject to certain terms and conditions, including satisfactory completion of the CEQA process and approval of all necessary discretionary permits for the Project; and WHEREAS, after appropriate public hearings before, and recommendation by the Planning Commission, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the 5-Aq Resolution No. Page 2 City of Chula Vista on November 1, 1994 on Final Environmental Impact Report EIR 94-02, Addendum 94-o2A, the Discretionary Approvals Applications, the LCP Amendment and the CDP to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, after a'tluly noticed public hearing, pursuant to Joint City/Agency Resolution No.- (the "CEQA Resolution"), the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have jointly certified FEIR 94-02, adopted Addendum 94-o2A, made the necessary CEQA findings with respect thereto, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to the CEQA Resolution; and WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to Resolution No._, the City has amended the General Plan for the Project Site, pursuant to Ordinance No._, the City has amended the certified Local Coastal Program for the Project Site and pursuant to Ordinance No._, the City has amended the Zoning Map for the Project Site (collectively, the "Discretionary Approvals"). NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: I. Certification of Compliance with CEQA. The City Council does hereby adopt and incorporate herein Resolution No.- of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency cenifying FEIR 94-02, and adopting Addendum 94- 02A, the CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. II. ProjectlPrecise Plan Approval. The Redevelopment Agency does hereby adopt and approve the Precise Plan for the Project composed of the Design Review Committee application and the conditions of approval attached hereto as Attachment 1, and does hereby find that such Precise Plan is consistent with the other Discretionary Approvals for the Project. III. Satisfaction of Conditions of Effectiveness in DDA. The obligatory provisions in that certain "Redevelopment Disposition and Development Agreement (Wal-Mart Project) among the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista "Agency", Wal-mart Stores, Inc. "Redeveloper", and Chula Vista Town Center Associates, LP. "Seller" August 1994 (the "DDA") are contingent upon Developer:s obtaining all necessary "Entitlements" (as defined in the DDA) for the Project. The Entitlements approved by the Discretionary Approvals and this approval of the Precise Plan are hereby determined to satisfy certain of such conditions, with final effectiveness of the obligatory provisions of the DDA to remain contingent upon final approval of all remaining Entitlements. 5~/OO Resolution No. Page 3 IV. Consequence of Failure of Conditions. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution. V. 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, if the City so determines in its sole discretion, this ordinance shall be deemed to be revoked and of no further in force and effect. Presented by Approved as to form by ~ Chris Salomone Director of Community Development M,""amlla.....,,'_.- 5,rol --- "", ~ P~E; !Blank! 5;JOd- Channelside Shopping Center Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Agency Resolution 1431 Unfess otherwise indicated in the following conditions or in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project Environmental Impact Report, all conditions must be met prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project site. , . A. DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS (DRC-94-38) 1. Approval of this project shall be continent upon approval of GPA-94-02, PCZ-94-C and Local Coastal Progam amendment. 2. If the Precise Plan adopted for the subject site are substantially different from the ones assumed at the time the project was considered and approved by the Design Review Committee, it shall be returned to the DRC for reconsideration and approval. 3. Design solution for sign type I (freestanding sign along the freeway) shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee along with data obtained from the flag test for consideration and approval. 4. Signs type II (Major Tenant 2) shall be limited to 150 sq. ft. in area with no more than five tenants and a maximum height of 35 ft. 5. The sign program shall provide sign design criteria for the freestanding buifding. 6. Wall-mounted signs on the north elevation shall be limited to the two major tenant (tenants with more than 50,000 sq. ft. of floor area). 7. Formal landscape and irrigation plans addressing parking screening solution shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval along with the building permit submittaf package. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. Post security prior to the recordation of the Final Map, and be responsible for the installation of all improvements contained within this Section B (Engineering Department Conditions) to the satisfaction of the Chula Vista city Engineer. Security shall be provided to the City of Chula Vista in the form of, but not limited to, performance bonds, letter of credit and/or Wal- Mart corporate guarantee to the extend permitted by the City Attorney and the City Engineer. 5-/63 Channelside Shopping Center Page 2 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 The next five Conditions, numbered B2 through B6 must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit: ,. 2. Obtain and submit an updated soils/geotechnical report, consistent with the requirements of the City Grading Ordinance, and impfement the results thereof to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. Comply with the floodplain regulations or obtain a exception from the Board of Appeals for the Dixieline owned portion of the project. 4. Provide cafculations indicating that the channel on the south side of the project can convey a 50 year storm prior to issuance of a grading permit. 5. Include on grading plans an NPDES statement and comply with all permits required by the administering agency. 6. Install pre-treatment devices or facifities for the removal of urban pollutants from storm water runoff and provide a maintenance schedule indicating the facilities to be cleaned a minimum of four (4) times per year. 7. The next thirteen conditions, B7 a. through B7 m., must be satisfied prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the "Wal-Mart" building: a. Obtain the off-site right-of-way dedications along N. Fourth Avenue adequate to provide for the installation of public improvements as required by this project adjacent to the National City Market Place Shopping center as defined in condition B2 befow. b. Widen No. Fourth Avenue on the west side of the street to provide 50 feet of roadway within a 58 foot half width right-of-way between Brisbane to approximately 150 feet south of the SR 54 east bound off ramp. A taper shall be installed from a point approximately 20 feet southerly of the Nationaf City Market Place northerly property line to the point 150 feet from the east bound off ramp of SR 54. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb, gutter and sidewalk, a.c. pavement and base, storm drain and street lights. c. Install a raised median on N. Fourth Avenue from the SR 54 eastbound off ramps to a point 300 feet south of Brisbane Avenue. 5-,/fJL{ Channelside Shopping Center Page 3 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 d. Install a traffic signal at N. Fifth Avenue and "C" Street and restripe "C" Street as necessary to accommodate the signal. ,. e. Install "no parking" signs on N. Fifth Avenue, between "c" Street and its northerly terminus. f. Remove existing striping and restripe N. Fifth Avenue north of "C" Street to provide two southbound lanes, a continuous left turn lane and a northbound fane. g. Install a painted or raised median on N. Fifth Avenue north of "C"; Street to provide a shelter for trucks exiting from the most northerly GES driveway. The painted or raised median shall be designed to channelize southbound vehicles from -the two shopping centers into the most westerly southbound lane. h. Provide an interim driveway with one lane of traffic out and one lane of traffic in northerly of Brisbane at the existing driveway to Dixieline's back lot. Said driveway shall be restricted to right in and right out movements only. Use of said interim driveway will be allowed for "Wal-Mart" and "Dixieline" facilities only. i. Construct an access road between the project and N. Fourth Avenue which shall be aligned with the interim driveway, The access road shall be two lanes in width and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. j. Modify the traffic signal at Broadway (National City Boufevard) and 35th Street to provide signal phasing for the new east leg connection. k. Construct an access road, including a bridge crossing, between the project and the intersection of Broadway (National City Boulevard) and 35th Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The bridge crossing is to be privately owned and maintained. Obtain approval of the bridge' construction from the Local Coastal Commission, State Department of fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Coast Guard. 1) The developer retains the right to "meet and confer" with appropriate City personnel to amend Condition B.7.k. above in 15"/ D~ Channelside Shopping Center Page 4 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 the event that unforeseen circumstances, or circumstances beyond the control of the developer delays the bridge construction completion date beyond the anticipated completion date of the "Wal-Mart" store. Such requests to "meet and confer" to amend Condition B.7.k. shari be made in writing at feast ninety (90) days prior to the anticipated completion date of the "Wal-Mart" store. I. Remove existing striping on Broadway between the SR 54 bridge crossing and a point approximately 300 feet south of 35th Street and replace with new striping to provide a new southbound left turn lane for the projects access road. Said striping shari be in substantial conformance with the conceptual striping plan reviewed by the California Department of Transportation (CAL TRANS) as indicated in a letter from the CAL TRANS dated August 22, 1994. m. Vacate that portion of N. Fifth Avenue ("N. Fifth Avenue Extension") contained within the project which will be privately maintained. Area of vacation to be approved by the City Engineer. 1) The City of Chula Vista and its' Redevelopment Agency hereby agree to not require "compensation" for the "N. Fifth Avenue Extension" street vacation as required under Condition B 7 m. above. 8. The next three conditions, B8 a. through B 8 c., must be satisfied prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy after the Certificate of Occupancy issued for the "Wal-Mart" building: a. Obtain the off-site right-of-way dedications to arlow for the construction of the concentricarly aligned intersection of N. Fourth Avenue and Brisbane within the northerly portion of the Target shopping center. The amount of right-of-way necessary to satisfy this condition wirl be subject to approval of the City Engineer. b. Instarl a traffic signal and "four-way" concentric intersection at N. Fourth Avenue and Brisbane Avenue. The design of the Brisbane/Fourth Avenue signalized intersection wifl be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 5;fDb Channelside Shopping Center Page 5 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 c. Construct an access road from the Brisbane/Fourth Avenue signafized intersection to the project site. The final design of the access road shall be subject,t.o the approval of the City Engineer. 9. If the appficant proposes to request the City use eminent domain proceedings to acquire the off-site right-of-way necessary to construct the improvements, the applicant shall provide to the City of Chula Vista written evidence that an offer based upon an appraisaf has been made and rejected by the owners required to execute a grant of street easement. The developer must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that developer has taken all necessary and reasonable actions to obtain the right-of-way through private negotiations including but not limited to preparing a property appraisal and making an offer to acquire based on the estabfished fair market value for the property. If developer is unable to acquire the off-site right-of-way after good faith best efforts to do so, upon developer's written request City shall schedule and deliberate upon the acquisition of the off-site right-of-way by the exercise of its power of eminent domain. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) the City shari not be obfigated to exercise its eminent domain authority except as it deems consistent with the requirements of the law; and (b) the City shall retain its full and unfettered discretion to reject the use of eminent domain for any and all reasons. a. The developer retains the right to "meet and confer" with appropriate City personnel to amend Conditions B.8.a.,B.8.b.,and B.8.c. above in the event that both the developer and the City fail to obtain the necessary right-of-way to construct the signaliized concentric intersection at Fourth Avenue and Brisbane. The purpose of the right to "meet and confer" wifl be to facilitate meetings and discussions to jointly determine the appropriate traffic impact mitigation measures necessary to allow for the continued "build-out" of the center. 10. In the event that the signalized concentric intersection at Fourth Avenue and Brisbane is to be constructed as a condition to the development or redevelopment of the Target Shopping Center or the National City Marketplace project, a pro-rata share of the intersection improvement costs, incfuding land acquisition, shall be borne by the developer. In the event that the developer fails to contribute their pro-rata share, the City shari have the right to draw upon developer's security to the extent necessary to fulfill developer's pro-rata contribution obfigation. 5-ID? Channelside Shopping Center Page 6 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 1 1. Pay sewer capacity, Public Facilities Development Impact, Traffic Signal and other related fees as required by the Master Fee Schedule or Municipal Code at issuance of building permits. C. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1, Submit letters showing proof of payment of required school fees from the Chura Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District to the Director of building and Housing prior to the issuance of any building permit. 2. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, submit a water availabifity letter from the Sweetwater Authority which shows that adequate water flow is available to the site. 3. Submit a development [phasing plan for approval by the Directors of Community Development, Planning, and the City Engineer prior to the submittal of any building permit application. 4. Submit an enhanced master landscape plan for approval to the Director of Planning prior to issuance of any building permit. Said landscape plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and shall be drafted by a registered landscape architect. 5. . Install fire hydrants of a type and at locations specified by the Chula Vista Fire Department. Comply with this condition as determined by the Fire Department. 6. At time of submittal for building permits, submit all plans to the Crime Prevention Unit of the City of Chula Vista Police Department and implement all requirements as listed by the Crime Prevention Unit. Prior to opening for business, arrange a security survey with the Crime Prevention Unit and implement the results of said security survey. 7. Submit a lighting plan to the Director of Planning for approval prior to submission of any building permit application. Said lighting plan shall show and ensure that all lighting is directed away from traffic and nearby land uses, or otherwise shield so as to not allow glare from the Project Site to spill over the property line. Lighting shall illuminate the site but not beyond that considered appropriate and suitable for the use. 5-1 D~ Channelside Shopping Center Page 7 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 8. Participate in whatever water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula Vista may have in effect at the time of issuance of building permits, or agree to no net increq,s.e water consumption. D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. Environmental Impact Report In addition to complying with the requirements set forth in the Channelside Shopping Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IMMRP) approved for the proposed project, the following conditions must be met: a, Grading Plans shall include erosion control measures as specified in the Final EIR that include soil stabilization, revegetation, watering of construction areas and transport techniques to reduce airborne soil. b. The project is required to mitigate impacts to biological resources through implementation of the mitigation plan presented in the Final EIR and consistent with the requirements of the U. S. Coast Guard, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Copies of the executed permits/agreements shall be provided prior to issuance of Grading Permits. c. If breeding and/or nesting of the light-footed clapper rail or the Belding's savannah sparrow occurs within an area that experiences noise impacts from project construction in excess of 60 dB, construction techniques shall be modified or halted during the breeding/nesting season. A focused survey is required to determine the nature of impacts, if any, if construction is to take place during the breeding/nesting season prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. d. All structures shall be designed to conform to the 1994 Uniform Building Code IUBC) Guidelines, and at a minimum, shall conform to 1994 UBC Seismic Zone 4 factors. 2. Coastal Development Permit a. Approval of Coastal Development Permit #068 shall be contingent on the California Coastal Commission's approval of LCPA #12 and shall be subject to any conditions placed on LCPA #12 by the California Coastal Commission. 5-16~ Channelside Shopping Center Page 8 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 b Approval of Coastal Development Permit #068 shall be contingent on the approval of and subject to any conditions pfaced on the U, S. Coastal Guard E!,rjdge Permit (Rivers & Harbors Act - Section 10), the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers 404 permit (Nationwide permit under #154, #15, or #16), and the California Department of Game Streambed Alteration Agreement (1603 consultation). c. Building pads must be elevated to comply with FEMA regulations and the developer shall comply with floodplain regulations or obtain an exception from the Board of Appeals for the Dixieline owned portion of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. d. The developer shall obtain a grading permit from the City and provide erosion control and determined by the City Engineer. When the grading plan for the project is submitted to the City of Chula Vista, separate coastal development permit review shall be required. e. The applicant is required to impfement the Broadway Plaza Biological Program dated August 29, 1994 and as may be revised in the future by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. f. Signage for the project will be developed and reviewed in accordance with the site's Precise Plan guidelines and the Design Review Committee's Conditions of approval. g. Exterior lighting associated with the development, including the parking lot lighting shall be designed to not shine directly on or increase the background level of lighting on any coastal salt marsh habitat. h. The project shall comply with grading and drainage provisions set forth in Section 19.81,050 J, of the Bayfront Specific Plan, particularly the special provisions for the Inland Parcel in Section 19.81.050, J.2.d. Grading provisions shall be incorporated into the grading plan notes as appropriate. i. A complete ffoor plan shall be required to determine that disabled access and exiting regufations wiff have been met prior to issuance of a building permit. 5-1 If) Channelside Shopping Center Page 9 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431 j. The development shalf compfy with Uniform Building Code Section 506 (bl. Unlimited [building] Area which states that a building shall not be limited it. the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system throughout and is entirely surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet in width. fAKdisk/walconds.lst] 5~1 I "'. C1f'zú SP~E- !Blank! 5 -112- --..--.----- --- ---------------.--------- <:>- . [8 ,<¡;' ~ a: -'0 - :>..¡< Q~ ~ ~~ ~ - Cl lr}!§ .-< >- Cl T I- Q: is z ~ ~ LU - " ::E: ::;; " :r: -~ u -'5 ~ ~~ I- Q '-- « ~ Ë æ '" " ç u <i. i5 " ;¡ ~ if) - > i --- i _u """.-.::::( \ ~ I ~ I : :r: ¡ ¡ \ () - . I ! -1'-- ,~ i "'~ !: ~~ ~:: '----' c: ¡ Z I - I i ~ ; i ~ ; : . : @ I \ I ¡ . I I I I I .. i I r 1.- 1 ~~ ., ¡¡~ . ~. ~ ~aLJ£ !Blank A-l ATTACHMENT 2 - MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Mondav. Julv 25. 1994 Conference Rooms 2 and 3 4:30 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Spethman, Members Rodriguez, Way, and Duncanson MEMBERS ABSENT: Me~r Kelly, with notification STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Steve Griffm Associate Planner Luis Hernandez B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Vice Chair Spethman made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for the tape when speaking. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (SpethmanlRodriguez) (4-0) to approve the minutes of the June 27, 1994 meeting. D. STAFF COMMENTS Assistant City Attorney Rich Rudolph gave a review of the Brown Act, advising members that this law covers legislative bodies of governing agencies. He reviewed recent changes that have been enacted, noting that the Brown Act now also covers subcommittees; the exception for groups constituting less than a quorum has been deleted. Mr. Rudolph reviewed the sections of the Act which defme meetings. He stated that violation of the Act is a misdemeanor. He cautioned members that any discussions that develop consensus, even if not conducted at a hearing, would constitute a violation. Chair Spethman asked if discussion for the purpose of making one's concerns known (e.g. when a member would not be able to attend a meeting) would be permitted; Mr. Rudolph responded that information sharing would be acceptable, but discussion could not be for the purpose of developing collective concurrence. E. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS 1. DRC-94-48 San Die!!o Divers Suuulv 1084 Broadwav Commercial Bundin!! & Site Inmrovements Due to a conflict of interest, member Way excused himself from the meeting for the duration of the item. Staff Presentation Associate Planner Luis Hernandez reviewed the proposal, which consists of the redevelopm..:nt of the existing commercial site through the removal of the existing building, retaining the existing swimming A.'j .-- . DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE -2- JULY 25. 1994 pool as part of the 1,300 sq.ft. retail commercial facility, parking, landscaping, and decorative fencing. Mr. Hernandez stated that the existing nonconfonning freestanding sign will also be removed. Committee Discussion Member Rodriguez questioned potential new signage. Mr. Hernandez responded that any new signage would come to the committee only if the sign did not meet the design criteria contained in the zoning ordinance. Chair Spethman notèd that the colored elevations differed from the material sample provided; project designer Robin Franklin indicated that the gray was preferred, with members agreeing. In response to further questions, Mr. Franklin stated that the glass at the front elevation would be lightly tinted, and that the southerly fence was to remain. Members felt that the existing fence was not in keeping with the remainder of the wall proposed. MSUC (SpethmanlDuncanson) (3-0) to approve DRC-94-48, subject to staff conditions with the following additions: conditions "e" - A solid barrier shall be utilized at the south elevation, to be stUccoed on both sides or of a decorative block material. 2. DRC-94-33 Broadwav Commercial Center SE Comer Broadwav & SR 54 220.000 sa.ft. Commercial Center PreliminarY Presentation Presentation Project Architect James Leary reviewed the project, describing adjacent properties for orientation purposes and reviewing previous committee concerns. In response to those concerns, Mr. Leary pointed out the walkways provided through parking areas, noted that treatment of the rear elevation had been accomplished through the use of pilasters and banding, and presented overlays to demonstrate Caltrans planting in conjunction with proposed site planting, He further indicated that screen walls had been added at the north side loading area, and that Walmart has approved the entry canopy previously preferred by committee members. Mr. Leary added that he understood that freeway-oriented signage 'could be considered under a precise plan application. Mr. Leary stated that the parking area configuration had not been broken up as originally discussed. He stated that this was an operational rather than a design issue, pointing out that numerous other centers have long, unbroken drive aisles and that Walmart wanted to retain the parking spaces. He stated that there is no ordinance to preclude the present drive-aisle length, and added that it was also felt that the addition of cross-aisle could present a safety issue, Committee Discussion Members concurred that breaking up the length of the drive-aisles was not critical. Chair Spethman asked how the Precise Plan modifier could pennit a freeway-oriented sign; Associate Planner Hernandez stated that as part of the rezoning of the property, precise plan guidelines could be adopted for this property to include provisions for signage not oriented to the property frontage. He noted that the committee could not act upon any such proposal until a General Plan amendment and Precise Plan guidelines are adopted for this property, but stated that the Design Review Committee could review the proposal conceptually. Chair Spethman indicated concern that a precedent might be set in approving such a sign. A .}f . DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE -3- JULY 25. 1994 Property owner Jerry Alford pointed out that the size of this development justifies the use of the "P" modifier, noting that the adjacent property in National City will also have a pole sign oriented toward the freeway. Mr. Hernandez added that Committee action on this item is a recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency, which has fmal approval authority. Members discussed the proposed site and building design; there was general concurrence that issues raised previously had been addressed. In discussing proposed signage, members indicated that the current design was not acceptable. 'Mr. Alford stated that he could acCept the elimination of all but two major tenants on the sign. In response to questions regarding height, Phil Adams of Gatlin Development stated that flag tests would be conducted from 50' to 80' to determine appropriate visibility. Mr. Hernandez stated that since staff had recommended deleting the freeway-oriented sign, recommendations regarding design had not been made. However, he advised that height and design would be two issues of concern if staff was to review the freestanding sign for approval. Members agreed that these were two issues that needed to be addressed. Mr. Hernandez suggested that the committee could provide comments and request that the sign be brought back to the committee for review and approval. MSUC (SpethmanlRodriguez) (4-0) that the committee has reviewed and considered EIR-94-02. MSUC (SpethmanlRodriguez) (4-0) to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve DRC-94-38, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the following modifications: delete condition "c"; modify condition "e" to state "Sign Type I shall identify major tenants only. Variable design solutions along with results of flag tests shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. 3. PSP-95-01 LB. Partnership 885 East "H" Street Planned Sil!D Prol!ram 4. PSP-94-06 LB. Partnership 865 East "H" Street Planned Sil!n Prol!ram Staff Presentation Associate Planner Hernandez reviewed the proposed planned sign program (pSP-94-06) for the single- tenant user at 865 E. H Street. He stated that while the Rancho Del Rey Commercial Center design guidelines allow a maximum of two signs per building, the applicant is requesting two additional signs: a non-illuminated logo on the south elevation and an internally illuminated sign on the west sign. Mr. Hernandez noted that the Design Review Committee has allowed non-illuminated logos along East "H" Street for previous users. He stated that staff found the proposed sign program to be consistent with previously approved sign programs in the RDR Commercial Center. and stated that staff recommended approval of the program as presented. A.5 - DESIGN REVIEW COM:MITTEE -4- JULY 25. 1994 Mr. Hernandez next reviewed the planned sign program (pSP-95-01) proposed for the multi-tenant building located at 885 East "H" Street. He noted that the signs designated for the north, east, and west elevations were well adapted to the building design. Mr. Hernandez reviewed the logos proposed for the building's south elevation, noting that it would be difficult to approve such logos for only one tenant; he pointed out that this would be the only multi-tenant building within this commercial center. Mr. Hernandez asked that the committee consider the proposed signage and approve, deny, or continue the item as deemed appropriate. ,. Project applicant Janice DeYoung reviewed the proposed tenant logos on the south elevation of the multi-tenant building. Committee Discussion Chair Spethman stated that he was concerned that the logos for the multi-tenant building were proposed in several different colors, sizes, and scripts. Ms. DeYoung responded that there were no other sites available in the commercial center; therefore, this wilI be the only multi-user site and the committee would not be setting a precedent. Spethman added that 30 sq.ft. appeared too large for a logo on the south elevation. Member Rodriguez suggested that the logos for the multi-tenant building all be made the same size. He stated that if possible, an overlay showing the colors and sizes on the buildings could help members envision the actual appearance and would more accurately indicate whether there would be a problem. Project Architect John Rumsey stated that an overlay could be prepared. Chair Spethman asked if the Dow logo would be non-ilIuminated; Ms. DeYoung stated that it would be. MSUC (SpethmanlRodriguez) to approve PSP-94-06 as presented. MSUC (SpethmanlRodriguez) to continue PSP-95-01 to the next meeting to allow the applicants time to prepare an overlay depicting the actual logos proposed for the south elevation of the building. F. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. 7.~J~ A-b - ATTACHMENT 3 - MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 p.m. Conference Room #1 Monday. July 25. 1994 Public Services Buildin!! CALL MEETING TO ORDERIROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 6:34 by Chair Burrascano. Present: Commissioners Kracha, Hall, Ghougassian, and Myers (arrived at 6:40). Absent: Guerreiro, Johnson. Mr. Reid advised that none of the absent members had contacted staff. S t a f f present: Environmental Review 'Coordinator Doug Reid, Landscape Planner Garry Williams, Environmental Projects Manager Joe Monaco, Conservation Coordinator Michael Meacham. APPROV AL OF MINUTES MSUC (KrachalHall) (4-0) to approve the minutes of the July 11, 1994 meeting, as presented. 1'oTEW BUSINESS 1. EIR-94-02 Channel Side Shopping Center Staff Presentation - Mr. Reid advised the commission members that the City Attorney's office had ruled that he had a conflict of interest with this project. Joe Monaco of the Community Development department presented the project, briefly describing the proposed commercial center to be located south of Highway 54 and east of Broadway. He stated that it had been determined that there were impacts created by this project in two areas that were not mitigable; those areas are air quality, and the greenbelt. He stated that current technology did not provide for mitigation of air quality, and that there was currently no policy for addressing mitigation for the greenbelt. Project applicants Phil Adams and Gerald Alford presented site plans and further described the project. Commission Discussion- Member Hall asked if the bridge at Broadway would be a fill bridge, stating that a fill bridge would destroy the greenbelt connection. Mr. Alford stated that a fill bridge would be the first preference as it would preclude the presence of transients below; however, alternatives include a spari bridge, and a bridge that is part span, part f1l1. He discussed the wetlands, pointing out that the project is respecting the 100' buffer from mapped wetland areas. Member Myers asked if there was any data supporting the need for more commercial development; Mr. Monaco stated that the applicants have done market analysis, and that staffs fiscal analysis showed no impact beyond the first year. Potential school impacts were discussed. Chair Burrascano expressed concern regarding the high liquidation factor, and also asked about success criteria for coastal salt marsh mitigation. Mr. Monaco stated that this would be included in the permit process. Public Comment - Mr. William E. Claycomb of .Save Our Bay, Inc.. expressed concerns regarding the decrease of salt marsh area and discrepancies in the box culvert size. He stated that the blacktop of the parking area will create additional runoff, and questioned mitigation of drainage. Mr. Alford stated that the salt marsh area would not be decreased by this project, and that drainage has been accommodated. MSC (HalIlKracha) (4-1, Myers opposed) to accept draft EIR 94-02. A-r' Resource Conservation Commission -2 Julv 25. 1994 2. City Landscape Manual Staff Presentation - Mr. Reid reminded members that they had reviewed this item some months ago in conjunction with the Negative Declaration. He stated that the City Attorney had since ruled that this project is exempt from environmental review. Landscape planner Garry Williams stated that there had been numerous revisions to the document, including input from two developer workshops. Committee Discussion - Member Ghougassian stated that the current manual is a definite improvement over the previous document; other members concurred. Member Kracha disagreed with the generalities regarding eucalyptus trees on page 27, noting that many species are hazardous. He also stated that while contractors are required to install trees with a minimum 3" girth, the City does not appear to adhere to this. (Member Ghoughassian left the meeting at 7:30 p.m.) MSUC (HallIKracha) (4-0) to recommend adoption of the landscape manual. Member Myers commented that she did not find the wording regarding use of drought-tolerant planting to be strong enough. 3. Ideas to hnprove Environment Mr. Reid suggested continuing this item to the next meeting (to a workshop to discuss ideas), while noting that he would not be at the next meeting due to vacation, and Barbara Reid would be taking his place. Mr. Meacham presented the items in which he had been involved. He advised that Laidlaw had asked for a plan to accommodate mixed waste paper, adding that a mixed waste paper plant is interested in locating in Chula Vista. Mr. Meacham stated, regarding composting, that yard waste is now sent to Organic Recycling West, a state-certified facility, rather than the County facility; he added that the program is cheaper and diverts more than twice the amount of the curbside recycling program. Regarding a purchasing policy regarding use of recycled materials, Mr. Meacham stated that this is being looked at, although an effort is made to purchase such materials now. Chair Burrascano suggested that RCC members contact the assigned staff person to discuss their items. 4. Stenciling at Drainage Inlets Mr. Reid stated that there is a permit process, with fees, for stenciling on rights-of-way. He noted that fees are typically waived for non-profit organizations by the City Manager. Mr. Meacham described the storm drain education programs on which monies are currently being spent. A.~ .... . . Resource Conservation Commission -3 Julv 25. 1994 5. Review of Planning ColIlllÛssion for July 27, 1994 Mr. Reid reviewed the Planning Commission agenda. Regarding item #2 (PCM-94-26), member Hall staled she would be opposed to higher densities. Staff Comments Mr. Reid noled that the City Manager had taken a budget for historical signs to the City Coul\.cjl as a budget supplement; the Council had approved $1200.00 for signs. He also indicaled that the 4(d) rule may be on the next RCC agenda. Chair's Comments Chair Burrascano staled that she would contact those members not present regarding their assigned environment improvement subjects. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ~~ Patty Nevins, Recorder A-q --. ~ . ~ P a;j E- !Blank A../o ATTACHMENT 4 PC Minutes -5- September 28, 1994 Exce11Jt from unaDDroved Planning Commission minutes - 9/28/94 ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: (A) GPA-94-04/PCZ-94-C; CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND REZONING FOR 31.63 ACRES LOCATEQ. SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 54 (SR54), BETWEEN BROADWAY (NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD) AND FIFrH AVENUE - National Avenue Associates (B) CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS #12 AND #13 TO THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND BA YFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN Chair Tuchscher directed staff to present the General Plan Amendment and Zoning and also the Amendment No. 12 of the Local Coastal Program, which was specific to the project. Amendment No. 13 had been brought forth and represented as a housekeeping type of amendment to the Local Coastal Program, but to keep things "project specific", he asked that Amendment No. 13 be presented separately at the end of the public hearing. He noted that the Commission had the ability to act independently on the Local Coastal Program amendments. Commissioner Moot asked to be excused from consideration of this matter. One of the partners at his finn had in the past represented Gatlin Development. While his flnn did not represent them with respect to this particular project, he felt it was appropriate for him not to consider and vote on this matter. Commissioner Salas noted that she worked for the Employment Development Department and the State of California. Currently, they were working with WaIMart in tenns of recruiting employees on their site on I-80S and Palm. It was not related to the Channelside Shopping Center, but she wished it to be noted in the record that she had worked for WalMart in the past. Attorney Basil stated it was remote enough that it did not represent an impennissible conflict. He felt she could vote on this. Principal Community Development Specialist Haynes introduced the project team and those who would be involved in the presentation, and then gave an overview of the project, noting that this was an inter jurisdictional project with a great deal of cooperation between the Cities of Chula Vista and National City. Inasmuch as it was a redevelopment project, it was their charge to create jobs and help stimulate economic development and growth. Approximately 400 jobs would be created by the project; in addition, staff would be working with Gatlin Development to prepare an agreement that would work with Sweetwater Adult High School and the Southwestern College to provide WalMart with trained employees, with Chula Vista residents having the first opportunity in obtaining those jobs. A.. " PC Minutes -6- September 28, 1994 Environmental Projects Manager Monaco stated the Planning Commission had previously considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Channelside Shopping Center at their meeting of August 10, 1994. The Final EIR had been prepared and was before the Commission at this time. Three main issues were raised during the public review period which were addressed in the Final EIR--school impacts, traffic safety, and biological impacts. Regarding school impacts, the Iiinal EIR stated that the current State-mandated school impact fee is adequate mitigation for the enrolment impacts that would be caused by the development of the project. The School Districts disagreed with this conclusion and had indicated that State- mandated fees are not adequate in lieu of their current capital cost per student. To offset this imbalance, the developer had agreed to provide mitigation beyond the State-mandated fees in the fonn of offering one relocatable classroom per district. That mitigation had been agreed upon by the School Districts, and staff was working with both the applicant and the School Districts to make those arrangements. In the area of traffic safety, comments had been received from Worley, Schwartz, Garfield and Rice, the counsel to GES Exposition Services, an adjacent land use. Their specific concerns regarded potential conflicts between traffic entering and exiting the proposed commercial center site and their large truck traffic egressing the GES site. The Final EIR addressed the issue, but a second letter received from GES' s counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the level of specificity in the mitigation offered. To address that concern, staff recommended that an amendment be made in the Final EIR to the response to comments to require conditions of approval as follows: 1. Prohibition of parking on Fifth Avenue from "C" Street to its north end; 2. Restriping of Fifth Avenue along this link to provide for two southbound lanes, one of which would act as a truck lane from the GES driveway south to "C" Street; and 3. Provision for sheltering of that truck lane at the northerly end of the street to allow exclusive use by the trucks. Regarding the biology issues raised in the Draft ErR, Mr. Monaco stated that a detailed mitigation plan had been provided in the Final EIR in the appendix to the response to comments that set forth a specific mitigation and revegetation plan for impacts that would be caused by the bridge over to Broadway. Those plans had been conceptually agreed to by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and also by the Department of Fish & Game. Mr. Monaco noted that an additional comment had been received the previous day from the law [Inn of Davis, Cowell & Bowe, representing Mr. William McMahon and other Chula Vista residents. This comment had been received well after the close of the public review period on the Draft EIR and the City had no legal obligation to respond to that comment in the Final EIR. Mr. Monaco reviewed the points raised in that comment, however, and showed that the EIR had adequately addressed those points. A-I').. PC Minutes -7- September 28, 1994 Mr. Monaco stated that staff recommended an additional modification to the Mitigation Monitoring Program that the timing for traffic improvements be modified to state that they would be consistent with the conditions of approval. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR as modified and, if the Commission chose to recommend approval of the project, that the Commission recommend ad@ption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program as modified and adoption of the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Associate Planner Herrera made a presentation at this point regarding the proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning. The proposed General Plan amendment from Research and Limited Manufacturing to Commercial Thoroughfare did not propose to modify the greenbelt designation currently depicted on the land use diagram, which would continue to front on Fifth Avenue and between existing major retail areas to the east of the project site. Mr. Herrera also discussed buffering and signage, and gave a slide presentation showing access and egress, bridge alignment, building site elevations, and an architect's rendition of the fmal project build-out including the bridge and the National City marketplace, as well as the proposed project. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a) the draft resolution recommending that City Council certify the Final EIR, adopt the CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Certificate of Overriding Considerations, amend the General Plan by redesignating the 31.63 acres depicted in Exhibit A from Research and Limited Manufacturing to Thoroughfare Commercial, and b) the draft City Council ordinance to change the zone classification from I-P to C-C-P for the 31.63 acres depicted on Exhibit D, including Precise Plan Guidelines contained therein. Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan then presented the staff report regarding Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 12, which involved an amendment to the Bayfront Specific Plan and Land Use Plan. Ms. Buchan noted that Amendment No. 12 was specific to the land use of the proposed Channelside Shopping Center project site, not specific to the project itself. The Channelside Shopping Center site is currently designed for Industrial General under the Local Coastal Program. Staff recommended a change to Commercial Thoroughfare, which is subject to the Central Commercial zoning with the "P" modifier which would be consistent with the rezoning, the General Plan Amendment, and the project. Commissioner Martin questioned the zone area of National City and the existing Dixieline Lumber. Mr. Herrera answered that the present zoning for the eastern portion of that area was CG-PD (General Commercial Planned Development) for the lumber yard. The area to the west was CH-CZ (Heavy Commercial Coastal Zone). Those zones were consistent with Chula Vista at this time. Commissioner Martin commented that some of the property at the end of the Second Avenue bridge which belonged to Chula Vista was in the middle of National City. The property of Dixieline which was in the boundaries of National City was in Chula Vista. Commissioner A-13 --- - PC Minutes -8- September 28, 1994 Martin asked if the channel could be used to divide the cities, and trade the properties. Mr, Herrera assured Commissioner Martin that had been discussed with National City on various occasions and nothing had come out of it. Commissioner Martin was concerned with traffic in the intersection between National City and Chula Vista. ,. Community Development Specialist Haynes stated. that was the genesis of the need for a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of National City, because both projects were starting concurrently. Staff recognized that there were some jogged city boundaries both on the north and the south side of SR-54; however, those issues were beyond staff, so in the Memorandum of Understanding both cities agreed to cooperate with one another in tenns of designing a project that worked well together, and each understanding the traffic impacts that each project would have on the corresponding city. In a development agreement being prepared, staff is trying to clarify some of those problems. Staff is in the process of trying to negotiate a landswap of a.,6.1-acre parcel on the north end of Fifth Avenue to National City in exchange for other coru;iderations. Mr. Haynes felt that, in the end, both cities would be protected from traffic impacts that each project would have on the other city. Addressing Commissioner Martin's concern regarding the National City Swap Meet, Principal Planner Bazzel stated that the only portion of the area which was in the City of Chula Vista was the drive-in theater, not the swap meet. Chair Tuchscher asked if staff agreed that they felt comfortable that most of the major issues associated with these two projects would be able to be handled jointly with the City of National City due to the Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Haynes concurred. Commissioner Ray, referring to page 4.8-20 of the EIR, regarding the widening of National City Boulevard/B,roadway to a six-lane street between "E" and SR-54, asked if the thoroughfare would be widened and the bridge rebuilt. Mr. Monaco replied that the General Plan showed Broadway as a six-lane major in that location, which would be at buildout. Commissioner Ray asked if that would be in 1995. Traffic Engineer Rosenberg stated that Broadway had a projection of approximately 40,000-50,000 cars under the scenario of the buildout, when all the land of Chula Vista is developed to the present allowed zoning. This would take place in a 20-30 year period. Commissioner Ray asked if that would be inclusive of Dtay Ranch, etc. Mr. Rosenberg concurred. It was included in the ErR to show what the ultimate section of that roadway would be at some time in the future. Commissioner Ray stated that this project would not be proposed to exacerbate that problem and speed up the buildout time, given the volume anticipated to go to this project. Mr. Rosenberg replied that it was a cumulative effect, but the amount of traffic contributed by the project was A -Ill -" PC Minutes -9- September 28, 1994 very small compared to the ultimate growth expected on that particular section of the street system. C~issioner Ray asked if there was any concern about the back-up from the left-turn lane at Broadway/"C" Street traffic going south. He felt the traffic on the bridge was already heavy during peak hours. Mr. Rosenberg said they were concerned; there is a constraint there; the wooden bridge did not provide -aøequate distance for a left-turn lane to turn in a southbound direction to go east on "C" Street. The project is proposing a new connection to 35th Street to provide for a left-turn facility into the project at that location, which would relieve the pressure at "C" Street. Mr. Rosenberg stated it is a problem; National City has a project to widen the bridge and will widen it to provide for a bike lane, but it would not be sufficient to extend the left-turn pocket much distance. It would be a problem until the creek crossing was built to a standard four-lane section. Commissioner Ray asked if the projections proved inaccurate, and there is extensive traffic build-up at that intersection, what was the mitigation for it. Given the fact that the bridge is in National City's jurisdiction, what could be done about it other than possibly closing off the left- turn lane. Mr. Rosenberg answered that the mitigation possible would be to adjust the phasing of the signal to allow the southbound moves to operate independent of the northbound moves so the left turn and through moves could be doubled up. The traffic could be handled at least for the short tenn until a capital program could be developed to improve the creek bridge crossing. Commissioner Ray asked if, at buildout, National City had not expanded the bridge, did Chula Vista have any power enforcing the expansion of the bridge. Mr. Rosenberg replied that it would strictly be a National City initiated project. Concurring with Mr. Ray, Mr. Rosenberg stated that as long as there is a bottleneck, there would not be much more capacity. The capacity is limited to the weakest link of the system, and until the bridge is improved, it will be constrained. Commissioner Ray asked about the internal traffic at Fifth Avenue into the project. Comparing it to Terra Nova, he asked if there would be traffic backed up until a median had to be installed to control the traffic. Mr. Rosenberg stated that the environmental traffic consultant had looked at internal circulation, and in his own estimation as well, the amount of traffic generated at that intersection was not comparable to the Terra Nova. They felt the intersection could operate sufficiently with an all-way stop, particularly with the access road connection to Fourth Avenue which would provide most of the relief. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Donald R, Worley, 401 B Street, Suite 1150, San Diego 92101, representing GES Exposition Services, stated they had some traffic concerns and, with the three mitigation measures added as mitigation measures in the ErR, they were in agreement with the ErR and they could support the project. A-/5 PC Minutes -10- September 28, 1994 Jerry Alford, 2445 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400, San Diego 92101, stated he is a principal of National Avenue Associates, the applicant, co-developing the project with Gatlin Development. He gave some history of the project, and commended staff for their efforts. Mr. Alford concurred with staff's recommendations with the mitigations and asked the Planning Commission's support in recommending the project to City Council for approval. Commissioner Salas asked Mr. Alford how this WalMart Store compared to the store on 1-805 and Palm in tenns of the size. Mr. Alford deferred to Mr. Phil Adams, the builder. Phil Adams, 12625 High Bluff Drive, #304, San Diego, commended City staff for the effort they had put in the project. Mr. Adams stated it had been a "herculean" effort to work with two developers, two cities, and dealing with all the different agencies including the Coast Guard. One of the major concerns of WalMart had been traffic; another concern was with respect of the bridge, which brought them in contact with the Local Coastal Commission, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, and U.S. Fish & Game. Mr. Adams noted a traffic study had been done in connection with the EIR, and asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Salas repeated her question regarding the size of the store. Mr. Adams said the store in Chula Vista was larger than the one at 1-805 and Palm. Commissioner Salas stated that in the Planning Commission package they had been shown three different alternatives for the bridge. In the environmental impact report, the worst case scenario of the bridge was .15 acres of wetlands. Mr. Adams stated that took into consideration the impact of construction. He discussed the different alternatives, and, using the overhead, he explained that the Fish & Wildlife Service and the Dept. of Fish & Game had agreed with a partial bridge and an on-grade crossing. Commissioner Salas questioned the landscape buffer which had been used as mitigation measure for the greenbelt. She asked if the landscape buffer would be something that the public could walk through. Mr. Adams replied that the designated buffer was a buffer from the actual wetlands. The USF&WS had asked that the public be precluded from entering the area and to encourage wildlife and other habitats for this particular area. The project proposed to plant a bramble bush along with landscaping and screening the border of the WalMart site. Commissioner Martin asked if they planned to install any pennanent tables, etc. at the north end of the property where it met the greenbelt, where people could meet to ride horses through the greenbelt. Mr. Adams stated they had made it user friendly; they did have areas for people to sit down, relax, and enjoy themselves. There were pedestrian accesses running through the site, with a sidewalk across the bridge to Fourth Street. Commissioner Martin clarified that he was concerned about the true greenbelt concept as it was originally fonned in the channel area itself. Chair Tuchscher stated that the jurisdictional boundaries created a real conflict at this location for that. He asked staff to comment. A. J Ib PC Minutes -11- September 28, 1994 Principal Planner Bazzel responded that in the initial review of the project, the 28-mile circumferential combination open space and trail system surrounding the City, there was a requirement that a master plan be developed for that. The master plan had not been developed yet; however, development pressures occurring in the Sweetwater Valley as well as in the atay Valley have necessitated looking at some of these issues sooner than the master plan preparation. The primary goal is to assure that the trail system is intact surrounding the City. Staff had looked at many areas where that. opportunity exists. Mr. Bazzel, using the overhead, showed the existing trail system and noted the constraints as far as having jurisdictional control, and existing development to the east. The greenbelt also consisted of open space linkage where connections to other park systems back up to the trail system, as well as visual open space, all become factors. Mr. Bazzel stated that with this particular project, staff realized that the trail would have to be achieved along the levee of the channel on the north side of the eastbound travel lanes of SR-54, but there was still a need to preserve the open space within the river recharge area, and to provide a visual buffer along the back side of the project and along the edge of the river recharge area. That would be done at the site plan and landscape review at the precise plan level and at the implementation level. Mr. Adams stated that the area was also a habitat for transients and migrants, and a part of their logic was to create the area, and re-landscape it with benns and types of vegetation to discourage possible settlements. They hoped National City would take the same steps when they redesign and reconstruct their bridge crossing. Commissioner Ray questioned the internal traffic, asking their rationale when exiting the bridge onto the WalMart project site, to take the traffic through the perimeter rather than through the center of the parking lot. They did not want to have a straight shot, since it would be difficult to control traffic speed. They felt it would be best to create a meandering type of route to discourage people shortcutting from one street to another. Commissioner Ray, regarding the entrance off Fifth Avenue, asked the rationale for the entrance further to the south. Mr. Adams stated it allowed for an escape route from the shopping center. It was a logical road that traversed through the center and terminated at that specific point. He explained to Mr. Ray their thinking regarding traffic collection and dispersement. More discussion followed regarding the internal traffic and the rationale for using signs rather than signals for the intersection. Commissioner Ray commented that traffic would probably be coming off SR-54 from the eastern territory or from Broadway or Fifth through Chula Vista, which would impact Fifth Avenue south of "E" Street. He believed the majority of the traffic would probably come off Fourth Avenue and go through the project site. Traffic Engineer Rosenberg commented, since Mr. Ray was comparing again to Terra Nova, that the driveway at Terra Nova generated about 24,000 cars per day at East "H" Street. Fifth Avenue in this project would only generate about 7 ,000 cars. There was a total of about 15,000 driveway trips. Seven thousand of those trips were attracted to Fourth Avenue, 5,000 to Fifth A- f7 ..... PC Minutes -12- September 28, 1994 Avenue, and another 1,000 to 2,000 would be attracted to Broadway. The kind of impact Mr. Ray was looking at was not comparable to Terra Nova, except for the fact that there was an intersection that would have a significant amount of traffic--but not at the level of Terra Nova, Regarding the interchange, Me. Rosenberg concurred that most of the traffic would be attracted to the full interchange at Fourth and Highiand/SR-54 interchange because it provided moves to all directions. The intersection would be designed and signalized to provide the capacity needed for that volume. Regarding Fifth.Avenue and the four-legged intersection, based on the numbers Mr. Rosenberg had seen, it appeared that an all-way stop and the lane configuration being proposed would be sufficient and signalization would not be necessary. Commissioner Ray asked if this had been run through the traffic model. Mr. Rosenberg said they had used the modeling approach to determine the level of service to be expected at all of the intersections the project touched on. Commissioner Ray asked what the pad to the southwest of the project would be. Mr. Adams said it was undetermined at this point. They were hopeful to attract another high volume use. Commissioner Ray stated he assumed they had taken the highest potential usage to discuss the impacts. Environmental Coordinator Monaco confIrmed. Commissioner Martin asked how far it was from the front of WalMart to the bòdge on Fifth Avenue; he wished to compare it to the distance from Ralphs and Target between Oxford and Palomar. Mr. Rosenberg believed Mr. Martin was referring to the motoòsts who wished to access the Pòce Club to avoid the intersection of Broadway and Palomar. Mr. Rosenberg did not believe the situation was similar here, because the desire to shortcut through the project would strictly be to get from Broadway to Fourth Avenue, but the center was the generator and was the destination. He did not see the parallel. Commissioner Martin again asked how far it was from the main door of WalMart to the bòdge and the turn-off. He was concerned with possible stacking at the front door if several cars were stopping for passengers, and asked ifMr. Adams was satisfied with that. Mr. Adams stated that he was satisfied; this was a wider than normal area and was about 400' in length. Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Rosenberg to descòbe the mitigation measures discussed and agreed to by consensus by GES, particularly the truck lane on Fifth Avenue. Mr. Rosenberg said the present roadway was 56' wide and striped with one lane in each direction and parking was permitted. Staff was proposing to prohibit parking on both sides, use the parking area and some of the additional width of the street that was available to restripe the roadway to four lanes, There would be one northbound lane beginning at "C" Street, which would allow a continuous left-turn lane to turn into the first dòveway into the Center and to the four-way intersection where an exclusive left-turn would be created. The òght lane would be a choice lane to go straight or turn right to the Dixieline area. There would be only one southbound lane at the A-g PC Minutes -13- September 28, 1994 intersection, and immediately opposite the driveway for the GES project, there would be a second lane so the trucks could turn into that lane without the interference of the project traffic. That lane would be shared until it approached the intersection of "C" Street, where there would be two lanes to provide capacity. Chair Tuchscher asked about the "sheltering" exclusive use. Mr. Rosenberg replied that it was an island configuration at the south leg of the access road intersection. It could be a painted or raised island which was a means of controlling traffic as they turn south onto the roadway so that they stay in the lane closest to the curb, or the west side of the roadway, so that the inside lane could be created solely for the use of the trucks as they turned out of their driveway. Commissioner Ray, regarding the intersection of Fifth and "C" Street, asked if there was any proposal to make that four lanes all the way through from "C" Street to Broadway. Mr. Rosenberg stated this project would not be required to do any widening on "C" Street. They did not feel that was an impact created by the project. The estimated volume occurring on "C" Street could be accommodated within the existing width. Some adjustments may have to be made in the striping and prohibiting parking. Commissioner Ray was concerned with traffic leaving the ball fields, and asked if there would be dedicated left-turn lanes going into the ballfields and right-turn lanes going into the project site. Mr. Rosenberg said that was not a condition, but it may be necessary to alter the bike lane configuration and create a third lane to allow for a continuous left-turn lane to provide that protection for turning into the ballfield site. Commissioner Ray asked what was the measurement device before the City would take action on that. Mr. Rosenberg said the threshold standards were their basic guide, which were usually relative to the safety perfonnance. Eventually, "C" Street may have to be widened and consistent with Fifth Avenue; however, this project did not generate the need. There may be a cumulative growth impacts by other projects in the area. In answer to Mr. Ray, he stated reported accidents were used as a measure. Jack Duncan, 3250 Sports Arena, San Diego 82119, representing Dixieline Lumber, regarding the letter received that day from the law firm of Davis, Cowell, and Bowe, stated this law firm or its clients had no objection to the project as a development in the City of Chula Vista. They objected to the hiring practices of WalMart; it is a political action group of labor unions, one of which happened to be the carpenters union. Dixieline, being a union employer, was aware that the carpenters union was involved in this and had met with them on several occasions to discuss it with them. Dixieline, as ¡l union employer, objected to this type of labor negotiating. ., They had been pro labor for their entire history, and to the best of his knowledge had negotiated with the Teamsters and Carpenters over the years in good faith and fairness and had an excellent relationship with the unions they do business with. He felt if the unions had an issue with WalMart, those issues should be raised in the board room or in their stores, not by blocking what Dixieline considered a very fme quality development. Mr. Duncan also congratulated staff. It had been a very difficult development because of the levels of government, the two cities, the two developers, etc. A-VJf --. PC Minutes -14- September 28, 1994 Chair Tuchscher asked if there were any questions relative to this project or Amendment No. 12 of the Local Coastal Plan. Chair Tuchscher then asked Principal Community Development Specialist Buchan to make the staff presentation on Amendment No. 13 of the Local Coastal Plan. Ms. Buchan asked that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the amendment be approved. The amendment basically involved corrections and clean-up. She asked that a change be made to the proposed amendment on land use exhibit no. 3. There were two land use changes; one involved changing an Industrial Research parcel. The I-R designation should be changed to I-G (from Industrial Research to Industrial General). She wished to withdraw that particular portion of the amendment. The I-R portion of the LCP was in the Montgomery Specific Plan Area and there had been some underlying land use rezoning with the Montgomery Specific Plan. Her proposal was inconsistent with that zoning, and she had to review that. The change to CVH from C- T was still being recommended. Ms. Buchan stated that Amendment No. 13 was varied and could be confusing. She would be glad to answer any questions, if there was anything specific. Chair Tuchscher did not have any specific questions, but stated that he found it difficult to get through and somewhat confusing. He would like a more in-depth presentation. On another project, they had used a matrix and he felt that was an easier way to get through some of the issues. The way it was presented was challenging to him. Ms. Buchan agreed, and volunteered to go through each page. Regarding the land use plan, on the graphic and also in the text under the Commercial uses--in the graphic, there were C-V, CVH, and C-P designations. In the text, there was a C-T designation discussed. The CVH and C- T were used interchangeably. She was making that land use designation consistent by taking the C-T out and using the CVH consistently. Commissioner Ray suggested that Amendment 13 be tabled and brought back for discussion, if legal, at the next workshop so the Commission could become well enough versed to discuss it intelligently. Attorney Basil stated it would be appropriate if the Commission determined that it would like to table Amendment No. 13 so it could be discussed at a workshop meeting, but another public hearing would have to be noticed in terms of Amendment No. 13 itself. Commissioner Martin said he would like to table Amendment No. 13 as well. Commissioner Fuller did not see a problem and asked if the Bayfront Specific Plan had not been reviewed. It had been approved, and she understood that it did not contain any substantive changes to the actual LCP. They were just talking about corrections and cleanups in wordings, and she would like her fellow Commissioners to explain if they planned to review what the LCP contained or just the revisions. Commissioner Ray said he was just concerned with Amendment A. ;),,0 PC Minutes -15- September 28, 1994 13; the rest he was okay with. He wanted to understand what the differences were with the designations and what it was really going to accomplish. Ms. Buchan said that on this particular amen<lment, there were no changes that actually change a land use. It brought the terms into consistency by not using two different terms. It was changing the label only. ,. Chair Tuchscher commented that his challenge was with the text issues, and he was not clear on what the original said and the changes they were making. He respected staffs opinions and recommendations and professionalism, but he felt his obligation was to review the changes side by side with the original versus the changes proposed, and that he could weigh them and make sure they were consistent with the intent of the original document. He was having a problem doing that. Principal Planner Bazzel added that the General Plan could be amended four times a year; this particular action on the Channelside proposal would be the second amendment, and there was one or more additional amendments coming up near the end of the year. If this Amendment 13 were tabled or delayed and tracked separately. it could be batched with other amendments later in the year. It may be some time before it got back onto the agenda. Answering Chair Tuchscher, Ms. Buchan said the Local Coastal Program could be amended three times--going to the Coastal Commission. These did not need amendment with the General Plan. It was a minor amendment. The Coastal Commission had two types of amendments-- minor and major. Amendment No. 12 was a major amendment, where there was a substantial change. They were changing a land use from industrial into commercial with the WalMart project. Amendment No. 13 was changing terms for clarification and all the new information had been brought in from the previous Local Coastal Program before going through the major amendment--if there was an inconsistency in terms, typographical errors, etc. The Coastal Commission had determined that would be a minor amendment and would not have to go through a full Coastal Commission public hearing. It could be done at a staff level with a report to the Commission. Staff could go with another batch of amendments next year with the LCP; the timing was not critical; there was a little concern after passing Amendment 12 that there would be another C-T land use designation for WalMart and there could be some confusion. Commissioner Fuller said if there was a decision by the majority to delay Amendment 13, this did not delay the project, if action was taken. This was simply included because it was a housekeeping action that seemed to fit here because an LCP amendment was being made anyway. It was not critical to this project. Ms. Buchan stated it was not critical for this project; it was kept separate for that reason. Commissioner Salas commented that if it would not delay the project, she would like a workshop on Amendment No. 13, or to at least postpone it. A~JJ PC Minutes -16- Sepœmber28,1994 Motion by Commissioner Ray that this item be continued until such time that the Commission could have a workshop on it and tag it with the next batch of amendments that would be going forward sometime later in the year. Motion died for lack of second. After commning with Attorney,Basil, Chair Tuchscher suggested that the Commission move forward on project issues associated with the WalMart center, the Channel project, and deal with the amendments through separate motions. No one else wishing to speak:, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Fuller/Martin) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Tarantino and Moot excused) that the Planning Commission approve the Draft City Council resolution to certify the FEIR, as modified, adopt the CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as modified, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations; and amend the General Plan by redesignated 31.63 acres depicted as Exhibit A from Research and Limited Manufacturing to Thoroughfare Commercial. MSC (Fuller/Martin) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Tarantino and Moot excused) that the Planning Commission approve the draft City Council ordinance to change the zone classification from I-P to C-C-P for 31.63 acres depicted as Exhibit D, including the Precise Plan Guidelines contained therein. MSC (Fuller/Ray) 5-0-2 (Commissioners Tarantino and Moot excnsed) to adopt Amendment No. 12 which entails changing the land use designation of approximately 32 acres of undeveloped property from Industrial General to Commercial Thoroughfare, subject to the Central Commercial zoning criteria. MSC (Ray/Salas) 4-1-2 (Commissioners Tarantino and Moot excused; Commissioner Fuller voting 'no') to continue Amendment 13 to the LCP until such time that the Planning Commission can meet via a workshop and bring this back when the next revision to the LCP is made. Chair Tuchscher commented that he was very happy with all the praise that staff received; he thought it was well deserved relative to this project, working with National City and with GES and getting ail the issues resolved before it was brought before the Commission. Congratulations to staff on that, and to the applicant. Commissioner Ray asked if a development agreement was in place on this project. Mr. Haynes answered that there was a Disposition and Development Agreement that had been approved contingent upon approval of all of the discretionary approvals by the Council, Agency, and the Coastal Commission. They were hoping to make the agenda of October 18 for the Council/Agency, and then it was undetennined with respect to the scheduling of the Coastal A.~ PC Minutes -17- September 28, 1994 Commission for their approval of the LCP Amendment and the subsequent Coastal Development Pennit. Commissioner Ray asked to receive a copy of the development agreement when it had been signed and agreed to by City Council. ;. />r~ 3 ..... ~ gJ a:J E- !Blank . A.¡L/ DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5 MINUTES TOWN CENTRE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, October 6, 1994 Council Conference Room 8:45 a.m. City Hall 1. Roll Call ,. Members Present: Chairman Blakely, Members Winters, Hawk, Mason, Altbaum. Members Absent: Member Killian. Chairman Blakely asked if Member Killian had called in to ask to be excused. Ms. Buchan answered that she did not know if Member Killian had communicated with Miguel Tapia. Chairman Blakely asked if a motion could be made to excuse Member Killian if, in fact, she had asked to be excused so that it could be reflected in the record. .MSC (Blakely/Mason) to excuse Member Killian if she has asked to be excused. Staff Present: Principal Community Development Specialist, Pamela Buchan; Principal Community Development Specialist, Lyle Haynes; Environmental Projects Manager, Joe Monaco; Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer; Bill Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer; Frank Herrera, Associate Planner. Others Present: Phil Adams, Gatlin Development Company. 2. Approval of Minutes of September 1, 1994. MSC (Mason/Hawk) to approve the minutes of September 1, 1994 as mailed. REDEVELOPMENT BUSINESS 3. A. GPA 94-04/PCZ-94-C Member Altbaum stated that he was advised by the City Attorney that since he has a conflict of interest that he should not participate in discussion or vote on this item. Principal Community Development Specialist, Lyle Haynes, introduced himself as the Project Manager for this project. He also introduced staff members Joe Monaco as the Environmental Projects Manager in charge of the EIR; Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer, overseeing the traffic impacts; Phil Adams, Project Manager representing Gatlin Development Company, the developer; Bill Ullrich, Engineering Department, in charge of permits, mapping and land development; Frank Herrera, the Project Manager in the Planning Department in charge of the General Plan Amendment and the Rezone and Pam Buchan, Principal Community Development Specialist in charge of processing the Local Coastal Program Amendment. Mr. Haynes explained that he would give a general overview and Mr. Herrera would present a slide presentation covering some of the land use issues. Mr. Phil Adams would speak about the project in general. After these presentations the floor would be open for discussion and a question and answer session. Mr. Haynes stated that this item was before the Project Area Committee for their recommendation on the land use issues associated with the General Plan Amendment, the Rezone and the Local Coastal Program Amendment. In addition, staff is asking for your comments with respect to the project in general. All of your comments will be forwarded to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency as part of the complete packet when this item goes before them. He also stated that there A-2~ DRAFT Minutes October 6, 1994 Page 2 woud be no need for action on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR was provided only as information in order to evaluate the land use issues and provide comments on the project. Mr. Haynes continued to provide backgroUJ:lc;1 information about the project. This project has been in existence for a little over a year. In December, 1993, the City Council through a Semi-Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (SENA) gave staff the authorization to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). After proceeding with those negotiations, staff and the developer had a certain level of comfort about the desirability of the project which gave the developer the incentive to proceed with the planning entitlements. The developer then proceeded with the application for the General Plan Amendment, Rezone and Local Coastal Plan Amendment. Subsequent to that, while processing the planning entitlements, negotiations were concluded with the DDA and it was approved in August, 1994. The DDA is contingent upon approval of the discretionary land use approvals. On Wednesday, September 28, 1994, the Planning Commission heard these items and adopted the EIR and the planning entitlements. The next step in the process of this project is the presentation before this Committee. If all goes well, the project will then go before the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on October 18. Mr. Frank Herrera, Project Manager for the Planning Department, identified the project as GPA 94- 04/PCZ-94-C, an amendment to the General Plan and Rezoning for 31.63 acres located south of State Route 54 between Broadway/National City Boulevard and Fifth Avenues with National Avenue Associates as the proponent. Mr. Herrera continued with his slide presentation which showed the main access points to the project and the relevant issues related to the proposed amendments. Chairman Blakely asked if lights were going to be omitted at the Broadway entrance. Mr. Herrera replied that that was correct. Chairman Blakely asked if Broadway was divided. Mr. Herrera answered that Broadway has a median in that area. Mr. Monaco indicated that there is an existing signal at 35th Street and the plans call for adding a turn arrow to accommodate the traffic. Mr. Herrera stated that the rezoning being proposed for the project involves rezoning of the property from ILP, (Limited Industrial subject to precise plan) to CT (Commercial Thoroughfare) subject to the Central Commercial zone with a precise plan modifying district. On July 30, 1994 a public forum was conducted to address the proposed project. The primary issue expressed involved the accommodation of truck traffic patterns for the existing industrial use currently accessing from Fifth Avenue (GES). The concern regarded truck movements and the inner relationship of the project site's traffic movements and cars. That issue will be addressed as part of the conditions of approval. The recommendation that staff made to the Planning Commission was that the Commission adopt A) the Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the draft resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as modified and CEOA finding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as well as the statement of overriding considerations, amend the General Plan by redesignating the 31.63 acres from Research and Limited Manufacturing Thoroughfare Commercial; and, B) adopt the draft City Council Ordinance to change the zoning classification from IP to CCP for the 31 .63 acres including precise plan guidelines contained therein. A..~fo DRAFT Minutes October 6, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Herrera concluded that the development of the project site to a retail commercial area continues the transition of the area from light industrial uses to commercial uses. The site will be an advantageous location for the proposed retail center due to its location, access to major thoroughfares and being adjacent to SR-54. The General Plan redesignation and the rezoning will allow the area to evolve and encourage its present direction of commercialization in an orderly and planned manner. Additionally, the proposed GPA amendment will foster the economic and physical revitalization of the central Chula Vista Community, an urban core of the City. Member Mason asked what other areas in the General Plan are designated Limited Industrial or Limited Manufacturing? Are we hurting ourselves by getting rid of this? Mr. Herrera replied that there are a number of acres of industrial land designations yet. Mr. Monaco gave a brief overview of the project EIR. He stated that the only significant impact that could not be mitigated through the feasible mitigation measures that was identified in the document was air quality; and, that relates to ozone emissions which there is no project level mitigation available. Mr. Monaco concluded that some of the environmental concerns that were mitigated included traffic, school impacts and biological concerns. Member Mason asked if there were any concerns regarding environmentally endangered species. Mr. Monaco answered that there were some sensitive resources in the proposed buffer area where the bridge is proposed to expand from Broadway to the project site. A biology report was prepared for the EIR, a survey was done and impacts were identified. As part of the Final EIR the applicant submitted a detailed package for mitigation that included revegetation of the buffer area. Staff and the applicant met with U.S. Fish & Wildlife (USFW) representatives on the site and presented the plans for mitigation. The USFW responded with a letter stating that they agreed in concept with the mitigation package, therefore, staff feels that biological impacts have been satisfactorily addressed. 3. B. LCPA #12 Principal Community Development Specialist Pamela Buchan explained the Local Coastal Program amendment. She explained that the reason that the subject property is included in the coastal zone is because of the potential sensitive habitat where the Sweetwater River runs. It is necessary that whatever project is proposed in the coastal zone must be in compliance with the State Coastal Act. The action before the Committee, as far as the Coastal Act is concerned, is the Local Coastal Land Use Amendment. The land use change is from Industrial-General to Commercial-Thoroughfare which will be subject to central commercial zoning subject to precise plan guidelines. This will be very similar to the General Plan Amendment and the Rezone. The allowed uses will be compatible and there are no major issues from the land use standpoint related to the Coastal Act. The land use designation change will not change the potential sensitive habitat designation for the land area. As far as the LCP Amendment is concerned, the City Council will make a decision on the LCP Amendment and then it will go forward to the State Coastal Commission. It will take approximately 60 to 90 days to process the amendment through the Commission. Member Mason asked if it mattered whether or not the land use designation needed to be changed in order for development to occur. Ms. Buchan answered that the land could still be developed under the existing land use designation. Member Mason asked if there were any questions from the public on the project. A-27 DRAFT Minutes October 6, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Monaco replied that three major issues were received from the public and they concerned: truck traffic and the nei9hboring land use, school impacts and biological issues. The truck traffic was addressed through restriping of the street and accommodation of the truck movements and the neighboring land uses indicated satisfactioQ yvith that mitigation. The second issue that was brought up was regarding school impacts. A discrepancy exists between the City and the school district on how school impacts should be calculated. However, an agreement has been reached between the applicant and the school district and the applicant has agreed to provide two relocatable classrooms, one for each district. The last issue dealing with biology has already been addressed. Member Mason asked about the affect that the Wal-Mart on Palm Avenue would have with regard to competition. Mr. Haynes responded that the market study in the EIR identified the existing competitive retailers in the region and it identified the Wal-Mart and Sam's Club project on Palm Avenue and 1-805 and the assessment from the market analyst was that from Wal-Mart's perspective there was not an impingement on their other store's market trade area and that primarily this market trade area for this particular store is anticipated to'draw shoppers from National City and northern Chula Vista. Chairman Blakely asked about taking tax dollars from an established business such as Target and giving them to Wal-Mart and saying it's new tax dollars. Are we really bringing in new tax dollars or just swapping them from one business to the other. He asked if we would not be better off leaving the land use designation as light industrial and bring in new types of businesses that would bring in new tax dollars rather then changing the zoning and creating the same type of existing tax dollars we already have. Mr. Phil Adams responded to Chairman Blakely's comments. He said that based on demographics they have found that through the first year of Wal-Mart's operation, businesses generally go up, applications for business licenses go up and the income level goes up. Chairman Blakely commented on the approach of bringing in a light industrial company into the area that would also bring in new families and new revenue rather than converting the land use designation to retail space and bringing in a new retailer such as there already is in the area. In comparison, Wal-Mart will not bring any new revenue. Mr. Adams replied that it has been proven by economists that it will bring new revenue to the area. He said that the owners of the property had tried for several years to develop the property into some type of light industrial project. He said that it would take many years for the property to reach the expectations that you would think that you would get from a light industrial development. He said that he did not feel that there was a comparison between the amount of income that the proposed commercial project would bring in as compared to a light industrial project. This project will be creating about400 to 500 jobs, the construction opportunity will create immediate jobs. Wal-Mart is rated in the top ten employers in the country that pay above the prevailing wage, there is a complete medical package available to even part-time employees, as well as many other programs available to their employees including profit sharing. Mr. Haynes added that staff was also concerned about the market impact on the existing downtown and the Chula Vista Shopping Center and that is why staff had an independent firm do a financial market analysis. The study indicated that through normal market growth using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), projected population growth and general economic conditions, that after a four-year period, the market will catch up and absorb the new retailer. After the four-year period it is projected to be þ,-1~ DRAFT Minutes October 6, 1994 Page 5 all new tax dollars. As far as the specialty retail that could conflict with the downtown and the shopping center it was concluded that there was not enough specialty retail in this particular project or the adjoining project that would make an impact on downtown. The study included a survey of the downtown to determine what types of services were offered in the downtown and what types this project offers and it was concluded that it was an insignificant impact. Mr. Herrera touched upon the different land use areas of the City. He pointed out the industrial areas in the Otay Valley Road aM Southwest Redevelopment Project Areas. Regarding the diminishing number of acres from industrial to commercial, he stated that a recent economic feasibility and land use study conducted for the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, determined that industrial lands are not being threatened. Another study is being conducted by the Planning Department, by direction of City Council, to ensure that it does not occur within the City. As far as the site itself, it does not lend itself to major industrial development since it is a small site. A possible development would probably be a warehouse. Warehouses do not employ many people and are generally used for storage of bulk material. Mr. Herrera went on to say that the commercial use being proposed will probably employ between 250-300 full and part-time employees and the revenue that would be generated from this project would definitely improve the City's general fund. MSC (Mason/Winters) 14-0-1-1 Killian absent, Altbaum abstained) to agree with staff's recommendation. Chairman's Comments: None. Member's Comments: None. Staff Comments: None. Public Comments: None. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for October 20, 1994. (Fi~,\TCPACMINIb'\"t.-.4.m;nl /+- ;;/;, --- ~ . Clfzu gJ aLJ £ !Blank A-3D . .", ' ATTACHMENT 6 1 ,', .' H- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1994 Page 1 lA. PUBLIC HEARING: GP A-94-04/PCZ-94-C: Consideration of an amendment to the General Plan and rezonin!! for 31.63 acres located south of State Route 54 (SR54). between Broadwav (National ~..: CitY Boulevard) and Fifth Avenue - National A venue Associates A. BACKGROUND National Avenue Associates have requested an amendment to the Chula Vista General Plan and rezoning for 31.63 acres located south of the SR54 freeway, between Broadway (National City Boulevard) and Fifth Avenue. The request consists of an amendment of the Land Use Diagram of the General Plan from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare." The applicant also requests a rezoning from "I-L-P" (Limited Industrial with Precise Plan modifier) and "C-C-P" (Central Commercial with Precise Plan modifier). Please see Exhibit A. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning actions are necessary to enable the development of a 212,000 sq. ft. retail shopping center, which includes Walmart as the major tenant. An amendment to the Town Centre n Redevelopment Plan (amendment is enacted conCU1Tent with approval of the GP A), a Local Coastal Plan Amendment and a Bayfront Specific Plan amendment will be required (separate report). Other discretionary actions not requiring Commission action include a Coastal, Development Pennit, Precise PIan approval, and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). - The Channelside Shopping Center Draft EIR (EIR-~2) wascircu1ated for public review from June 16, 1994 to August 10, 1994. The closing public ~ before the Planning Commission on August 10.on the DraftEIR concluded this public review period. Comments received as a result of this public review. related to traffic safety, schools, and biology. Comments and responses are now included in the Final EIR document, with corresponding appropriate text changes. Further discussion regarding environmental issues is included later in this report. The City of Chula Vista entered into an Memorandum of Understanding (MQU) with the City of National City regarding the coordination on planning issues between a proposed retail commercial project on the Dixie1ine site (National City MarketPlace) and the proposed Channelside Shopping Center project. In December, 1993, the Redevelopment Agency approved an semi-exclusive negotiating agreement with the project proponent. ~ A ;31 . ~ - :> b .... .u' City Planning ColI1IIÚSsion Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1994 Page 2 B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the attached draft Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt: a. The attache4 .draft City Council resolution to certify the FEffi; adopt CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations; amend the General Plan by redesignating 31.63 acres depicted in Exhibit A from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Thoroughfare Commercial," and b. The attached draft City Council ordinance to change the zone classification from "I-P" to "C-C-P" for 31.63 acres depicted on Exhibit D, including Precise Plan Guidelines contaÎI}ed therein. C. DISCUSSION 1. Existinl! Site Characteristics The subject site is located in the northern portion of the city bounded by Fifth Avenue on the east, Broadway on the west, State Route S4 (SRS4) on the north, and the northerly line of the industrial development to the south. The site consists of a total of 31.63 acres, is presently vacant, and contains approximately 10 acres of sensitive undeveloped open space. An existing unimproved storm drain traverses the property from east to west, discharging into a recharge area of the existing Sweetwater River. The river recharge area extends from the SR- S4 right-of-way, south along the westerly edge of the property-, where it then crosses under Broadway. The site cunently has direct access to an extension of Fifth Avenue and will have access"to Broadway from the west via a future bridge and from North Fourth Avenue to the east via.a 60 ft. access easement along the southern edge of the existing Dixieline Lumber Company site. -. A3~ '., ,- }- ", City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1994 rage 3 2. Adjacent Zonin2 and Land Use (please see Exhibits B & C) ~)f¿=~": ~:i;> Usè Nonh Freeway Freeway SR-S4 Freeway South Research and Limited "I-L-P" Limited Light industrial Manufacturing Industrial subject to warehousing Precise Plan East Research and Limited C.V." "I-L-P" Light industrial Manufactoring Industrial warehousing subject to Precise Plan N.C." "CG-PD" Lumber yard General (future retai1 comm.) Commen:ia1- Planned Development West Research and Limited N.C." "CH-CZ" Light industrial/commercial Manufactoring Heavy and open space Commercia1- Coastal Zone " C.V. - Chula Vista I N.C. - National City .' - 3. General Plan Amendment The proposed amendment to the General Plan for 31.63 acres involves a change in the General PIan Land Use Diagram designation for the subject site from "Research & Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare." The Land Use Diagram also depicts the Chula Vista "Greenbelt" traversing east/west along the northerly edge of the project site, as well as along the westerly edge of the site. The "Greenbelt" is described in the General Plan as a "continuous 28-mile open space and park system around the city" Iinkéd tiya'trail Íiysieín.:"'The 'proposed General rlan amendment from "ResearchâDd Limited MaÍÎ.ufactlÌÌing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare" does not propose to modify the "Greenbeltfl designation currentlydepi~~d.on.the.Land UseDiagram~. A relatiyely narrow strip of developed ~ResearchandLimited Manúfacturing" designated property will Continue to front òll Fifth Avenue and between existing major retail areas to the east and the project site. ~3 ."" " ." ... City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1994 Page 4 4. Rezoning The proposed project involves an amendment to the zoning on the property, changing from "I-L-P" (Limited Industrial subject to a Precise Plan) to "C-C- P" (Central CommeJ'cial subject to a Precise Plan), Staff is recommending the application of the Precise Plan modifier designation ("P") in order to establish necessary development guidelines for development of the property, Please see the findings necessary for the application of the "P~ modifying district and the proposed Precise Plan Guidelines contained within the attached draft City Council Ordinance. 5. Public Input On July 30, 1994, a public forum was conducted to address the proposed project. The primary issue expressed involved the accommodation of truck traffic patterns for the existing industrial users currently accessing from Fifth Avenue. 6. Environmental Issues a. Schools"' The Final EIR states that appropriate mitigation for anticipated school impacts is the current state-mandated building permit fees. The school districts and the City have commissioned a School Mitigation Study that examines future enrollment impacts and is anticipated to be the basis for appropriate mitigation of enrollment impacts. However, the study has not been completed, and it is not expected to be prior to actions on the discretionary permit requests, The school districts have indicated that the state-mandated fees are not adequate to mitigate impacts associated with non-residential development, however, no empirical data has been arrived at and agreed upon that can support this position, Staff has surveyed other jurisdictions to see if alternate mitigation, other than the state-madated fees, is being applied to non-residential development and have found . thàt the state-mandated fees are being applied in every case, In view " '. . ~f the school district's position, staff ,will continue to work with the districts to reSôlve the isSue. ,;:' ,t'" c,. b.' ,Traffic Safely '~'èomments have beell r~*~d from the attorneys for , ',' pES Exposition Serviœs,Iocated a(491 Fifth Ave. (adjacent to the J, . .. . '" , "..' " »'1 . . ~ City Planning Commission 'Uh, Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1994 Page 5 project site) indicating a concern with the safety of project-related traffic mixing with existing industrial-based truck traffic. The Final EIR concluded that the potential impacts were not considered significant :~nder CEQA. Based on this determination, a representative from GES has indicated that their recommended mitigation measures may be reservedfór future consideration rather than being imposed atthe'tiníë of approVal of discretionary actions by the City. The City ~ monitor traffic operations at this location in the future to determine what, ,if any, conflicts arise and will work with both property owners to resolve any potential problems. c. Biology - Comments received on the Draft EIR requested more detail on the proposed biologica1 mitigation. Extensive detail has been provided in the Final EIR and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated conceptual agreement with the plans (letter from USFWS dated September 7, included in the Final EIR). E. ANALYSIS Future development of the light industrial land uses at this location will be constrained by the relatively small size of the development area, the high visual exposure of the area to adjacent major roadways, and the transition of adjacent areas to commercial. Existing retail commercial property is located to the east, at the northwest quadrant of North Fourth Avenue and 'C' Street, and the City of National City has plans to develop the existing Dixieline Lumbèr'Company site into a retail commercial center. Access to the project site will occur via a 60 ft. wide easement across the Dixieline site. Development of the project site as retail commercial would continue a transition of the area from light industrial uses to commercial uses and would serve as an advantageous location for the proposed retail center, due to its location, access to major thoroughfares and adjacency to State Route 54. The redesignation and rezoning would allow the area to evolve and encourage its present direction of commercialization in an orderly and planned manner. Additionally, the proposed amendment would foster the economic and physical revitalization of the Central Chula Vista Community and urban core of the City. Application of the "P" (precise Plan) Modifying District to the property and the requisite review by the Design Review Committee of a Precise Plan is deemed necessaty in order to assure compatibility of a variety of different land uses in the area, and implementation of the Chula Vista "Greenbelt." The proposed interlinking Æ5 . . ,-"--<' -" .. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1994 Page 6 trail system envisioned as part of the "Greenbelt" will occur on the levee of the Sweetwater Hood Control Channel, north of the project site; however a visuàl open space buffer will be pursued with development and redevelopment of properties along the southern edge of SR-S4, consistent with the "Greenbelt" designation. A Precise Plan guideline ca.Ui.ng for a 15 ft. to 25 ft. wide landscape buffer is being proposed with the zoning action. Additionally, the. proposed project preserves significant open space within the Sweetwater River recharge area along the westerly edge of the property, consistent with the~Greenbelt" designation. Findings for the application of the "Po modifying district are contained within the attached draft City Council Ordinance. The following are Precise Plan' Guidelines for development of the property: a. Freestanding signage may be allowed adjacent to the SR-S4 corridor in lieu of wall signage (height and size to be determined), subject to review of an approval of the Design Review Committee. b. A IS' to 25' landscape buffer with enhanCed landscaping complementary to landscaping within the SR-S4 right-of-way shall be provided along the northerly property line as a component of the Chula Vista Greenbelt. On July 25, 1994, the Design Review Committee conducted a review of the Precise Plan for the proposed Channelside Shopping Center and recommended conditional approval to the Redevelopment Agency. The Committee indicated that the project would have to adhere to any Precise Plan guidelines applied to the property through this zoning action and would be required to retum for additional review if any modifications to the plan were necessary. .--- . (:\II OME\PU.NNlN<JIFRANK'.GP A94.()4.PC!) " c. -. ." ..-" -. '. '-." -". ,.. .- i Æ~ 3/0' "¡,. -. - ~- '!. I I .. I I nJ ,J--- . I , I - --"'----1---'" \ \ i ~ CBULA VISTA PLANNING C)...".... APPLIcANT:NatioaaJ Avenue -Aìi0é:í8tes PROJ.ECT DESCRIPTION.:......,. ... .",¡r¡.'...'.K;,.".~..;. ; AOOREU' SECBroa-aadSR-54 CHANNEL SIDE SHOPPING CE~R.; . wn_J QIIngt Gen8I8I Plan dlllglllllôrÍfnIm"R8MWí1l'lCl ~ . SCALE: FILF. NUM8ER: Unbd~~"CQmrnIIdIIThoroughIanI...;;; -.. ---. ""'n' .... .... -~. A " ~,._" , c-- _."..~-, 'mtJël' .. , , ' ¡ - .-C" , " ,' ~~<: .'.:j 1-.... ' ; n ., ,itr.j;-,;:" '.:"1..:--' -~~.... !~,.,...;,:¡:::~;¡...::.:l..: , ,.,. I.....; ..-...~,,-'~--'-' , " \ : ¡ ~~TY i ::rT', ::;¡: «T' ~ \::ç: b r--1[: . ; j : ~ ~ It ~ ..,.. '/:-:' IL" t ' '~ , : :././. - .......--.-... ?' :-==::... .. ...... , j ~~ ~ ~~. ; =s:: &~ SR-54 i SUBJECT AREA ~ I ~ ' =wr õilli ',,', ~J~ .." " . 1I ~~,-" " ,", _I~ '-'-' ':ì~ - I ..._~ . : .1_.....J' t , ~ ~ ¡ - ~ I'" osP', ¡ h- CR L ~ L - . . ........./.-- '~ .: ..;. ,""'f.~"L.' ~, tm CR ':,-: PRK ~~~~'i:..;::-¡:~ r-... 1:, :.~t',~......i';;"~~~f ~ ... - !:..:.¡... :!I';:""'~"':£';": ' p . ~""""'" ..~ -~ï;..~~~ljSir+fj";;.f$} a " ~ , -- r ..~... '.. ',¡..'r ",,:.'IX. ':t'....;~~..'"1:;.. ~n 11"';1 - .. " '~,>"¡ i- ..... l 1rœ:5 1 I~ I III" J ~ -=11 \ ' ~~ ~þ H lJJ ñ!J ~ RM: '\ " ,--io '..... - = l8tjll I I. I ~RLM ~ == ~ i~ ,I ~ ,:~"7... ::JII=r RM . r=.--. po -"-1=" ,~ '.. 1--1 . f- ""11,:. I ,'I . :.;:' r-"T'T" r ~.-~ " , I :,. , ¡: . ll\II:. cv PO., ~ CR "' ' '; , I' :FI i ,IL..~F, lIT T 'f . .~ ,IT "¡¡:J" 't\ rmn f7iJIIJJIdJ R t ~ ~ J.1 ~ : f= m PJ¡IE [3= -..a -: ~,~~.".. C;PA - 94 - 04 CHANNEL SIDE SHOPPING CENTER C"-' ¡~ ", ;,0."",.,.; i) t., ..:' r" -".'M',_~,~""", ,.. " " ' .:.-......... -- ~ RLM/':tOW-MEDDENSITYRES."","".."iä.6~r' :""""ä"y."~"",,,~y.'I7""'" ,".. :~H~::-=~:n;,RES.;l:1:~~=r~C::::;';~c;;d.-64' 0' '.00""" ..., CR ~t.1ERCw'RETAII. ','" ,.-" '..'., H' , ' : -;-100, n. c 800 CV COMMERCW,VlSnOR"-r:' '~",;"':'"¡¡,,,,, :."'" " ' """~"", "-' IL RESEARCH.UMITEO.INDUSTRW, , i ,,' EXlS11NG GENERAL PLAN 'DESIGNA110NS PQ PUBuc.QuAs¡PUBI,IC ", ,,' ~ ' ',' c, '",' PRK, PARKS . RECREATION ').. ....n 8.""" ..t'\DCIH.ÞA"'~ ~etn' Of..~_~A-_~,IIG~EHI I EXHIBIT: B ,<.', """",...,',d,' "",,', -":' _" . . .J':ilA::-r'R~'-"" "":' J ~lllll\:~~"-~' J, '--, ,.., 1"""~~1t:JD'BDc ';;!: ¡..... '-'...~ :¡.. 0' \\L___: I--.:l__~~_..,. ' !:j~~T;U' ¡';;¡ f~~~rE if:î~~r.:~';~.,,~¿, \ ~ ' ," Of I ' " " . . -'",- ~ , ~ ---¡COO I j i ~/. ';-;:J',~' ~ ~ .-.-- ~ IL' D ,:..-;ro. ..... '"'- ........ . ; : /- -- = ::::::::::-- ) : ~~ ! ~ ....,. e; ~ i - ¡ - ...I1&t / SA-54", SUBJECT AREA ~ ~ I!:[I~~ I ,"" ~ = , I f/" - " -- ....~ ~. ~-"--_~'l\\.' ' .~,. Iu .., .c' : ~,---,\. ~ " ",I rr¡;: :. (2 ~ L...: 10' -, IL ~ A < " I It ~: 1 r.::::':~. i Ii !,' ._n- - -- , ~. ~ , = . : j cc: II i i IT I - j¡ '.. - I 'I' ~~ i.-J ,',;',ï:,,:::';:;~'-í~ .-:f,,;:..~-:.r,;-.¡ ::: ' , I ~.",~",'.d ""....':t.'~..::-.'I'. CC~(D .... ,.., ,,;:,;;';""':.~J¡o~-~.:."1: D ~."' r1 ; r---... . R-,':>~:~......~~:;~J;! ~ ~ J:.... r- ... - .;.;.... =.I I ri:H :<";"'1;.',.z1:>f;".,;I":,'.;",'K' I-- "4! -L- -- f:::-_~ 7. f= '- '}:~';~j.,~'~~f~:'~:;:6'{:~ ..... ..;-..;.;. CT ~l :<.!\;' '- I ~ -~ ~ . ~ II 8J íI 'g:~ R-3 ~ .... i \ 3. R-3 ~ L.I TIJ un '- 1:= - j MHP ~ ,... JJJ WJ. I [¡;¡¡¡ = i: ~ . . ! E I: I'" ~ I--iI I .. 0 8'B ~¡::: R-1 '- E ~=----, ,: I- ¡........, - . 'H!=f' ",' 1m I' r ....c~" ", "I. ..1' "'" --' ; I - --..i!J~ ,-., .', litil >' I R';'3 ~'=:r-" - : rfl'~:: ccP;U:I. 1 " c~ I~ I . : '~' "',.,,~" 1 I I . i I ~ ~=L.J ...Ii. J]ill] .I.~,{ " ILj Wf--L i ~I~I~ t i : ~ ~rnfJ ä-~"" '-"',"'iV.'í.è:ir"'{ '", i"fi' 'f' ,'" """ ", ' " """"~', '~ 04 CAAÑNEL:rsI~EiSHOPPING~CÈtmR;i ~::;.'::::~GPA -94-;'¡ " :t:;" ¡, .t"""""""'-""-:""""""""'~"o".. ' ~~,- ....,....,-".;......-.. -- .,~~,.:.ø-:,,' :'5'; ~'~p <'~:OO~:-(32" dIA'OCL,._..,,::' >~o':'.rol" Ir""oadway, 'andlR~':'O 000" '"" ': cc. ;CÞ/IIW:COMMERCIAI.ZONEN" ,4', "0' 100 n."-::;'800'", CCO "CÞI'IRAI.'(:oMMERCIAI.ZONE'ÓES1GNc:qNmoL~", , ,," ",' ,."" I CCP'CEN1RAI.;COMMERCW. ZONE, PRl:CI$E PLAN DIST: if- ,t, , "",," :: .,'..".., --, "'...,', ' CT ;,1HOROUGHfAAECOMM~,~ '" ~.;:ft ,EXJSTlN" ~, "<,Z,O,, NING D,ESIGNATIONS . ~~':. ~~;.:.~~~~~DIST.. " ,<r "::"7 ", " " " ~ '., , , &AI '. :::1 Z W ,.'"Co. > . . '., -1'.' . '. ."" .". . -:", ,', r-) ¡i .,~ ~.è ST. .'~~~r. --'ri " ,. , c . ':rri' , " ' ,ii, f ,: II I,' ., . , . STREE" A',:";" ....... ;.";'jl"',,~ ~ I~~j~./'" .' 'j.-., 1:r 1'.~fr.....t.d',J" , :,..1'r,:J 7'..:',..~£.:..".. ~.J:"'i';J J)'v.,.',~.>#~ 7:.'~¡¡:~, : "~, :.., ":,I;,,~~~ ..3 ,1' t.r:::-:'.-: - . , EXHI,BIT D CHUIA VISTA PlANNING DEPARTMENT~, ~ ' I HEREBY CERTIfY THAT THIS ZONING MAP".~"'""""-~ '~":WAS APPRoVED AS~:"ART:OF,ORDINANCE,:p~'~<,¡,"'" .,..or. """ ." -'", ,¥JU.. ~. "':""""""""'BYTHE~O1Y..mUNaLON " '!DA~'" ,.,.,...,:, "'."""""'~ .. ..,' ,..,"""-": ;',:;:, """", OTYQØIC ','," ,'~r,» DfJ'E,",:I""'" \ DRAWNBY:., , fT:\," ,,~.,.. ',","". ,..,.. ~'.~ V~'.."- ,.'; NORTH ". ",'"", ";>-;;+11 , ,', "'~ ~ 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA-94-02/PCZ-94-C 0, ,- -' . 'Y' " ;11:; 1"""';9 . L-,', "'n "'i,':," - ~ "",~;"(¡;;,, A-t¡l ~d¡ ",. ~ ,,/, ~ . ~ rP a;J £; !Blank A-J¡" .', , RESOLUTION NO. GPA-94-04/PCZ-94-C RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT (FEIR 94-02) FOR THE CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER; MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE FEASmIUTY OF MITIGATI~MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES; ADOPT A (rATION MONITORING. AND REPORTING PROGRAM; ADOPT A STATEMENT OF 0 VERRID IN G CONSIDERATIONS; AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND REZONE 31.63 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF NORTH FIFTH AVENUE FROM "RESEARCH & LIMITED MANUFACTURING" AND "I-L-P" (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) TO "COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE" AND "C-C-P" (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL-PRECISE PLAN) WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a General Plan Amendment, and rezoning of property was f1Ied with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on January 21, 1994 by National Avenue Associates; and WHEREAS, said application requests that approximately 31.63 acres located at the tenninus of North Fifth Avenue be redesignated from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare" on the General Plan Land Use Diagram, and rezoned from "I-L- P" (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan) to "C-C-P" (Central Commercial-Precise Plan); and . WHEREAS, the development of the 31.63 acres, constituting APN's 562-324-02 and 562-324-04, was the subject matter of a Design Review application (DRC-94-37) which was heard by the Design Review Committee on July 25, 1994, and recommended for approved by the Redevelopment Agency by a 4 to 1 vote; and - WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said General Plan Amendment and Rezoning application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least twenty one days prior to the hearing in accordance with Government Code Sections 65358, 65090 and 65091 (a) 1 and 2 and Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.12.070; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1994, the Resource Conservation Commission accepted Environmental Impact Report, EIR-94-02, by a vote of 4 to 1; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Environmental Impact Report, EIR -94-02, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project and has concluded that, with the exception of regional air quality impacts, there would be no significant environmental impacts which could not be mitigated to level less than significant, and recommends certification of Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR -94-02 and the adoption of Findings of Fact ("CEQA Findings"), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Oveniding Considerations; and . ~ /i /Q A-Jl.3 , WHEREAS, the Planning Commission fmds that the Final EIR, the CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the project have been prepared in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m. September 28, 1994 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission regarding the .Final EÞ,vironmental Impact Report, FEIR-94-02, the General Plan Amendment, the rezoning and related discretionary land use recommendations, and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, 'IHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TIIA T the Planning Commission recommends that after full consideration of FEIR-94-O2, the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR-94-O2, and adopt CEQA Findings, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. BE IT FUR'IHER RESOLVED TIlAT from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, that it recommends that, after due consideration and certification of the FEIR-94- 02 and adoption of fIDdings with respect to FEIR-94-02, the City Council enact the draft ordinance and resolution as attached hereto to amend the General Plan and rezone 31.63 acres of land located at the terminus of North Fifth Avenue subject to the fIDdings, conditions and precise plan guidelines found therein. BE IT FUR'IHER RESOLVED TIlAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY 'IHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CAliFORNIA, this 28th day of September, 1994 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: - NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: William C. Tuchscher U, Chairman AITEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary .~ (M ,ISIIAREDICHSID EPC. RES) I .', , ", 'DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION . /\ I!r .45 ~ A-: r;£ C- ~ . ~ qJ Cli) £- !Blank A .. J.I /¡; , .'. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAl,. ENVIRONMENTAL IMP Acr REPORT (EIR 94- 02) FOR THE CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FAèrRELATING TO THE FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJEcr ALTERNATIVES; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND AMENDING TIm GENERAL PLAN FOR 31.63 ACRES LOCATED AT TIm TERMINUS OF NORTH FIFTH AVENUE FROM RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACfURING TO COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE; I. Recitals. A. Project Site. WHEREAS, the area of the land which is subject of this ordiDance is diagrammatically represented on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; consists of 31.63 acres located at the tenninus of North Fifth Avenue and identified as APN 562-324-02 and 562- 324-04 ("Project Site"); and, B. Project. WHEREAS, a person having control over all or a portion of the development of the Project Site, to-wit: National Avenue Associates ("Developer") has filed an application with the City for approval of a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of property consisting of approximately 31.63 acres of land located at the tenninuLof North Fifth AYenue and diagranunatically presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit A, as such project is more particularly described in Final EnvironmentaIlmpact Report. FEIR-94-02, ("Project"); and C. Application for Discretionary Approvals. WHEREAS, on January 21, 1994, the Developer filed applications with the City ofChula Vista for (1) a General Plan Amendment from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Conunercial Thoroughfare", and (2) Rezoning from "I-L-P" (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan) to "C-C-P" (Central Commercial-Precise Plan) ("Discretionary Approvals Applications"); and, D. Planning Commission Record on Applications. . . . WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Discretionary Approvals Applicad.ons ånðJor the Final.EIR -was duly.noticed before the Planning Commission at the meeting of September 28, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on September 28, 1994, considered the Discretionary Approvals Applications, took evidence as set forth in the record of its proceedings, which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full, made certain ~ .', . Resolution No. Page 2 findings as set forth in their Recommending Resolution OP A-94-Q2/PCZ-94-C, and recommended to the City Council the approval of said Discretionary Approvals Applications based on certain terms and conditions; and, to. E. City Council Record on Applications. WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on October 18, '1994 on the Discretionary Åpprovals Applications, and to receive the recommendations of the Plamûng Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, F. Discretionary Approvals Ordinance. WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at which this Resolution is being considered, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista will also consider placing on first reading an Ordinance, Ordinance No, -' by which they may approve the Rezoning ("Discretionary Approvals Ordinance"); . G. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") WHEREAS, based on a preliminary review of the Project the Staff of the City ("Staff') has detennined that the project may have an adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Staff has determined that the project is not exempt, neither statutorily or categorically, from œmpliance with the statutory duty, as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15061); and .. ,- . WHEREAS, City retained the services of a Consultant to prepare the Em on the Project; and WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 1994, evaluating the proposed Cbanne1side Shopping Center was prepared and was transmitted by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of availability of the draft Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law and by policy of the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, a public forum on the project was held on June 30, 1994 which included a presentation ~n the draft Environmental Impact Report; and, :":;,.,~.O';,";:\';';'".'~;!:"n"..,"';;"';';';:,;'" ';";,' ,::, WHEREAS, Wrlttenand COiñn1ènts 'Uomthe public on the draft EnvirorinientaI Impact Report were accepted from June 16, 1994 to August 10, 1994; and " ,0, ., L, "';'" ,0 J.fCj 'J ,~.., 'j ;~~;:'ll'" ,,' ,~ Resolution No. Page 3 WHEREAS, on July 25, 1994 the Resource Conservation Commission accepted Environmental Impact Report, EIR-94-02, by a vote of 4 to I; and ~. WHEREAS,' the City. Planning Commission held a public hearing, accepted public testimony and closed the public review period on the draft Environmental Impact Report on August 10, 1994; and WHEREAS, public comments have been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Channelside Shopping Center dated September, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and its applicable Guidelines. WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Clula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered FEIR 94-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project; the Findings of Fact ("CEQAFindings"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to the Discretionary Approvals Resolution as Responsible Agency; and WHEREAS, The City Council does fmds that FEIR 94-02, the ŒQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Clula Vista as also adopted in Resolution No. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that FEIR 94-02 reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista City Council. .'.- - NOW, mEREFORE, the City of Clula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: ll. Planning Commission Record. The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commiss!on at their public hearing on the Draft ElR, held on August 10, 1994, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. m. Conditional App~val ~f Gene~ Plan AnÍendment. ,""'.",::.~ ¡>"",. The Clula Vista General Plan Land Use. Diagram is amended ,as set forth arid"" diagrammatically shown on the attached ExIu"bii A'subjectto the GkeraJ CoIÍditloOs hereiÍ1below setforth..cThe City Council alsoflDdsthat the project, including but not. limited to the General Plan Amendment; ,the JrezoneaÍ1(kt1J.c).o~al. ~ta( .Plan.#eDdzrient; )I!chiding IIIpporting . documents, is and will be consistent with the genera1.pl.#I'as:8njéìí~ed.~y 'this,Jks°lution. ~ '7 --- .'. ,. Resolution No. Page 4 IV. Genera! Conditions of Approval. The approval of the foregoing Discretionary Approvals Applications which are stated to be conditioned on "Genera! Conditions," are hereby conditioned as follows: A. Project Site is Improved with Project. Developer. or their successors in interest, shall improve the 'Project Site with the Project as described in the FEIR, except as modified by this Resolution. B. Discretionary Approvals Ordinance Becomes Effective. The Discretionary Approvals Ordinance, is introduced, adopted and becomes effective. C. Implement Mitigation Measures. Developer shall diligently implement. or cause the implementation of, all mitigation measures identified in the FEIR that are found by this Resolution to be feasible. D. Implement the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Channelside Shopping Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. V. Consequence of Failure of Conditions. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if tliey are, by 1Iíeir teims, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms. the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted. deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosearte litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution. VI. FEIR Certification, CEQA Ftndings, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. " " .' '" ,~; "",A. ,Certification of FinãI EIR, FEIR-94-04 """""'?", /,"¡c':..,'~~" ',',7',-": The City Council does hereby i::eÌtify the finaI Environmental Impact Report,FEIR-94-m as being prepared in' áccordance with -the' provisions' of the California. Environmental Quality Act aDd its GUidelineS'2~5b " ,'n~' )' . ,,'l? . Resolution No. Page 5 B. Adoption of CEQA Findings. The City Co\lIlcil d~'hereby approve, accept as its own incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and máke each and every one of the fmdings contained in the CEQA Findings attached to the Discrction:uy Approvals Resolution. C. Cenain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted. As more fully identified and set forth in the FEIR for the Channels ide Shopping Center and in the CEQA Findings the Council hereby fInds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described as feasible in the above referenCed documents, are feasible, and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent, the City, or the school district) assigned thereby to implement same. D. Infeasibility of Alternatives. As is also noted in the above referenCed environmental documents described in the above subparagraph B, each of the alternatives to the project which were identified as potentially feasible in the EIR arc found not to be feasible since they could not meet both the objectives of the Project and avoid the identified significant environmental effects through implementation of feasible mitigation measures for the reasons set forth in said CEQA Findings. E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. As required by the Public Resources Code Section 2iO81.6, the CitY' Counéil hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program"). The Council hereby fmds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation the pcrmittcclproject applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings and the Program. F. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives, ccnain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project, or cumulatively,. will remain. Therefore, the aty Council of the City of ChuIa Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15093, the Statement of Overriding Considerations in identifying the specific economic, social, and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. fJ .51 ç-¡' of¥- / ~ .'. Resolution No. Page 6 VIT. Notice of Determination. The Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City Council approval of this project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is med with the County Clerk of the County of San ~go. VllI. 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 eve!)' tenn, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more tenns, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the City so detemúnes in its sole discretion, this ordinance shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further in force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to fonn by Robert A. Leiter Bruèe M. Boo¡¡aard Director of Planning City Attorney . ",':' " '.,-';', .c,' c,,";,,)""" ":. ;,... " -, (M:~ECC.Ia) ~ -" . ~. ~. ExmBIT A AREA MAP .. ,- - . . " !...,/l~5~" ',C~""',è ::f ¡:; ,; J9J.t:' ',' .."1,, Þ<'..,'.. > ,,', . , . ~ gJ a;} E !Blank A#s4 ' . "'" . . .. I I .. I . -_J f---' I --' ,- .--.----t--... \ .... ,- I~~~f~ I ~rnm I CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Œ) APPLICANT:National Aveaue Aøociates "'OJECT DEICIUPTION: I ADD"EIS: IEC8roaðwa,...Ull.s.c ÇHANNEL SIDE SHOPPING ~R I' QIIng8 G8n8I8I PIIn 4Mb IIIIon føn 'ReN1/d18I1CI ICALE: FILF. NUMBER: ~'OarmwrdII'nIoIaUgI1I8rw' ","'........,. 1" -100' -I GPA-94-04:""'A--~ ÐCHI8!T: A ~ . ~ qJ a;} E- !Blank A .510 " ~. ~ 0 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 0,- . "')4"'" '<.r ,-," ' ,---,.. '--. "'" If.57 ~ LI - -... , . <Jhu qJ a;} E- !Blank A.s8 .'. " BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RE: PROPOSED CHANNELS IDE SHOPPING CENTER FINDINGS OF FACT ,. DESCRIPTION OF THE PR€ijECT The 32.5-acre project site is located in the northwestem portion of the City of Chula Vista in the County of San Diego, approximately one mile east of the San Diego Bay. The City of National City borders the west, north and a portion of the eastem project limits. State Route 54 extends along the northem project boundary, local access to the site is provided by National City Boulevard (Broadway) to the west and 5th Avenue to the south. The historic Sweetwater River flows through the western portion of the project site. The Channelside Shopping Center project consists of the development of a regional retail commercial shopping center totaling 219,219 square feet in floor space. Within the 22-acre area proposed for development, specific uses would include a 149,289 square foot anchor store, a 52,640 square foot co-anchor retail store, 10,790 square feet of additional retail space and a 6,500 square foot retaiV restaurant. Approximately 10 acres encompassing the historic Sweetwater River in the westem portion of the site and a drainage in the southem portion of the site are not proposed (or development, with the exception o( a fill bridge proposed to cross the historic Sweetwater River. The fill bridge would provide vehicular access from National City Boulevard to the project site. Discretionary actions associated with the proposed project include amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan and Town Center II Redevelopment Plan (rom limited-Industrial to Commercial- Thoroughfare. A rezone, local Coastal Program amendment and Coastal Development Permit would also be required. Construction of the fill bridge through the historic Sweetwater River may require permits (rom the U. S, Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and/or the California Department of Fish and Game. II. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD For purposes of CEQA and the findings set (orth in the (ollowing pages, the administrative record of the City Council decision on this project shall consist of the (ollowing: 1. The Draft and Final Supplemental EIR for the project; 2, All reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by the environmental consultant and the City that are not privileged communications under the Public Records Act; 3. All documents submitted by members o( the public, and public agencies in connection with the proposed project; 4. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all public meetings and public hearings held by the City; ~i~ Channels/de Shopp;nf Conte, fiR Pf,l ,', 5. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at public meetings and public hearings; and 6. Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to, the following: a) Chula Vista General Plan -2010 b) Chura Vista Zoning Ordinance C) Chula Vista ThresholdlStandards Policy d) Town Center II Redevelopment Plan e) Mitigated Negative D~lilration for Dixieline Drainage Channel Realignment (15-93- 037) ~. f) Chura Vista, City of. 1993a. Addendum Mitigated Negative Declaration 91-508 Fifth A venue Golf Range Sports Center. January 19. g) Chura Vista, City of. 1991. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chula Vista Industrial Complex, Case No. 15-91-50. May.' h) Chula Vista, City of. 1992. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fifth Avenue Golf Range/Sports Centér, Case No. 15-91-50. June 23. III. TERMINOlOGYITHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions. The first is that "(c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated inlo, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR." The second potential finding is that "(s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion is that (s]pecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternative identified in the Final EIR. As regards the first of the three potential finding. the CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms therefore must be gleaned from otlìer"contexts in"which'they are used. Public Resources Code Section 21081, on which CEQA Guideline Section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines. therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21001, which declares the legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significant environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects. For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" will refer to the ability of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-Significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" will refer to the ability of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the seveñty of a significant effect, but notto reduce the effectJo, a levelofinsignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires only that approving'agencies sPec!fy.,that a particúlai' significant: ' effect is "avoid(ed] or substantially lessen(ed]," these findings, for purpoSes of Clarity, in each CélSè will specify' whether, the effect ,in question has been fully avoided (and ~husreduced to a leyel of insignificance) or has simply been substantially lessened'(and thus remains signifiêantJ." Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to addressêrivironmental effects that Ch.nne/siœ Shopping Cen"". fiR A ~td) , Pg,2 ...., - -,- . , .' an EIR identifies as merely .potentially significant,. these findings will, where appropriate, nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR,' IV. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chura Vista (City) hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect-when the City adopts a resolution approving the project. V. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council of the City of Chura Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the City and other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures. That program is described in the document entitled, Channe/side Shopping Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. VI. SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Final EIR identified one significant and several potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that the proposed Shopping Center development would cause. These potentially significant effects will be adopted through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while one cannot be avoided. Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects The following environmental effects, which would be significant (or potentially significant) in the absence of mitigation measures, can be avoided because of the adoption of mitigation measures. Page numbers of the Final EIR where the impacts are discussed follow each impact. land Use ',0 . 0 Implementing the crossing from National City Boulevard to the site would result in impacts to coastal salt marsh. This is considered to be a significant land use inconsistency with the LCP which calls for preservation of wetlands (FEIR, p. 4.1-13). ~ 0 The project as designed would result in Impacts to the Chura Vista Greenbelt designation on the project site. Impacts associated with encroachment into the Chula Vista Greenbelt are considered to be significant (FEIR, p. 4.1-12). Air Ouality 0 Implementation of the proposêd projècfduring the construction phase would ,result in iI,. significant short term loCal and cûmulative Impact to air quality (PM.oJ (FEIR, p. 4.3-7).,": ~:',.:.' , ':" .. ' , ' ,",' ,,':.. ':.,:'.- ;': ", .' c, ro," , 0 The project's impacts to ozone lêÝels c:cìntributê to a cumulatively significant regional impact.,v that is n.ot mitigable'attheproject I~vel.""'" " v ;,',' "r", , 'j, ,-"," ~~j" ..., Channelsidt Shopping ConI<' fiR Pg,J~ Biolol!ical Resources 0 Direct impacts to 0.06 acre (250 linear feet) of unvegetated drainage are considered significant because the drainage represents waters of the U.S. under the jurisdictio,n of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and wetlands under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (FEIR, p. 4.6-71. 0 Direct and indirect impacts to c;p¡¡stal salt marsh habitat as a result of bridge construction are considered significant. Coastaf-salt marsh is a rare and depleted habitat type; it is recognized as wetland habitat by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, it may support the salt marsh skipper (FEIR, p. 4.6-71. 0 Direct impacts to Coulter's salt marsh daisy are considered significant (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). 0 Potential indirect impacts to the light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow as a result of construction noise are considered significant (FEIR, p. 4.6-71. Public Services and Utilities 0 Implementation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of use on the site and would result in significant impacts to schools (FEIR, p. 4.7-101. Traffic Circulation 0 Implementation of the proposed project without a connection to the National City Boulevard/35th Street intersection is not proposed since this option was not analyzed and total project traffic impacts are not known under this untested scenario (FEIR, p. 4.8-261. 0 Implementation of the proposed project would result in unacceptable LOS « DJ for the 5th Avenue/C Street intersection if left unsignalized (FEIR, p. 4.8-261. 0 Implementation of the proposed project would result in an adver'se traffic impact at 4ttr Avenue and Brisbane Street without signalization and additional capacity for the southbound and eastbound approaches (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). 0 Implementation of the proposed project would slightly worsen an unacceptable future LOS peak hour condition on SR-54 west bound off-ramp at Highland Avenue and Broadway and E Street (FEIR, p. 4.8-261. ~ 0 Because of the moderate to high erosion hazard, unsuitable imported fill material, and low strength an high settlement characteristics of the site geology, çfevelopment o(t,he site ,in .its existing condition would be a potentially significant impact to proposed ,structui:es'(FEIR, p, 4~9- 8~ ", ". '. 0 The seismic hazard potential is considered high ~nd is therefore a potentiallyŠignìfi~rítimpact" to proposed structures and public safety (FEIR, p. 4.9-91. ó) ~.. ~ ~ . It># 1oJ.. Channel,ide Shopping Cent« fiR Pg,4 . . 0 Due to the presence of potential seismic activity, existing shalfow groundwater and sifty sandy soils, the potential for seismicalfy induced liquefaction' occurring on-site is high and represents a polenlialfy significant impact to proposed structures (FEIR, p. 4.9-9). Hvdrolol?vM'ater Qualify 0 The potential for a hydraulic capacity deficit in the earthen channel which runs along the southerly portion of the project site to convey 50-year ultimate storm flows in accordance wilh City design and threshold standards is considered a potentialfy significant impact. 1:: Short-Term - Erosion and sedimentation impacts resulting from earth movem.ent and grading would be signi~canl during construction of the proposed project. Long-Term - ~rban runoff from the proposed project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to water quality. Siçnificant Effects The proposed project would result in the following irreversible environmental changes: 0 Significant impacts to air quality associated with project implementation have been identified. Although the project's impacts to ozone levels are not considered individualfy significant, they contribute to a cumulatively significant regional impact that is not mitigable at the project level (FEIR, p. 4.3-7). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impacts are acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. The subsections below restate all of the above-identified impacts and the mitigation measures are recommended to be adopted to avoid impacts (or the reasons the mitigation measlires or"altematives . are infeasible due to specific economic, social or other considerations). There are no measures or alternatives that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency to adopt or implement. A. LAND USE Potentially Sil!nificant Effect: Implementing the crossing from National City Boulevard to the site would result in impacts to coastal salt marsh. This is considered to be a significant land use inconsistency with the LCP which calls for preservation of wetlands (FEIR, p. 4.1-13), .EiIu1in&: Changes or âlterations have been reqUired in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially'signifitant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures:,.T¡-'e following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either ils a condition of approval Or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.1-15;4.1-16). Ch.n~lsick Shopping C.m., fiR .ÇI~ ~8 Pg.S A.lr/~ The land use impact associated with the inconsistency of the project with the wetlands preservation goals of the lCP, which have resulled from impacts to sensitive wetlands habitat and species, will be mitigated by on-site revegetation at a 3: 1 ratio. Mitigation for this impact is further described in Section 4.6,~. This mitigation would reduce inconsistency with wetland preservation goal impactS to a less than significant level and would serve as the EnvironmentalManagement Program as required by the lCP. Potentiallv SiI;nificant Effect: The project as designed would result in impacts to the Chula Vista Greenbelt designation on the project site. Impacts associated with encroachment into the Chula Vista Greenbelt are considered to be signifi~¡1t (FEIR, p. 4.1-12). f.indings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. . Mitil!:ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.1-16). The land use impacts associated with Chula Vista Greenbelt inconsistencies on the project site shall be mitigated by providing a 15-25 ft. wide landscape striplbuffer along the northerly property line. In addition, enhanced landscaping necessary to implement the visual aspects of the Greenbelt, in concert with the ongoing landscape program for the SR-54 freeway right-of-way, shall be installed within this landscape striplbuffer as well as along the back edge of the 100-ft. wetlands buffer. Plant materials for each of these areas shall be subjèct to approval of the City's landscape Architect and shall also be consistent with the goals of the current lCP and Coastal Development Permit for the Sweetwater River area. B. AIR QUAlITY Potentially Sil!:nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project during the construction phase would result in a significant short term local and cumulative impact to air quality (PM,oJ (FEIR, p. 4.3-7). findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated.into, the project wbich will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!:ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 3.1-5). 0 Revegetation of disturbed areas shall be conducted within 15 days of completion of grading. 0 Active grading sites shall be watered at least twice daily. 0 Spoìl, import, export,or other stock piles (sand, gravel, etc.) excluding surcharge material, shall be enclosed, covêred, or. watered twice daily. :'. ., . .. ,:"",. 0 Trucks hauling dirt, sand or gravel or other loose material shall be covered and should maintain a two-foot freeboard. ~ - 017" Ch.nnel,ide Shopping Cente, ElR . Pg.6 A.~l.f . . .. 0 Vehicle wheel washers, or other methods acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be installed where vehicles exit the project site. 0 Ultimate deposition of export material off-site would require that the applicant demonstrate the' inclusion of erosion control measures and compliance with other requirements as determined necessary by the City of National City or the City of San Diego. Silmifrcant Effect: The project's impacts to ozone levels contribute to a cumulatively significant regional impact that is not mitigable at the project level (FErR, p. 4.3-7). "'" £im!.im:s: No mitigation measure(s) is/are presently available to avoid this impact at the project level. Mitigation of this impact relies on regional programs to reduce regional air pollution. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this impa~ is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and/or other considerations. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Sienifrcant Effect: Direct impacts to 0.06 acre (250 linear feet) of unvegetated drainage are considered significant because the drainage represents waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army.Corps of Engineers and wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Califomia Department of Fish and Game (FEIR, p. 4.6-71. .Eim!i.Du: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings WEIR, p. 3.1 -5). Proposed mitigation for impacts to the drainage include reconfiguration and maintenance of a new drainage channel. It is likely that an individual Section 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act will not be required because the impact is less than an acre. Owing to the limited acreage involved, the project is likely to be covered by the Nationwide permit process. However, a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to the Califomia Fish and Game code will-be required prior .. to construction activities. Application for the 1603 agreement will need to be accompanied by biological doc\Jmentation of the site and a conceptual revegetation and monitoring plan. This plan may indude measures such as limitations on grading, érosion control measures, revegetation and plant survival criteria, subject to the approval of permitting agencies. . Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects: Direct and indirect impacts to coastal salt marsh habitat as a result of bridge construction are considered significant. Coastal salt marsh is a rare and depleted habitat type; it is recognized as wetland habitat by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, it may support the salt marsh skipper (FEIR, p. 4.6-71. fiIIdinu: Changes 'or alterations have been recjuired in, or incorporated into, the project whic:h will i avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified ¡nthe Final EIR. <' -c.; ",.., ." 'Go" ..'JL', ' "~..'" .:s ,9 ~'l)' Ch.n~Is;de Shopping C~nl~' fIR A~ ¡ø-- Pg. 7 ---.---- '..---- " " Miti~ationME'asurE's: The following mitigalion measures have been found to be feasible and have ' been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). Impacts to coastal salt marsh are the direct result of the proposed bridge connecting the project with Broadway to the west of the site. For purposes of this impact analysis, a "worst case scenario" has been assessed, Le., the most intrusive bridge design has been evaluated. It is strongly recommended that the bridge design that is the least intrusive into the coastal salt marsh habitat be selected, thereby minimizing impacts to this sensitive hab.i!at type. The "worst case" design not only results in the direct loss of approximately 0.15 acre'of salt marsh habitat, through fill and shading, but may adversely affect the salt marsh to the north of the proposed bridge. Regardless of the final design, impacts to coastal salt marsh shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 by area, preferablyorrsite. Hence, excavation and salt marsh revegetation should be conducted in the southwestern comer of the site adjacent to existing coastal salt marsh habitat. It is likely that a Section 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act will not be required because the impact is less than an acre; i.e., the impact is likely to be covered by the Nationwide permit process. However, a Section 1603 Sireambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to the Califomia Fish and Game Code will be required prior to construction activities. Application for the 1603 agreement will need to be accompanied by biological documentation of the site and a conceptual revegetation and monitoring plan. Potentially Silmificant Effects: Direct impacts to Coulter's salt marsh daisy are considered significant (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). findinu: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Miti1!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and, have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). . Direct impacts to Coulter's salt marsh daisy shall be mitigated through salvage and transplantation on- site prior to grading for construction. "'. Potentiallv Silmificant Effects: Potential indirect impacts to the light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow as a result of construction noise are considered significant (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). findinu: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitieation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.6-7). .. , Potential indirect impacts to the light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow shall be c mitigated by scheduling construction activities to avoid the breeding'seasons of these two bird species,. which extend from March 15 to August 1. If the project applicant wishes to proceed with construction activities during the breeding season, a focused survey must be conducted to ensure that neither species is breeding and/or nesting in the salt marsh habitat onsite. If breeding and/or nesting is' ' occurring, no construction activities that exceed 60 dB at the nest location shall be performed during. the breeding and/or nesting season. '*-1 3 / Ch.nnelside Shopping Center fiR _1_1- Pg.8 . . .. D. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Potentiallv Si~nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of use on the site and would result in significant impacts to schools (FEIR, p. 4.7-10). ~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. I Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and has been required as a condition of approval tnTough these findings (FEIR, p. 4.7-10). The applicant shall pay State-mandated impact fees of $0.28 per square-foot of building area. E. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION & PARKING Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project without a connection to the National City Boulevard/35th Street intersection is not proposed since this op~ion was not analyzed and total project traffic impacts are not known under this untested scenario (FErR, p. 4.8-26). ~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). The project applicant shall add a 4th leg (crossing) to the intersection of National City Boulevard at 35th Street. Project improvements include a connection between the project parking lot and National City Boulevard, restriping on National City Boulevard, and signal modifications to provide for full turning movements. Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would result in unacceptable LOS « D) for the 5th AvenuelC Street intersection if left unsignalized (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). - .Eind.in=: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). The applicant shall signalize the intersection of 5th Avenue at C Street. Potentially Sil!nificant Effects: Implementa~on of the proposed project would result in an adverse traffic impact at 4th Avenue and Brisbáne Street without signalization and additional capacity for the southbound and eastbound approäëhes WEIR, p:4.8-26). ',' " . '¡ii:,'- ..,";; '" .',~ '" :.'. ,0 0 'oo .0.'. 0 - ~ "Changes o~ alteratipns have b,een requÍ(~ in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmen~al effect identified in the FinalEIR.' - ~ I~ - 32¡.l a.anne/side Shopping Centel EIR /f./P7 Pg. 9 -, ,. " Miti~ation Measures: The following miligation measures hilVe been found to be feasible and have been required eilher as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). [) Project applicant shall construd an access road connedion between the sile and 41h Avenue. The roadway should align across from Brisbane Avenue and have two left-turn lanes and one through/right-turn eastbound approach lanes and two westbound lanes. [) land use buildout of the ChanQe,/side Shopping Center, National City Marketplace and Target, plus project cumulative traffic wifl necessitate that the access road be aligned concentric with Brisbane Street at Fourth Avenue (ultimate improvements). For short term, prior to the redevelopment of the property of the south CTarget), the access road can be aligned approximately 60 feet north of Brisbane Street creating all offsèÙntêrsection at Fourth Avenue to avoid encroachment onto the property occupied by Target. [) The ultimate objective however, is to achieve the concentric alignment with Brisbane. To this end, staff has agreed if the ultimate improvements are not achieved at the time that the Channelside Shopping Center/National City Marketplace projects proceed, the offset intersection will be allowed providing that the cost of the interim improvements are borne by the Channelside Shopping Center or National City Marketplace developers. Furthennor'!, these two projects shall be conditioned io provide for the ultimate improvements. As such, a condition will be placed on the approvals for the Channelside Shopping Center/National City Marketplace projects to provide a pr<rrata share of the ultimate Improvements. Final design approval will be subject to financial security via a bond, promissory note, or other such financial mechanism to ensure participation. The terms of this condition will be further defined in the agreement between the Cities of Chula Vista and National City regarding costs and responsibilities for public improvements. [) If Channelside Shopping Center and National city Marketplace developers proceed with their projects in advance of their ability to achieve the ultimate improvements, the project applicants shall be responsible for not only the interim improvements, but for their prCH'ate share of the ultimate improvements when those improvements occur. .,..' . [) Project applicant shall pay fair share cost to widen 4th Avenue on the west side between SR-54 and the project driveway to provide a southbound right-turn lane. (] Project applicant shall pay fai~ sh~re cost to install a traffic sig",;' at the 4th AvenuelBrisbane Avenue intersedion. Potentiallv SienificantEffects: Implementation of the proposed project would slightly worsen an unacceptable future LOS peak hour condition on SR-54 west bound off-ramp at Highland Avenue and Broadway and E Street (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). "'" , ",,:... ~'" , ..", ' ,'" ,. ' ", findiJJø: Changes or alterations have b~n reqùireCI in, oril'lcorpo~t~,into, the projectwhic.h: will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the'Final ErR." , c, ... Mitieation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.8-26). ""', -"';f "'1 - .:5:" ~' "'" '.. , f/ Chann.lside Shopping C.nt., fIR A-./o'l PH,10 . " .. 0 SR-54 westbound off-ramp at Highland Avenue. Applicanl to pay fair share cosl to widen the ramp to allow a second westbound left-turn lane. 0 Broadway at E Street. Applicant shall pay fair share cost 10 add eastbound left- and righi-turn . lanes and a westbound right-turn lane. . f. GEOLOGY Potentiallv SÎlmificant Effects: Because of the moderate to high erosion hazard, unsuitable imported fill material, and low strength and high settlement characteristics of the site geology, development of the site in its existing condition would be a significant impact to proposed structures. findingS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated.into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitis;ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (fEIR, p. 4.9-8). 0 To mitigate adverse soil conditions, the applicant has been conducting surcharge operations on the portions of the site that will accept loading from structures. The building areas are being overburdened with soil to compress underlying soils to the point where they are suitable for development. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that satisfactory soil conditions have been achieved. Potentiallv SÎlmificant Effects' The seismic hazard potential is considered high and is therefore a significant impact to proposed structures and public safety. Due to the presence of potential seismic activity, existing shallow groundwater, and silty sandy soils, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction occurring on-site is high and represents a significant impact to proposed structures. £indiw:s: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpotat~ into, the project. which will avoid the potentially significant environmental e,ffect identified in the Final EIR. Mitis;ation Measures: The following mitigation meaSures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.9-8). 0 Structural components of the proposed project shall be designed by a professionally California State licensed structural engineer with specific experience in designing similar structures. Structures shall be designed in accordance with the 1994 UBC guidelines. At a minimum, structural design shall be done in accordance with the 1994 UBC Seismic Zone 4 factors. Preliminary design shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Housing and shall be 'in conformance with thecuÍTent UBC at the time the application' for a building,permit,'¡s2",iJ submitted. ,,'" ..,.' ,'" ,!(.1f'~"",:~,'; ""~'.':~';~':.i.:.U;' ',... .:l~ 94 "-;,;.,O~c,,njbq:, Channel.ide Shopping Center fIR A-/tfl Pg, 11 '-- . '",,"",.,- ,'. G. HYDROlOGYIWATER QUALITY Potentially Sil!nificant Effects: The potential for a hydraulic capacity deficit in the earthen channel which runs along the southerly portion of the project site to convey 50-year ultimate storm flows in accordance with City design and threshold standards is considered a potentially significant impact. fin.ding£: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid'the potentially significant enYironq¡~ntal effect identified in the Final EIR. ~. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p; 4.10-15). 0 The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the channel in the southerly portion of the project site can provide for 50-year ultimate storm flows in accordance with City design and threshold standards prior to issuance of a grading permit. Potentially SÎlmificant Effects: Erosion and sedimentation impacts resulting from earth movement and grading would be significant during construction of the proposed project. . ~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.10-15). 0 Development of the Channelside Shopping Center project shall comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and stormwater discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista thereto. Further, the applicant shall file a notice of intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater for Discharges associated. with construction activity an implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall indude the erosion control and pollution prevention measures listed below under 4.10< and Mitigation Measures 4.3 as listed in Section 4.3, Air DualitY pursuant to the City's Grading Ordinance. Potentially SÎlmificant Effects: Urban runoff from the proposed project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to water quality. findinu: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Miti\!ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been' required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these findings (FEIR,p. 4.10-15). a,~ . -j' <; Chan",,/side Shopping C.nt., fIR A-f1{) Pg.12 ,', .' 0 Acceptable pre-treatment devices or facilities installed on the on-site stormdrain syslem shall be effective in the removal of urban pollutants. Adequate effectiveness shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the grading permit. A maintenance schedule shall also be submitted to the City Engineer. At a minimum, pre-treatment devices or facilities shall be cleaned on a quarterly basis and prior to the rainy season (November 1). VII. INFEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN THE PRO/ECT ALTERNATIVE (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 210B1 [BD The approval of the project would œose significant unavoidable cumulative impacts by contributing to existing regional air quality impact. The only way to mitigate this impact is to disapprove the project and to not allow existing ~pproved uses to be carried forward. Essentially, all future discretionary projects would have to be denied. The decision makers reject this approach because it would not achieve the City goals for productive use of the subject site. It is an explicit goal of the Chula Vista General Plan and Town Center II Redevelopment Plan to increase the retail base of the City. Additionally, the General Plan states as a goal to maintain or improve quality of life through responsible management of growth, while providing services and amenities to residents and visitors, including housing, open space and recreation shopping opportunities. In addition, the decision makers find that the project will generate permanent jobs and result in a net positive fiscal impact from sales tax revenue. The decision makers have considered whether any of the project alternatives discussed in the EIR could feasibly substantially lessen or avoid the identified significant effects. As will be explained below, the decision makers conclude that none of the project alternatives could both rneet the objectives of the project and lessen or avoid the identified significant effects. There were seven (7) allernatives including the proposed project evaluated in this Supplemental EIR. Their characteristics are: Alternative Description Project Two major retail anchoo a~ accompanril'!g . commerciaVrestauranl uses. No Project Maintain site in Its current condition. Existing General Plan and Zoning Development of the pro/ect Slle In accordance with the adopled research and limited manufactuñng land use designations and zoning. Reduced Density Commercial Building areas would be réduced by one third. Alternative Site (1) OIay Rio Business Park Alternative Site (2) EastLake Business Park (Phase II) '"L ,'." Alternative Site (3) OIay Ranch Eastern Urban Cente.: "':,', , ., =--"1'" S"', 'êt.,' c' :~n'; . "' . .C,. :¡~} ~"'; ~19 3~ð Channe/side Shopping Center fiR II . '11 Pg. tJ '. ,'. No Proiect Alternative Adoption of the No Project Alternative would avoid potential impacts associated with the proposed project. Howeyer, implementation of this aliernative would not achieve the objectives of the adopted General Plan and Town Center II Redevelopment Plan which call for providing retail uses within the Central Chula Vista area. Additionally, this alternative does not i\SJ!.ffectively expand the retail tax base of the City of Chula Vista, or provide the project's level of sales -tax revenue to the City to enhance public services city-wide. The No Project aliemative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of the Town Center . II Redevelopment Plan and General Plan land Use Element. Additionally, implementation of this altemative would reduce the anticipated sales tax revenue io the City. The .altèmative is, therefore, rejected as infeasible. Existin!:! General Plan Desi!:!nation and Zonin!:! Development of the site in accordance with the adopted Research and limited Manufacturing land use designations would reduce, but not eliminate, environmental impacts of the proposed project and would result in significant unmitigable impacts to air quality. As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality of the FEIR, cumulative impacts to air quality are due to regional conditions. Only adoption of the No Project Altemative would avoid the project's contribution to the air quality impacts. Short of denying this project and future projects, these cumulative impacts will incrementally increase. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with the General Plan. However, it would conflict with the goals of the General Plan and the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan. As discussed in Section 4.1, ~ of the FEIR, it is a goal of the land Use Element of the General Plan as well as the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan to provide for retail facilities in the Central Chula Vista area to improve employment levels and the availability of retail uses. Based on these factors, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan land Use Elèment and therefore is-rejected as infeasible. ReducPd Df'nsitv Commf'rcial Impacts associated with this altemative would be of a similar type to those anticipated under the proposed project. However, for most of the impacts, the intensity or extent of the impact would be reduced but not avoided under this altemative. Implementation of this alternative would result in significant unmitigable impacts to air quality. Cumulative impacts to air quality are due to regional conditions. Only adoption of the No Project Altemative would avoid the project's contribution to the air quality impacts. Short of denying this project and future projects, these cumulative impacts will incrementally increase. "., ,,' , , , ., ", Under the reduced squarefoc?tage altemà~!ve, t~e.'proj~ wo~ldn~tlikely support it large,high , volume, discount retailer, thereby requiring a differént type as wèll aSsize of commercialuse than is currently proposed. As a result, fiscal benefitS would be reduced)'" ' . .-- .,., "-. Q -$- :r7 Chan""lside Shopping Center fiR LLn~ Pg,14 '. ., As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of Ihe proposed projed would not be avoided under this alternative and the economic benefit to the City would be reduced as compared to the proposed projed. The alternative is, therefore, considered to be infeasible. Alternative Site (1) With the exception of potential biological, hydrology, and greenbelt impads associated with the proposed projed, implementation of the projed at this location would not eliminate any significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed location. As discussed in Sedion 5, Alternatives of the FEIR, potentially significant land useiinpacts are associated with this site due to the current land use . designation of the site, Research and Limited Manufaduring, as well as potential conflids associated with siting a commercial use in a business park. Potentially significant traffic impacts are also associated with this site due to access concerns. . Implementation of a commercial use in an alternative site would have similar impacts to air quality, schools, public utilities, and geology, as would implementing a commercial projed at the proposed site. Additionally, implementation of the projed at this location would not be consistent with the goals of the General Plan and the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan. As discussed in Section 4.1, landJ..!sf of the FEIR, it is a goal of the land Use Element of the General Plan as well as the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan to provide for retail facilities in the Central Chula Vista area to improve employment levels and the availability of retail uses. As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided under this alternative. Additionally, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan and General Plan land Use Element. Based on these factors, the alternative is rejected as infeasible. Alternative Site (2) With the exception of potential impacts to biological resources and hydrology associated with the proposed project, implementation of the project at this location would not avoid any of the significant impacts associated with the proposed location. As discussed in Section 5, Altematives of the FEIR, land use impacts under this alternative wquld be considered potentially significant due to the oment land use designation of the site, Research and Limited Manufacturing, as well as potential conflicts with siting a commercial use within a business park. Future projections indicate that traffic impacts on surrounding roadways would also be potentially significant. Implementation of a commercial use in an alternative site would have similar impacts to air quality, schools, public utilities, and geology, as would implementing a commercial project at the proposed site. Additionally, implementation of the project at this location would not be consistent with the goals of the General Plan and the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan. As discussed in Section 4.1, landJ..!sf of the FEIR, it is a goal of the land Use Element of the General Plan as well as the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan to provide for retail facilities in the Central Chula Vista area to improve employment levels and the availability of retail uses. .,. "n"'.. As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided under this alternative. .'Additionally, this alternative would not meet the objectives'of the project or the. goals of the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan and General Plan land Use Element. Based on these, . fadors, the alternative is rejeded as infeasible. ' '} A-- ~¿¡ Channel,ide Shopping Cenler fiR A..'7~ PH. 15 . . '. ,'. Alternative Site (31 Implementation of the project at this alternative site is not considered to be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Implementation of a commercial use at this altemative site would have similar impacts to air quality, schools, public utilities, and geology, as would implementing a commercial project at the proposed site. Additionally, the infrastructure necessary to support the proposed project is not available and are not scheduled for completion for the next five to ten years (FEIR, p. 5.0-6). Development of the proposed project is scheduled for 1995 and 1996,f1nd, therefore, infrastructure would not be available to serve the project. For this reason, the Otay lUnch Eastern Urban Center site is not considered to meet the objectives of the project. As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided under this alternative. Additionally, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project. Based on these factors, the alternative is rejected as infeasible. '-.- - . .;:¡ -@- ~ iii ~ a.nn./side Shopping C.nt., fiR A.?3 Pg.16 .', .' STA TEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Chula Vista City Council, in approving the various actions that are the subject of the Channelside Shopping Center FEIR, having considered and independently judged the information contained in the FEIR and having reviewed and considered the public testimony .and record, makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the Findings and the action of the City Council approving the project. The City Council finds and concluä~~ that the public benefits o{ the project outweigh the identified significant and unmitigated impacts to air quality set {orth in the Findings. The decision makers find that the {ollowing {actors support approval o{ the project, despite the identified significant environmental impact. Therefore, the City Council sets {orth the {ollowing Statement o{ Overriding Considerations: 1. The project will benefit the City by providing needed commercial goods and services in the Central Chura Vista portion of the City, by serving a growing population base in that area and by achieving stated goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan. ' 2. The project will result in a substantial net positive fiscal impact upon the City thereby allowing {or enhanced City services. 3. The project will benefit the City by generating approximately 350 new jobs, contributing to an improved jobs to housing balance in the Central Chula Vista area. 4. As set forth in the Findings, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project or made binding on the applicant through the adoption o{ the Findings, which to the extent feasible, reduce impacts to below a level of significance. . 5. The City Council has care{ully balanced the benefits o{ the project, as proposed, against its unavoidable environmental risks and has determined that the risks are "acceptable" because of the fiscal benefit to the city as well as the contribution o{.the project to achievi11g the land use goals o{ the Gene~~1 Plan and Town Center II Redevelopment Plan. Consequently, the Council believe that the proposed project is the superior alternative despite the significant impacts to air quality that would result from implementation of the project. .:. ; J.;.. 'Ç' Jfò Ch.nne/,ide Shopping Conte, ElR A:-"1Lf Pg. 17 " ,. . ,- ~. CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER' MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .- . . ',;,j A-?5 ..~ ..:. , . Clfzú gJ WJ £ !Blank It- rJ6 " " ., CHANNELS IDE SHOPPING CENTER MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring Program Description and Purpose .... The Calüornia Environmental Quality Act requires a lead orresponsibleagencythat approves a project where an Envirorimental ImpactReport (EIR) has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting,or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City ofChuIa Vista is the lead agency for the Channelside Shopping Center project. A Draft and Final EIR were prepared forthis project which addressed potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, either reconunended mitigation measures to reduce identified significant impacts below a level of significance or a reconunended alternative to avoid the impact. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. The City ofChula Vista will adopt this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) after considering the Final EIR and if approval of the project occurs. Roles and Responsibilities The MMRP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project, including final . . - - - design, pre-grading, construction and operation. The City ofChuIa Vista has the primary enforcement role for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) will provide final approval for the completion of the implementation of mitigation measures. The ERC will appoint a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) who will be responsible for the actual monitoring of the implementation of the mitigation measures. The MCC will interface with the ERC, the City Engineer, the City Landscape Architect, the Construction Supervisor, and the Construction lnspector(s), all who have some responsibility for the implementation of the mitigation measures. A.?7 éY If-- ¥ ~ MMRP-I "",." " . . Miti¡:ation Monitorinr-and Reportin¡:Procedures The MMRP consists ofMitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro gram procedures, filing requirements, and reporting and compliance certification. These procedures are outlined below. Mifirafion Moniforinr and R"norfinf Profram Proc"dur..~: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program identifies the monitórlng activity, the timing of implementation of the mitigation measures, and the responsible agency or department that will verity satisfactory implementation of the mitigation measures. Mitieation Monitorinf and Reporting Proe:ram Files Files shall be established to document and retain the records of the MMRP. The files shall be established, orgaruzed, and retained by the City ofChula Vista Planning Department. ReTJortinr and romTJliance Verification The City's Mitigation Monitoring Report fonns are designed to record the monitoring activity in a consistent manner with appropriate approvals. The fonns will be completed and signed by the individuals responsible for the monitoring and approval of the mitig~tion measures. These. fonns will be placed in the MMRP files. Pro'l1'am Q,perations The following steps will be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each mitigation measure: I. The City ofChula Vista, Environmental ReviewCoordinator (ERC), shall designate the MCC, who will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures. 2. The ERC shaII provide to the MCC the Mitigation Monitoring Report forms; a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program checklist; and other pertinent information. 3. TheMCC shall coordinate the implementation of the mitigation measures and shall complete the MMRP fonn for each activity. The MCC shall then forward the report to the ERC for final approval. /J..r¡8 ~ ,) '-t~ .', '. ., 4. All completed [onns shall then be placed in theMMRP files. Mitigation measures shall be implemented as ~ified by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Summary. During any projeCt pl1ase,'ananticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of nútigation measures. The ER C, with advice fiomstafi; is responsible forrecommending changes to the nútigation measures. if needed. If mitigationmeasuresare refined, the ERC shall complete a Mitigation Monitoring Report Ponn documenting the change, and shall notify the appropriate design, construction, or operations persOIU1e1 about revised requirements. - Ii -?OJ ~ ~ l/ 'J!' -- --.. '. " .' Ë . ~ = E {j 0 ¡; . ~ .; ~ > ~ tI)" ~. ~ : u ¡o;J = U .!!.¡¡ fi. . Q el' ~~ 1:. ~i 11 :; . ¡¡¡ . ~ ~"Ë ð ~ ! ~ ð' .... ,!:i ':; i i ~ '¡; ~ tt::. r:; "",. þ-u ""-< .- ."'. 11 .-= r::ïc:: A- ""¡¡: £5 U ~g tj c:: '¡; . '¡; . '¡; . C ~ ~j U It I'j Zz ="..,A-.., .., ø: E= ~~ ~{~{ :!{ ~c:: .~;, .!!¡¡, ~¡¡, 00 .... A- ... =~ - ~ ~ t: . Q Q ...:: .2:: -z c' .51!; ~-< :.ë~:¡.r ¡¡ ¡o;Jc -5~ '!~ ~ i Z Z "Ë "Ih¡¡] .l z ~ 0 g, = .'" c! .. -<r::r¡ 2:¡;. r~.!! i = 0 ",,'" ~ u~ e. ~. ~ Jj]i~~i ~1~ti:l¡tit~1.i;.1 i1¡ :Ë - tit'¡I~i t.!~ jl.!ij-all~iil li.f Z -= 'ZJ ~ 1;; 'Zi.! !~... ,Beg ,B.! ~ I j 'I! ~! .1 f II f f i! ¡ ¡ f i ~ .i Ii c> . :¡ i! I -< 2:- II :0..,'" II-J;-a; iJ'Z-I¡.. -ti.~ ~ ~j ¡f,¡;i.;Jf!g i1'Zï~I!J!"Ii=-Ði."}ji! t'llj¡i !: .!!'.¡¡ .f!'¡.flii~ .fij.;1i .&!ji.!!fi11!! J!-å,¡; :Ë i~ ~ ¡¡:!1J;-J!, ¡111~;~[~i=,¡;~~~1 ~ ftl~ ~ 1"'!'Z!Jij I~I i"llfl~~I!ii g ~g-j .; ~.ell=,'u~JL^ ~~¡:;(;.! ,¡tJ! ii liJ! ~, ~ ;,12 1\ ~¡~ '~~ -A- I!! -., "..... , .. .. .0... !~~ ~ ~, ~ \¡ : ,:: ~:L.. . . .,/L 0 I"L.. . '..; ,: ~'.. _", V- -', .' 0' M ok ~ c Ê :; 0 Ii . . .; ~ j ~- ~ . --¡¡ ~ ego; ].cu I!'" > ~æ fii U~ i .r ¡¿ 'I; "'" E ::Ii O~¡¡- .'~ "':E -0: E ~~~ ~~ : 5~2'1; ~- 5 ~~~ c c"" 2- Iii .. ~o~ ~ Ii r.'¡ ¡ ~= ~i~ ~~ iBt "'" - N . 1 li ~ go... u~ "'.. 2u ~~ !~ ~~ ~ '" ~ .. -- i¡ it i t!t!il!~I: ili1tji!~jllllii~lj: '" I . - ¡ 'I; .8 ¡; ... .8 I! -l'i .1- Ii Ii: - .l! 'i B ~~ ~ ~- 1-¡~ . E! _2 ~~-! 5"", 'Ii!.Ii 1i ..¡¡iM'¡¡'ijl i 1Ii:e. ,¡11-=.lil.8!2;1 ~'¡¡ 'i fi ~.¡¡!!! .¡ o~'il1il~¡i1 'i.!'J.t!~~t:JiI!Jj 'i 01".1 Ii ~ ¡Ii'l;f ll!~ill~i¡ 1~~~~I:.ff~lgf'i]1õ ~J ~ t~!~1If~ijt.~jii~ t;~il~il1l~II¡1 t f ~'~II'I;ljIIIJlli¡ ~ 1!.Jitl~jl!ii~¡~täil "'" c ::: C C C . C -- C ¡¡ J! l! M ]'1.l ::= ~ G.~ æ B -; tì i .. . . - . .. .- .. a: i & . , ¡¡¡ J¡ ~ i. ,;, " . j~~ ~- ~ ~:Ë .. ... A OJ '] "1 j'! ~. '. '" ,0, - E . ~ " c ~ ~ þ c . ~ Q ~ ~'.' . . ~ ~ .-I¡¡~ -};¡"Ï e'" - E2- - ri2- "~ !E .,~þ !E .,~þ c; .¡¡¡-,,"" _¡¡¡-,,"e It= ~ I:' 1:'", ~ Ii ~ I:' 1:'", ~ I: ~~ 1;ii],i! 1;Etri! i~ 5j~æ"" 5j¡¡¡~"" ... '-' 1; ... '-' . ~-f,j ~-¡ .[ g .Li ~ -Ii j ~= 'õõ!!'ii: -i!.. ~~ i~~ iif.. "" u E "" u E '" ~Ë ~ ~ .f '-'~ '-'~ .[~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ .!~ ~~ i i ~ "" "" l~~¡IJ!!f~, i]JI¡Gf!l~ã¡j.il¡1~~¡i¡ !1~ E~,~ ¡f ~EK ~:ri~i~ ~~ ~ !-~~.~ r II i!~il:11"nhß;II~mJ~!qhf i'! .,:: ri;¡¡-!!::'¡¡ jJ!::I!....,gI!!"fC¡¡ J!:¡ tJ!:Ki.BIJ!:""s.i1 -{ ¡¡ 1 ~li!llf~j~;!!¡~;j!I;I~:il~ If~I"~ jJ~ ='g -! =š.e=. .!~I;i¡¡j~ 1]".¡'~1õti".B!1Ji~Jl"1í! f.. s .Ii z~ ~ :-!~i~~".=, .ri]"'~~f:.~if..~I,il".J!: ""~.B ,]E il,5~ t; "1;¡ ¡t:",.1!.¡¡1-l~.fi f1;.f¡J!: E E:~ ~ "I ' ]' ,]"~ ~ ~ litJ!šllfftl!flf~&!11IJ~~!!li~1~~1 ¡~Il ¡; . , ~ . ; ; , , '" e ..' . ;;, ¡¡¡=~ ~ë;, ~ ,,'.. . " ",-""',. ,- l~~ :;; j ~I ;þ ~ ~ ~~ ; u.- 'If'" .1- ." --" ,-- .' ~ ;1 ~ ~ ~ ~ - 0 c 0 :: .; ~ ø - of!- ... .-.1 ,~ 1 3 =-.; :! '" '" of!- -r;¡~' 5'-' -- -- I!!~ ~~r::-;;M ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ h iIgjj~ ~¡¡ iI.f;"!~ iI'i~ :I. 0 t; CI - ... .~ g t; CI' ¡¡¡ t; CI' ¡¡¡ ~:E -;;f;"'E;r:-~ -, -;;f ¡¡- -;;.. ¡¡- r ~ ~~. I;." Eo. ~ ~ CI ~... ~ a ~:! ~ :¡¡¡æ< ~ ~ ~ ¡ u-;; ~li: li: li: ~g:!l :!-¡¡¡ ¡;;f¡.;'!; 0" 0" - 0,& ¡¡'" r; - i'l ~ g {Ji Ji - : Ii ] ~: _U- o~",-;; MQ. "of!- -~- ,!!", "'f;" "'f;" :i!Ë llit ti1!~ e.:! ~I ~I ~ ~i~a¡¡""" ...E~"'~ ~ I: ¡; g - - ~ ~ ~ f¡ ~ Ii :.ë ~~ "0 ~~ ~ ~ ~';, -8 E;; -'¡' E ~~ !~ :¡;J!g!-! og. ~ i]š H" I! :E - 8: ~.:::'" - - '" <...U š~ .š. . ]!~-;;j~.r~!I~~ i: Jilll) ~ ! ~ ei It'd ¡¡! I!.; f ~ 2 : I.E~ i" - -- ~lfiËJi~1iÊfl ~;{ ;;; j~t i liE It f1:~-;-r 1 Ii .-i~a1 ¡ , ~! :¡{ ~fi¡~llfil ~ _IE:! ~i¡;;IIJ ~ 1- xi~l i::!t~!~E ~ 'I ¡E:-2i ~ i! 1 ..~~~il' i,]f, 4B~i e ~1!l ; ~~~~t1 I~ - c - 11 (¡ I- 'ii.ä 61 I;!õ: 0.-.. "" f.!1 ] Ji 1! M æ; !Ë~ £ ,,05: ;- :!I, .ã.,ë.' .,~.'følg,,'i ~ i~ ~ 121õ1".rš.i t~ ]ïc ~ ;¡ ! :! : ~ '" J!! CD.. co - - ~ ,.. I. E 1õ 1õ j it f j¡ .i -.; - & ::; ¡;; --::: 11 ~~ - , ¡¡~l;z¡!i:f'i:Ïl.J]' E Eli I!: ~IIIE1 It > .. - ---,. -, -- , - II: mÈ= -0.. :I. " ' -- 0 - ih ~. ~ ~ ~ E:Ë .. ....... :E . . n..."~~ ';;" <1 ~ ",' , ,0, ~ j c Ê .:¡ ¡¡ . :: '" > ~. ~ 0 " ~ ... ~E ~! ~ ¡ t; "i.r fi ...= -:; it" E IJ ¡ ti",.!1¡¡¡ "'=: - ~(t tt; ;,r~", Q:- ¡:;~ E~ s.. ~¡ ]... ¡s¡ .!!l :E .! ~ ... '" ~ e ;.ë :: "".. !! ~'€ 2\::1 i ~ .~ ~ '" - ~ '- ... 1 !.I 1,1 '~1,:c,¡ i 1,:! :,0 1,11 I' i .E! j 15',§:,l;] i:! ~:.I': j: , ' i!it~ '~I~~-:~~~f !~~!1°1jli]~&il~i wi ~ i~I11 ~l,II!~~jJ: ~~l!t~l!{!: 1JI~D~11 =... 1:" "&... ~fi -;;100 !",," 1i JI š-°-! ~; i IIJI!~" !ilhi~¡I;I~~hlit¡j~]jitl "=.!! co :äl !;-¡ "I;~-J-I5:I¡¡ji' -II ,II.ž £1"'5 l!5'°;!;Ë 11 ,lë,;;¡il,~"E,5i,'",I,ï,1õl B~,i~-I":;~e~ !!:,;,:BD]J:GJII~t,,~i!.~ ~I-! ,to... 0"'. J!. I! ... j i 32 j ¡ , B- ii ~ -;! - -,'" æ - ... ' "..,,11,,&.:.1 Jq¡o ~ ' u o:Eo .. ~Jlì!lf'i--l~ II iJ~ Ill:! I ~1111 ¡ j I: II j t] i~ tIt 0 ' !!: Ë ::. '. / ' ... .. . ' , ~... ',., '" ... " '.. -- . . . ,', "', ¡¡... IJ~ ~ .' i ~ .... --""- .1'1 ~ a -. -.... - "1IOJ" - It ., " " .', E ~ ¡¿ ~ Ê ~ 0 ! . - c : ¡ .. ~ o~i'" 0..>1 ~~ ~~i~ ~~i 00 Die: o~e ::-.¡¡ iiec'õ.~ iiec !~ ..cfBu ..if !~ Biii B£i Ii:... ... ° . lor g- ~-'6 ~i ~l ~{~~ i~ ~£ iijl ~ ~~ ~~e L ~ ~ '" '" ~E 0 j 0 I: U E ~.t E c> ~~ ~ iu go - ~= ~o. I:" 0:> : L If L'" ¡~~ji ]îjl~;l Jjfr'Jj~ if~ ~1~ ~:1~ ~iiii~ it! f¡~ ii!J¡~~ c!i !~i ilf~ -";; 6 ii¡¡~ li~!f!:!!~ 'itó ~ ii ii ;! i ~il~íJ J¡liJJi¡il ~:!il!¡t III ill j l.§ ~.. a i~~ ~ t = J iiEI ii~c i21 c~o ¡~ 1 ;! ~ ~i~I-B~ g ° j-i~ iC~ iÞ~ =ii i~1 ~~~@ ~I ; i~i ...1 §fl.i ~- I~'t:li~ ¡oii ~~j i{j..~ ~ ~Eel~~ 1 ~l: :J £t¡ £~¡ ~~ tó~ ~!~ ~ $ .-:.ë 2- &~-ii¡¡i" E~jj~E~c ~if. ,8~ ; i-I. =: tl~ 11 =BI~I.Ëi 0 ',0 .'. èil:J. f.¡iJ t: ct~f , '. "', -"-""." '"" -'" I =, t ~ S.§Ï : ~ æ ô :;;' , " :' -"- i:;"" .. 0 2 . .' ~:;¡ .... Alr>-,,::""" "";.~ - .If U'" " ", - 'e ~ ,:¡ ~ " ~ .. . l!. ~ ~. ¡ .. ';;~ oo1?I-e- oo'f ~ -! ¡¡.~ ~ € i ~.~ ~. ~ 1:," 5: ooooe~: .. E ..'Ë =", ðe"'i'" ].....§ '!~ ~.r ,;;i'f'~.r ~"'~ i~ Ë'S .r¿Iii.ti..,'S .~f'" ... '" '" <> E: ~"i '" <> .... E: - - {j it it 'Ë :: .'" e- .., ... ,,= ~~ ~~ :E :E .2] .2 !;, ~ ~ ..... .. 'g I .Q¡ E :..t .~~ ¡¡ ~. !~ ~ ë¡ =¡ " :Ëé- Ë." -E . c ~R ~ ...~ ~ ~i51li ~f!~ttii i1~ii~iÈl~li ~~, i!1~ "~l SJ¡ <ti~1;"i~~ hli-~i¡1WS1'1õi S-G:",fi. -~ iJ~li~ 11~~1f1~ l~i~t. ;!E~ .Ë~jii i~ ~¡i~iS 1!lllilJ lil~]~~!¡jlf § Ili:l: .!: '!i;lll: ~¡¡ !! 1:-lI'li:r l::]'-I",.ai!.l:1 . c i~,c ~; 1 ~~1fE;~~1!111 )1!li~~~1rl~ ~ .5f~il i~ æ 1~!~J~ ~v l!l-~ 1~~¡.1:!~~,fi.! ~ $ ~:i~jf ¡¡~ tl .t'H;,i~. i15'¡O¡;'I11¡ lj,stg¡J¡io¡;ll, ~ ,i,"lln'I' I; ~ líoo ""II J . li-¡ ¡¡.1! .Ii S 'II i . i ð;" - i J 11 9 ~.Ii,s :5! D 1:.1:& -¡ -E IS'" W .I: ",lSl:l¡'fil- ~.ItW fi,s,g!' ~ ¡]~o¡;fi!.:~D ii~ll !t~J",:ïliE!:;I¡ E~tl¡.Ul , ~ eel:. .....:!.~ .:! ~ ¡; . .. .\! .,. :.::~ é. ... ~ -;;. ... "1 JJ ~I. . -:IE ... ... :IE ; n ,'. .. .. M - E . ¡¿ " ~ t!. . g - u .; > M - " - ..r ..~ ~ .! ~ .ti :: ~ .~ :: go -~I -Ff¡ ~'Ë 1; '" 1; '" 5 .. c~ c~~ i~ ~., ~., ~~ 5~ 5É ~ ~ .! ¡ ¡.~ i-t '¡:: .10 ~ ,;; '" .= .~ .~ ~~ ~- ~- ~~ æ& CD ~ ~ ~Š ~~ ~ ~ :i ~~ ~~~ '5 ~ '!~ ,Pt 'Ë~ ~~ $~- ::ig. =8 Mt!~ ~ ~ .~:¡¡ ;, - u t~~ "'-- ~ 1~1!~iI8~~~i!~.Eg~!ll ~i~~~i¡~1 ~ i,¡;;E:¡¡i. ~i~,!1::,1!¡¡!¡P:: 'idl'¡;1'~~ g ..1!~' 1!1is_mJ;j¡~'¡; ~ - 8. -II -~ e ~~~ei~:~~i1~~~~I~&~! ~Ii ]MI~i,~ ~ ~ -~ BCq'$i Ji...ti- 6 ~'Iõ -i~.zi: ]'=...- h ~ 11~J.kHPJQilllt.J Ili¡.!8'f~ !I ",ill¡~il-!~~~~~ ~~1.~ i¡~~li!I!¡ I~ ~ ~i~~,~~llr~!I~~1!~¡!~jf 1~~il~j~1&1 :q¡ ~I,I r~,.š.6 -1-1~i ¡ 15 _18 ~ ~ 'i ~!¡¡i ~ i~!]'l ¡ t,-fi,,'~ ~f 8 ';; ~., '¡; j ': f ~ f -! ~ ¡t¡ ~ lfi V: .z~ t c':}!I.I:¡i Ifi!i!í¡.¡;;'Bltïlj~2 !aJ::¡~1~1¡2 \ . ". ".. - ..... . '" i-" ¡¡¡!~ ~ , ' " ' ~¡ò 6' ~ 002 - - ~~ -i Jtc~ -i ", This page intentionally left blank. JJ}~~ ,. " ~.. ~. DRAFf CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE .. . '" . . fi,.gf1 ~ 3-=-'; ~. This page intentionally left blank. A.,qo ~«< " ". " ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REZONE 31.63 ACRES LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF NORTH FIFTH AVENUE FROM I-L-P (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) TO c-c-P (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL-PREGISE PLAN) I. Recitals. A. Project Site. WHEREAS, the area of the land which is subject of this ordinance is diagrammatically represented on Exhibit D (Exhibits A through C onútted), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; consists of 3 I .63 acres located at the terminus of North Fifth A venue and identified as APN 562-324-02 and 562-324-04 ("Project Site"); and, B. Project. WHEREAS, a person having control over all or a ponion of the development of the Project Site, to-wit: National Avenue Associates ("Developer") has filed an application with the City for approval of a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of property consisting of approximately 31.63 acres of land located at the terminus of North Fifth Avenue and diagranunatically presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit A, as such project is more panicularly described in Final Environmental Impact Repon, FEIR-944J2, ("Project"); and C. Application for Discretionary Approvals. WHEREAS, on January 21, 1994, the Developer filed applications with the City of Chula Vista for (I) a General Plan Amendment from "Research ànd Limited Mànufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare", and (2) Rezoning from "I-L-P" (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan) to "C-C-P" (Central Commercial-Precise Plan) ("Discretionary Approvals Applications"); and, D. Planning Commission Record on Applications. WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Discretionary Approvals Applications and/or the Final EIR was duly noticed before the Planning Commission at the meeting of September 28, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on September 28, 1994, considered the Discretionary Approvals Applications, took evidence as set forth in the record of- its proceedings,. which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full, made certain findings as set forth in their Recommending Resolution GP A-94-O2IPCZ-94-C, and recommended to the City Council the approval of said Discretionary Approvals Applications based on certain tenus and conditions; and, E. City Council Record on Applications. WHEREAS,a duly called and q.oticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of ChuIa Vista ort O~.Jber ,1994 on r Disc'te1ionary Approvals Applications, and - ~I '. ,. " Ordinance No. Page 2 to receive the recommendations of the Planning Conurtission, and to hear public testÛ]1ony with regard to same; and, F. Discretionary Appr~v.als Resolution. <-. WHEREAS, at the S31IIe City Council meeting at which this Ordinance was introduced for fmt reading (October ~, 1994), the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted Resolution No. - by which it amended the City's General Plan; and . G. FEIR Reviewed and Considered. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered FEIR 94-02, the envirorunental impacts therein identified for this Project; the Findings of Fact ("CEQA Findings"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to the Discretionary Approvals Resolution as Responsible Agency; and H. Certification of Compliance with CEQA. WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby incorporate Resolution No. certifying FEIR 94-02, and adopting the CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: II. Planning Commission Record. The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the Draft EIR, held on August 10, 1994, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. ill. Finding for Approval of Rezoning. The City Council finds that the rezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program and that the public necessity. convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice support the rezoning to C-C-P(Central Commercial-Precise Plan). IV. Findings for Application of the P Precise Plan Modifier. The City Council finds that the "P".Precise Plan Modifier is appropriate for the Project Site in that: A. The subject property is unique by vinue of its access and traffic circulation in that its westerly point of access requires the construction of a bridge across a wetlands, and its east...r!yaccess enters subject site from the adjoining m¡¡nicipalityof National City. . lLa" _.. " ,.. " Ordinance No. Page 3 B. The property to which the "P" modifying district is being applies is an area adjacent and contiguous to zones or land uses allowing different land uses, to wit, SR-S4 to the north, lL (Limited Industrial) to the south and southeast, CH-CZ (Heavy Commercial-CoastaI Zone) (City of National City) to the west, and CG-PD (General Commercial-PI3IUled Development) (City Q(.National City) to the east, and the development of a precise plan will allow the area so designated to coexist between land usages which might otherwise prove incompatible; C. The area to which the "P" modifying district is applied consists of two properties under separate ownership wherein coordination regarding access, on-site circulation, site planning, building design and identification is necessary to enhance the public converuence, health, safety and general welfare; thus requiring special handling of the development on a precise plan basis. V. Precise Plan Guidelines. The City Council does hereby approve the application of the following Precise Plan Guidelines to .development of the Project Site. Unless otherwise specified, all Conditions, Guidelines and Code Requirements shall be fully completed to the City's satisfaction prior to the approval of occupancy. Unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Precise Plan Guidelines: ~ ~ A. Freestanding signage may be allowed adjacent to the SR-S4 corridor in Ii"-,, ~~;~; sÏlmas:e (height and size to be determined), subject to review of an approval of the Design ~ Review Committee. ".- . B. A IS' to 25' landscape buffer with enhanced landscaping complementaIy to landscaping within the SR-S4 right-of-way shall be provided al:( the northerly property line as a component of the Chula Vista Greenbelt. . \ì l~ - VI. General Conditions of Approval. The foregoing discretionary approval, stated to be conditioned on "General Conditions, " is hereby conditioned on the occurrence of the General Conditions as set forth in Section vm of the Discretionary Approvals Resolution. Vll. Consequence of Failure of Conditions. lfmy of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they arc, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, . the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny orfurther condition iSsuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke"or furiIiér côDdition aU certificates of oèœpancy iSsued under the authority of approvals herein granted, ihstituted and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions _A-L\~ " .t. " Ordinance No. Page 4 or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Ordinance. ~. VIII. Invalidity; Automatic Revocàt1on. It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the eVent that anyone or more tenDS, provisions or conditions arc determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this ordinance at the City's election, in its sole discretion, shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further in force and effect ab initio. IX. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Bruce M. Boogaard Director of Planning City Attorney (M,IoboftdIOISIDECC.on) itA II " ..' .' ... EXIUBIT D AREA MAP A/1~ ~?f/ . - '\" 7 ~ . This page intentionally left blank. It~/p ., '.. .' ~ "; :=:- !AI ::J Z ~~, '.' '.' ::.' c~' . '.," . "." ".. -: ' r-, I . I I ~ I ST. ---.-r"~' ~ .. I C I . { Z I I 0 I .., I I ~ I ,. 4 : : z I I I~ . ,.' I , $TREE' ~',:~;,""~:; ;':?"";~~ ) J. ~~ t::f:"'. ;St.'~01~.,.' '...1"". "..~~"~~ /,:,-..:," ;.. .r. ""'J~'~ ,".l~,jJ' .r~;.:..."..~. ";,."'.:'.', .I'~~ ,"'!/::{f¿,...;...~1 EXHIBIT D :A5ENUMIER: PCZ-94-C, ~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ 30 I HEREBY aRTIFY. THAT THIS ZONING MAP WAS APPROVED AS A. PART OF ORDINANCE SCALE: ,. = 400' _IV THE aTY muNCL ON . D.'.'!£: 6 - 29 - 94 aJYaaJ( DU'E ~~ (T) ~ 7nP\JIP\Jr. MAP - T: ~ . This page intentionally left blank. A-f1<1 '. ..' " ... ... MINUTES OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING OF 7/25/94 , ". "'" "'. .', ."><..,' ,;._, [. ";"< ~h<¡V;.(" '. "" . Vf',- .,'-,- -"""""-"',-" -----~.Ii;.Aq- ".,. """"" """'..,-.. ~'.,. .. v_.~q1; '~/' "-- This page intentionally left blank. It' ¡DO .. " .. MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED MEETING Resource ConservatioD Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 p.m. Conference Room #1 Monday July 25 1994 Public Services Buildinv' CALL MEETING TO ORDERIROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 6:34 by Chair Bum.scano. Present: Commissioners }(ncha, Hall, Ghougassian, and Myers (arrived at 6:40). Absent: Guerreiro, Iohnson. Mr. Reid advised' that none of the absent members had contacted staff. S t a f f present: Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid, Landscape Planner Garry Williams, Environmental Projects Manager Ioe Monaco, Conservation Coordinator Michael Meacham. APPROV AL OF MINUTES MSUC (Kracha/Hall) (4-0) to approve the minutes of the Iuly 11, 1994 meeting, as presented. JI.'EW BUSINESS 1. EIR-94-02 Channel Side Shopping Center Staff Presentation - Mr. Reid advised the commission members that the City Attorney's office had ruled that he had a conflict of interest with this project. Ioe Monaco of the Community Development department presented the project, briefly describing the proposed commercial center to be located south of Highway S4 and east of Broadway. He stated that it had been detennined that there were impacts created by this project in two areas that were not mitigable; those areas are air quality, and the greenbelt. He stated that current technology did not provide for mitigation of air quality, and that there was currently no policy for addressing mitigation for the greenbelt. Project applicants Phil Adams and Gerald Alford presented site plans and tunher described the project. Commission Discussion- Member Hall asked if the bridge arBroadway would bé a fill bridge, stating that a fill bridge would destroy the greenbe1tcoMection. Mr. Alford stated that a f1l1 bridge would be the first preference as it would preclude the presence of transients below; however, alternatives include a span bridge, and a bridge that is part span, part fill. He . discussed the wetlands, pointing out that the project is respecting the 100' buffer from mapped wetland areas. Member Myers asked if there was any data supporting the need for more commercial development; Mr. Monaco stated that the applicants have done market analysis, and that stafrs fiscal analysis showed no impact beyond the first year. Potential school impacts were discussed. Chair Burrascano expressed concern regarding the high liquidation factor, and also asked about success criteria for coastal salt marsh mitigation. Mr. Monaco stated that this would be included in the permit process. . '.", . , ,""".,c.-,' . '-'. ' Public Comment - Mr.-WilliaJl\E.'Claycomb oC-Save;,9W:,Bay, Inc.-eipresso,rconcerns regarding the decrease of salt marsh area and discrepancies in'theþOx cu1vèrt sizC: ,Hestated that the blacktop of the parking area will create additional ruiìôf(, and c:¡úestioned'mitigation of drainage. Mr. Alford stated that the salt marsh area would not be decreased by this project, and that drainage has been accommodated. MSC (HalllK1acha) (4-1, Myers opposed) to~t draftlEIR 94-02. , -,^ -. .' ,. Resource Conservation Commission -2 Julv 25. 1994 2. City Landscape Manual Staff Presentation - Mr. Reid reminded members that they had reviewed this item some months ago in conjunction with the Negative Declaration. He stated that the City Attorney had since ruled that this project is exempt from environmental review. Landscape planner Garry Williams stated that there had been numerous revisions to the document, including input from two developer workshops. ... Committee Discussion - Member Ghougassian .stated that the current manual is a definite improvement over the previous document; other members concurred. Member Kracha disagreed with the generalities regarding eucalyptus trees on page 27, noting that many species are hazardous. He also stated that while contractors are required to install trees with a minimum 3" ginh, the City does not appear to adhere to this. (Member Ghoughassian left the meeting at 7:30 p.m.) MSUC (HalllKracha) (4-0) to recommend adoption of the landscape manual. Member Myers commented that she did not find the wording regarding use of drought-tolerant planting to be strong enough. 3. Ideas to hnprove Environment Mr. Reid suggested continuing this item to the next meeting (to a workshop to discuss ideas), while noting that he would not be at the next meeting due to vacation, and Barbara Reid would be taking his place. Mr. Meacham presented the items in which he had been involved. He advised that Laidlaw had asked for a plan to accommodate mixed waste paper, adding that a mixed waste paper plant is interested in locating in Chula Vista. Mr. Meacham stated, regarding composting, that yard waste is now sent to Organic Recycling West, a state-certificd facility, ratitei' thañ the County facility; he added that the program is cheaper and diverts more than twice the amount of the curbside recycling program. Regarding a purchasing policy regarding use of recycled materials, Mr. Meacham stated that this is being looked at, although an effort is made to purchase such materials now. Chair Bumscano suggested that RCC members contact the assigned staff person to discuss their iterns. 4. StenclliDC at Drainace Inlets Mr. Reid stated that there is a permit process, with fees, for stenciling on rigbtH>(-way. He noted that, (eesare typically Waived for non-profit ~ons by the City,Manager. Mr. Meacham described the storm drain education programs on which moniCŠ arèc:urrently being " . ' ' '" spent. " /1-.. J /)~ -. ~ , -." ., --- . . ',. " Resource Conservation Commission -3 Julv 25. 1994 S. Review of Planning Conunission for. July 27, 1994 Mr. Reid reviewed the Planning Commission agenda. Regarding item #2 (PCM-94-26), member HaIl stated she would be opposed to higher densities. Starr Comments Mr, Reid noted thài the City Manager had taken a budget for historical signs to the City Council as a budget supplement; the Council had approved $1200.00 for signs. He also indicated that the 4(d) rule may be on the next RCC agenda. Chair's Comments Chair Burrascano stated that she would contact those members not present regarding their assigned environment improvement subjects. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ~ tJwM Patty Nevins, Recorder - It ./03 ,::;-' , I t: ~ ::;J . THE CITY OF C....JL4 VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE ~TATEMENT -. .." ," . tement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, -or campaign rontributions, on all matters ich will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Comnússion, and an other ici4l bodies. The following infonnation must be disclosed: . List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the rontract or application, i.e., rontractor, subcontractor, material sITflier... NATIONAL AVENUE ASSOC TES, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP ~~rKUfULrr~ ~tiUffr~u ~~UAKL, LlU. Gayle Jean Stephenson in Trušc for CHARLES G. and Nancy W. Kerch - Jill M. and William G Stephenson Robert Penner. M.D. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. See attached for Metopoitan Shoppin2 S~uare. Ltd. . National Avenue Associates as follows: !J!11a.m P..~!~" Vr"a~ P.rrnar' 1>!athew R. 1 "nrdn p'T'rn..T' George T. Kruer, Partner¡ Jerald A. Alford, Partner If.any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. none Have you had more than S2S0 worth of. business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes - NoU- If yes, please mdicate person(s): Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, ronsultants or independent rontractors who you ha\1e assigned to represent you before the Ci~ ~ this matter. ?artners of National Avenue Associates as listed above in #2. - Have you anellor your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councümember in the current or preceding election period? Yes - No~ If yC;l;, state wroch Councümember(s): m ¡, cIcfiDed u: "AIry ln4i'lÙ!lJ4l.Jimr. _~1úp.Jolllt'-.nIn, ~lon.lød41 clIIb.ftølenuzl orranWz:lDn. >aradon- urate. trun. reoe/wr.lYfIdlcate.lhúwtllfYorMrcotllllY. dryw œlUllTy. dry. tIIWIldpD1ùy. dùtrlaorDtMrpolúiaú IMslon. or,tIIfY Other ~Ilp or øombÚ\4t/Qn _Úlg 11141 1UÚl. . Œ: Mach additiODll pages u DOQCS$U)') . .2::¿~úf - ~ 1/2.Þ/ q¥ -. :e: _Je'('ald A.. A,f:ÞT'¡ . Print or type name of contractor/applicant .1 USIDØC1.OS&. TXT ~,1 Ó> '5JLlhlJ \ . " ... - ATTACHMENT TO DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ,FOR .', METROPOLITAN SHOPPING SQUARE, LTD. , o' ¡¡ - --_. 0._. ... . -... - .-- _. - _.. INDIVIDUALS OWNING PARTNERSHIP INTEREST IN METROPOLITAN SHOPPING SQUARE, LTD. ** General Partner Charles G. Kerch Limited Partners Tom Hurlbert Gilbert Jacobs Jerry Stadtmiller Patricia Stadtmiller Joe Hayvard Charles Borderdine Pa~l Borderdine Trust .- Trust Services of America in Trust for Jerry Stadtmiller Catherine Kerch Smith Margaret Brydegaard Al Stadtmiller Trust ; . -. ~ :q-/2§ ". This page intentionally left blank. /1,/riP REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 11/15/94 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING; LEASE OF THE STRUCTURES AT 801 BROADWAY IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FINDING, PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33431, THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THAT THE STATED PROPERTY BE LEASED TO THE URBAN CORPS FOR USE AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER FOR AN OIL RECYCLING EDUCATION PROGRAM AND BE LEASED WITHOUT PUBLIC BID RESOLUTION /f{3'-f Authorizing the Chairman to execute a lease for structures located at 801 Broadway with the Urban Corps for use as an administrative center for an oil recycling education program. SUBMITTED BY: Comm""',y D""oom,"' D¡' L:' . REVIEWED BY: Executive Director ~ ~ ---z (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No XI BACKGROUND: The City's Recycling Coordinator, Michael Meacham, obtained a $371,850 grant to promote used oil recycling. The programs to be funded by the grant and administered through the Urban Corps will make a substantial contribution to the City's residential and commercial recycling and watershed oil programs. The Urban Corps is requesting use of the South Bay Chevrolet dealership as an office/warehouse facility. The specific dealership buildings that are being requested are detailed on attachment A. RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency approve the Resolution and direct the Executive Director to execute a lease with the Urban Corps in a form approved by the City Attorney. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The Urban Corps has requested use of two of the South Bay Chevrolet dealership buildings which are currently owned by the Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of administering a grant to promote used oil recycling. The activities of the Urban Corps at the dealership will be administrative in nature, and the Urban Corps will not store used oil on the site at any time. The buildings being considered for lease are the 14,590 square foot showroom/office and a 7,890 square foot repair bay. The buildings in question are currently vacant and there are no pending proposals to lease or redevelop the property. A Request for Proposals is currently being circulated for the site and responses are due back on November 29, 1994. When a developer is selected, it is anticipated that it will take several months to arrive at a disposition and development agreement and to complete the development approval process. Because there is an uncertain development time line for the project, it is highly doubtful that a paying commercial tenant could be obtained for the property. &-1 Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 11/15/94 The Urban Corps will occupy the site in the interim and will maintain the property and keep it clean and free of vandalism. By having the site occupied and maintained by the Urban Corps, the blighting influence of having this large and prominent property vacant will be averted. The Urban Corps will be required to relocate when a developer or petmanent use is obtained for the property, or for any other reason the Agency deems necessary to reacquire the site, provided the Agency gives 30 days written notice. The lease will be in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Urban Corps will be bound by the lease agreement to maintain the property, to keep it clean, to indemnify the Agency, and to carry a liability insurance policy covering any mishaps there. The Urban Corps will waive all owner participation rights and relocation benefits. All other business terms, including the rent rate, will be negotiated by the Executive Director and City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: Rental payments will be contingent upon the availability of sources from the Urban Corps' third party funding for this project. The Urban Corps is anticipating having about three thousand dollars available to compensate the Agency. The business terms of the lease to be negotiated by the Executive Ditector and the City Attorney will specify the rent amount. The rent amount will be derived from whatever amount is remaining from the grant funds of $371,000. The Urban Corps will relieve the City of the expense of maintaining the property and keeping it free of vandalism. Based on comparable commercial leases, it is staff's opinion that the structures being considered would lease for over $1 per square foot per month on the open market, yielding a potential annual lease income of over $269,000 annually. However, it is extremely doubtful such a lease could be obtained by the Agency due to the very short time period for which the property is projected to be available. Because of this uncertain development time line, it is highly doubtful that any interest would be generated if this property was offered up for public bid. IC:I WP51 IAGENCYIRA4SICHEVURB.RA41 {,-r- _. . , . ~l æ a: 0 (,J z « CD a: ::> UJ Ii 0 D I UJO f-~ ffi. . ::>UJ ~ oa: u UJ« ~ .~ g ~~ - z3= -0 UJ« ~~ t;j ~CD UJ z- a: 5 ¡:¡o f- ...J co CI:I / ~ 5~ ~ (p CD CJhü ~g ¡;lank! ~ -tf RESOLUTION /131 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A lEASE FOR STRUCTURES lOCATED AT 801 BROADWAY WITH THE URBAN CORPS FOR USE AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER FOR AN Oil RECYCLING EDUCATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California (Agency) is charged with the elimination of blighting influences in the City; and, WHEREAS, staff has been working with the Urban Corps to locate a site for an oil recycling education project with the goal of promoting recycling efforts in the City; and, WHEREAS, the Urban Corps will maintain and prevent further deterioration of the site and will be bound by the lease to carry insurance and waive all possible relocation benefits; and, WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 33431 permits Agency property to be leased without public bidding after a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, There is an uncertain time line for redevelopment of the property that precludes the Redevelopment Agency from obtaining a commercial lease for the existing structures; and, WHEREAS, The Urban Corps will be required to vacate the site when the Agency sells or leases the property for future development or for any reason the Agency deems necessary to reacquire the site, provided the Agency gives 30 days written notice. NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOllOWS: Section 1. The hearing required by the Health and Safety Code Section 33431 and was duly called, noticed and all protests if any, to the proposed fease were made and received at said hearing. Section 2. The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that the lease with the Urban Corps will reduce blighting influences in the Southwest project area, Section 3. It is in the best interest of the Community, City, and the Agency that the lot be temporarily leased to the Urban Corps. Section 4. The Chairman is hereby authorized to execute a monthly lease with the Urban Corps for the South Bay Chevrolet site in a fotm approved by the City Attorney. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: =-~L.:.- ~~~ B,"':::O~;d ~ Chris Salomone Community Development Director Agency Counsel [C:I WP51 IAGENCYIRESOSICHEVURB.RESI r:; -5 ~ þelfJE; blank! h-~ _... -.- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item 7 Meeting Date 11/15/94 ITEM TITLE: Agency Resolution /13fi.mending Resolution 1419 Approving Sale of 1994 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds SUBMITTED BY: Executive Director (4/5ths Vote: Yes _No-L) SUMMARY: On September 20. 1994. the Redevelopment Agency and the Council approved resolutions authorizing the issuance of 1994 Tax Allocation Bonds for advance refunding of the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds previously issued by the Agency for the Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project. Copies of that agenda item and resolutions are attached for your information. The primary purpose of the proposed refunding is to achieve savings in annual debt service payments. although there are other important purposes as well. such as extending the life of the redevelopment project area. Included in the adopted resolutions is a condition requiring that the weighted average rate of interest borne by all of the Bonds not exceed seven and one-half percent (7- 1/2 %) per annum. Under market conditions at that time. the probability of obtaining bond insurance. and the debt structure contemplated. it was anticipated that the pricing of the Bonds would result in an interest rate well under the stipulated limit of 7-1/2%. Under current market conditions. which have deteriorated severely. the inability to obtain insurance. and under a less favorable debt structure due to federal tax law constraints. the consultants involved in the transaction are estimating that a higher limit of 9% is required. Even with the higher interest cost. it is still projected that average annual debt service cost savings in excess of $150.000 over the life of the existing debt are achievable. and that the savings of $800.000 estimated for this fiscal year will be accomplished. These annual savings are critical to the fiscal condition of the Agency until tax increment revenues grow sufficiently to offset the current operating deficit. However. due to the higher interest cost there will be an estimated net present value cost over the life of the transaction in excess of $3.5 million. 1'/ Page 2, Item 1 Meeting Date 11[15/94 Should Council decide to abandon the refunding for at least the time being, the appropriation for Debt Service will have to be increased by $695,152, since the budget was adopted based on estimated savings from the proposed refunding. In addition, a fee of approximately $10,000 will have to be paid to Standard and Poors Corporation for rating services. RECOMMENDATION: AGENCY: Approve the resolution amending Resolution No. 1419 approving matters related to the sale of Tax Allocation Bonds authorized to be issued under Resolution No. 1383 with respect to the merged Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project Area. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: The Agency previously authorized issuance of tax allocation bonds for the refunding of the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds, pursuant to Resolution No. 1383 adopted on December 28, 1993. The resolution was adopted at that time in order to grandfather the Bond issue from pending legislation known as "AB1290" which took effect on January 1, 1994 and which had specific language exempting bond issues authorized before that date. There was an urgency to grandfather the Bonds from AB1290 because the bill threatened to impose severe restraints on the maturities of Agency bonds. These actions, including the issuance of the Bonds, were validated in the San Diego County Superior Court. On May 3, 1994, the Agency adopted Resolution No. 1400 (copy attached) appointing the firms of Grigsby, Brandford & Co., Inc. and Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette to underwrite the Bonds and the firm of Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. as financial advisor. On September 20, 1994, the Agency and Council adopted resolutions authorizing the final actions necessary to consummate the sale of the Bonds. Included in the Agency Resolution was a condition requiring that the weighted average rate of interest borne by all of the Bonds not exceed seven and one-half percent (7-1/2 %) per annum. Under market conditions at that time, this was felt to be a very reasonable ceiling. Since that time, the proposed transaction has become less economically favorable due to a number of factors, the greatest of which has been the meteoric rise in municipal bond interest rates over the last few months. According to industry experts, over the last eight months municipal interest rates have risen from historic lows to a level beyond that of 1991. 1r?/ Page 3. Item 1 Meeting Date 11/15/94 The other major factor has been the inability to obtain bond insurance due to the perceived high risk nature of the tax increment revenues accruing to the project. The potential insurors cited the high reliance on tax revenues from Rohr Corporation and the decreasing trend in Unitary Tax revenues (tax revenues from utility companies) as the major risk factors. Insurance would have provided the highest rating possible and resulted in minimizing interest cost thereby maximizing savings from the transaction. Giving consideration to these factors. the financial advisor and underwriters are now projecting a weighted average rate of interest on the Bonds in the range of 8-1/2% to 9%. and are therefore recommending that the ceiling in the resolution be raised to 9%. These interest rates will result in average annual savings through the year 2010 of approximately $150.000 per year. Overall. the transaction will result in a net present value cost in excess of $3.5 million over the twenty-nine year life of the bonds. FISCAL IMPACT: Although the actual figure will depend on market conditions on the date the bonds are priced. savings for fiscal year 1994-95 over the existing debt service requirements for the 1986 bonds are projected to be in excess of $800.000. Average annual savings over the remaining life of the 1986 bonds were initially estimated to be in excess of $650.000. The current estimate is now $150.000. The annual savings fluctuates year-to-year due to the uneven debt service payment schedule for the 1986 Bonds. If the decision is made to abandon the refunding at this time. the appropriation for Debt Service will have to be increased by $695.152. since the budget was adopted based on estimated savings from the proposed refunding. In addition. the cost of the fees for Standard and Poors Corporation for rating services (approx. $10.000) which would normally be paid from bond proceeds would have to be paid. 1,,3 fJfu~ þ~£ blank! 1/Lf REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 9/20/94 ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. Approve Sale of 1994 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Resolution No. Approve Sale of 1994 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds SUBMITTED BY: Agency Treasurer/Director of Financeiii' REVIEWED BY: Executive Director/City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes _No-X-) SUMMARY: On December 28, 1993. the Redevelopment Agency authorized the Issuance of 1994 Tax Allocation Bonds for advance refunding of the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds previously issued by the Agency for the BayfrontfTown Centre Redevelopment Project. The primary purpose of the refunding is to achieve savings in annual debt service payments. At that time, the Agency also authorized initiation of judicial proceedings to determine the validity of such an issue (Resolution No. 1383 attached). A Default Judgement in favor of the Agency was filed by the court on May 19, 1994, and the sixty-day appeal period expired on July 18, 1994. On May 3, 1994, the Agency authorized appointment of the members of a financing team to handle all facets of the debt refunding, including underwriters, bond counsel, and a financial advisor (Resolution No. 1400 attached). Section 33640 of the Health and Safety Code requires Council approval of Redevelopment Agency Bonds. Approval of the attached resolution will satisfy that requirement. Under current market conditions, it is anticipated that a successful refunding could achieve net present value debt service savings over the life of the issue of more than $1 million, with average annual debt service savings in excess of $450,000 over the life of the existing debt. 1~S Page 2. Item Meeting Date 9/02194 RECOMMENDATION: AGENCY: Approve the resolution approving matters related to the sale of Tax Allocation Bonds authorized to be issued under Resolution No. 1383 with respect to the merged Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project Area. COUNCIL: Approve the resolution approving sale of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista relating to the merged Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project Area. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: The Agency previously authorized issuance of tax allocation bonds for the refunding of the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds, pursuant to Resolution No. 1383 adopted on December 28, 1993. The resolution was adopted at that time in order to grandfather the Bond issue from pending legislation known as "AB1290" which took effect on January 1, 1994 and which had specific language exempting bond issues authorized before that date. There was an urgency to grandfather the Bonds from AB1290 because the bill threatened to impose severe restraints on the maturities of Agency bonds. Specifically, AB 1290 states that a redevelopment agency's bonds cannot mature more than 10 years following the termination of the redevelopment plan. Prior to the adoption of AB1290, the Agency was able to issue bonds which matured at anv time, a result which followed from a 1993 decision in the Countv of Santa Clara v. Redevelooment Aaencv of the Citv of San Jose court case. Unfortunately, the redevelopment plan for the Bayfront Project Area terminates on January 16, 1999 and the redevelopment plan for the Bayfront Project Area terminates on July 28, 2001. If AB1290 were to apply to the Bonds, they could not mature later than 2011, which would severely limit the Agency's ability to maximize the economic benefit from refinancing the 1986 Bonds. At the same time as the Bonds were authorized, the City Council adopted its ordinance amending certain limitations which were imposed on the Agency's ability to collect tax increment revenues. Specifically, in 1986 the City Council adopted an ordinance limiting tax collections from the Bayfront Project Area to $50 million; and from the Town Centre Project Area in the amount of $20 million. We took the position that these limits were adopted in error, and corrected them with an amending ordinance adopted on December 28, 1993. Î;'& Page 3. Item Meeting Date 9/02194 These actions, including the issuance of the Bonds, were validated in the San Diego County Superior Court. The Agency and the City have obtained a favorable judgment in that action, and the judgment is final at this time. Therefore, the Agency is free to issue the Bonds as currently proposed. At this time, the Agency proposes to gll the Bonds which were authorized by Resolution No. 1383. Because the Bonds have previously been authorized, the new Agency resolution only deals with the procedures for the sale of the Bonds and does not purport to re-authorize the issuance of the Bonds. Accordingly, the Agency resolution: 1. Authorizes Agency staff to award the sale of the Bonds to the underwriting team which was appointed by Resolution No. 1400 adopted on May 3, 1994, specifically, Grigsby, Brandford & Co., Inc. and Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette. Included in this authorization is a delegation of authority to the Executive Director and the Treasurer to sign an agreement with the underwriters for the sale of the Bonds. Also, there is clarification that the underwriting fee shall not exceed 1 % of the par value of the bonds plus actual expenses, for a total discount not to exceed 1.2%. 2. Approves the Preliminary Official Statement in the form on file, and authorizes it to be distributed by the underwriters in connection with the sale of the Bonds. The resolution also authorizes the Official Statement to be put in final form once the Bonds have been sold. and authorizes the Executive Director to sign on behalf of the Agency. 3. Approves the final form of the various documents pursuant to which the Bonds are issued, including the Indenture of Trust, as well as an Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement which governs the mechanics of the refunding, including the investment of funds in federal securities so as to collateralize fully the 1986 Bonds. 4. Authorizes Agency staff to take all actions as may be necessary to close the Bond issue, including execution of all required closing documents. Section 33640 of the Health and Safety Code requires Council approval of Redevelopment Agency Bonds. Accordingly, the attached City Council resolution approves the issuance of 1994 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista relative to the BayfrontfTown Centre Project Area. 1/ 7 Page 4, Item Meeting Date 9/02194 FISCAL IMPACT: In the recently adopted Agency budget for fiscal year 1994-95, $2,314,960 was included for debt service on the 1994 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds. That figure was the best estimate available at that time. Although the current estimate is slightly less at $2,289,841, the actual figure will depend on market conditions on the date the bonds are priced. Largely due to only having to fund one semi-annual debt service payment during the initial year of the issue, savings for fiscal year 1994-95 over the existing debt service requirements for the 1986 bonds is in excess of $800,000. Average annual savings over the remaining life of the 1986 bonds were estimated to be in excess of $650,000 in the recent budget presentation. The current estimate is now between $450,000 and $650,000. It is impossible to be more precise at this time due to uncertainties in the ultimate structure of the borrowing, The uncertainties are related to the interpretation of recently passed AB413 which places certain restrictions on refinancings involving pledged special subvention revenue, such as this transaction. We have asked the State Controller for clarification and are hopeful of achieving a positive response, which will lead to the higher annual savings. 7/( - RESOLUTION 1383 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VlSfA AUTIIORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF TAX ALLOCATION BONDS IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $37,500,000 RELATING TO THE BAYFRONTITOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS, AUTIIORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF RELATED INDENTURE OF TRUST, AND AUTIIORIZING INSTITUTION OF .JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY THEREOF WHEREAS, the Agency is a public body, corporate and politic, duly established and authorized to transact business and exercise powers under and pursuant to the provisions of the Commwùty Redevelopment Law of the State of California, constituting Pan I of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the "Redevelopment Law"), including the powers to issue bonds for any of its corporate purposes; and WHEREAS, Redevelopment Plans for the Bayfront Redevelopment Project and the Town Centre Redevelopment Project, in the City of Cbula Vista, California, (collectively, the "Redevelopment Project") have been adopted and the Project Areas defined therein have been merged, all in compliance with all requirements of the Redevelopment Law; and WHEREAS, the Agency has heretofore issued its Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista BayfrontlTown Centre Redevelopment Project 1979 Bonds in the aggregate principal amounl of $7,150,000 (the "1979 Bonds") pursuant to Resolution No. 206 adopted September 18, 1979 and its Redevelopmenl Agency of the City of Chula Vista BayfrontITown Centre Redevelopment Project 1984 Tax Allocation Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $25,000,000 (the "1984 Notes") pursuant to Resolution No. 480 adopted February 2, 1984, as amended on June 21, 1984, to assist the financing of the Redevelopment Project; and WHEREAS, a portion of the proceeds of the 1984 Notes has been applied to advance refund the 1979 Bonds, thereby discharging such Resolution No. 206, and in addition the Agency has previously issued its $38,655,000 aggregate principal amount of Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista Bayfrontrrown Centre Redevelopment Project 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds (the "1986 Bonds") pursuant to the Redevelopment Law for the purpose of providing funds to advance refund the 1984 Notes and to provide additional financing for the Redevelopment Project; and . WHEREAS, the Agency wishes at this time to authorize the issuance of its Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista BayfrontITown Centre Redevelopment Project 1984 Tax Allocation Bonds (the "Bonds") for the purpose of advance refundin~ a portion of the 1986 Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, be It resolved, detennlned, and ordered by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista as follows: Section 1. Issuance of Bonds; Approval of Indenture. The Agency bereby authorizes the issuance of the Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $37,500,000 for the purpose of providing moneys to advance refund a portion of the 1986 Bonds and to provide additional financing for the Redevelopment Project. The Bonds shall be issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust dated as of February I. 1994, by and betWeen the Agency and First Interstate Bank of California IS trustee (the .Indenture"), in substantially the fonn on file with the Secretary, together with such additions thereto and changes therein as the Executive Director shall deem necessary, desirable or appropriate, and the execution thereof by the Chairman shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of any such additions and '7 - 1--' 1-1 '-,.. RESOLUTION 1383 changes. The Chainnan is hereby authorized and directed to execute, and the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to attest and affix the seal of the Agency to, the final form of the Indenture for and in the name and on behalf of the Agency. The Agency hereby authorizes the delivery and performance of the Indenture. Section 2. Sales of Bonds. The Bonds shall be sold in such manner as shall be aPproved by resolution of the Agency adopted following the adoption of this Resolution and prior to the sale thereof. In connection with the sale of the Bonds, the Agency shall cause to be prepared an Official Statement describing the Bonds, which Official Statement shall not be distributed until the form thereof shall have been approved by resolution of the Agency in accordance with Rule ISc2-12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Section 3. Interpretation of this Resolution. It is the intention of the Agency in adopting this Resolution that the issuance of the Bonds shall be fully authorized by the Agency with the effect set forth in Section 33333.6(h) of the Redevelopment Law, as such Section has been enacted pursuant to Assembly Bill 1290, known as the Community Redevelopmenl Law Reform Act of 1993. The sale of the Bonds shall be subject to compliance with all procedures required by law, provided that any action ta1cen by the Agency to comply with such procedures shall not constitute a new or an additional authorization of the issuance of the Bonds. Section 4. Institution of Judicial Validation Proceedings. In order to detennine the validity of the Bonds, the Agency hereby authorizes the law linn of Jones Hall Hill & White. A Professional Law Corporation, in concen with the Agency Attorney, to prepare and cause to be filed and prosecuted to completion all proceedings required for the judicial validation of the bond in the Superior Coun of San Diego County, under and pursuant to the provisions of Section 860 ~ ~ of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall ta1ce effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PRESENTED BY: &-~, Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary and Community Development Director , ~ ./ Ø-' . ="~ ~ L Christopher Agency Treasurer - (C:\WP51IAGENCY\RESOS\BA YFRON6.RES 1-/ð .~ ,.-/ RESOLUTION NO. 1400 rJ4- RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA ~ . VISTA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF BOND UNDERWRITER, ,/ - I'. I BOND COUNSEL AND FINANCIAL ADVISOR FOR THE PROPOSED NEGOTI- 1/,- .' A TED SALE OF BONDS IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $30.000,000 FOR ADVANCE REFUNDING OF THE 1986 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS ISSUED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE BAYFRONTrrOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $25.000 9'7 t/ 'J 'l{"'!' .:/,-'{' I . ~ ~- r"~ ,v THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA V'ISTÅ DOES ìJl \ HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: ' '""I \ ' Section 1. The Executive Director is directed to negotiate. subject to y\ \~\ subsequent Agency Board approval. the borrowing of funds by negotiating an agreement with' \,', ,,- Grigsby, Brandford & Co., Inc. and Donaldson. Lufkin & Jenrette for the issuance of tax , ~ allocation bonds in an amount not to exceed $30,000,000 for the purpose of advance " refunding the Agency's 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds. but on terms not inconsistent with a provision that the underwriter's discount from the par value of the bonds shall not exceed 1%. As part of said negotiations, the City Manager may, in his discretion. propose for Agency approval. an interest rate exchange agreement by which the Agency may agree from time to time to make payments to GBDP, L.P. the interest rate exchange agreement provider and an affiliate of Grigsby Brandford & Co., Inc. based on a variable or fixed interest rate applied to a notional amount (as City Manager in his judgment determines appropriate) in exchange for payments to be made to the Agency by GBDP, loP.based on a fixed or variable interest rate applied to a notional amount. . Section 2. Jones, Hall, Hill & White is hereby designated and retained pursuant to our pre-existing agreement with them for bond counsel services, as bond counsel to the Agency in connection with the issuance of such bonds. and in connection therewith, shall receive compensation only at the time of sale. if it should occur. Section 3. The Agency does hereby approve the retention of Kelling, Northcross, & Nobriga, Inc. pursuant the City's standard form consulting agreement modified with such specific terms and conditions as shall be acceptable to the City Manager and City Attorney. but fot an emount which shall not exceed $25,000; and upon the preparation of same, the Mayor is authorized to execute same. Section 4. The Agency hereby finds that the services required of the prospective underwriter and, as applicable, interest rate exchange agreement provider, bond counsel and financial advisor are highly specialized and that trust and confidence in such advisors and purchasers are a key component in the selection of same. Agency hereby waives the competitive bidding process for the services of an underwriter and interest rate exchange agreement provider, bond counsel and financial advisor. Section 5. This resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the passage and adoption hereof. 1-// ---. ..;) --- , ~ I-¥d ( Resolution 1400 -:~\~ Page 2 Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoPtion hereof in the minutes of tHe meeting at which the same is passed and adoPted. Presented by: : ~ A-vzJ/ J) Susan Merrill Interim Finance Administrator IC:\WP51 IAGENCYlRESOSIBFR.BONO,RESI 1~)V - Resolution No. 1400 . ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCV OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, this 3rd day of May 1994 by the following vOle, to-wit: AYES: Members Rindone, Fox, Nader, Moore NOES: None ABSENT: Member Horton ABSTENTIONS: None /5/ Tim Nader Tim Nader Chairman ATI'EST: ~~~ Chris Salomone Executive Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) 55: CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency of the City ofChula Vista, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 1400 and that the same has nol been amended or repealed. Dated: May 4,_1994 ~~~ Chris Salomone Executive Secretary 7 --;3 fJfd~ fafJt: blank! 1//1 - _.... ... .--. RESOLUTION 1419 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING MATTERS RELATED TO THE SALE OF TAX ALLOCATION BONDS AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 1383 WITH RESPECT TO THE MERGED BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the Agency is proceeding to implement the Redevelopment Plans for the merged Bayfront Redevelopment Project and Town Centre Redevelopment Project in the City of Chula Vista, California, and to provide funds for such purpose the Agency has previously issued its $38,655,000 aggregate principal amount of Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project 19086 Tax Allocation b~~ds (the "1986 Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the Agency has previously adopted its Resolution No. 1383 on December 28, 1993, authorizing the issuance of bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $37,500,000 (the "Bonds") to refund the 1986 Bonds, and the validity of the issuance of the Bonds and matters relating thereto has recently been determined by the San Diego County Superior Court; and WHEREAS, the Agency has also previously adopted its Resolution No. 1400 on May 3, 1994, limiting the amount of the Bonds which may be issued to $30,000,00 and engaging certain professional services in connection with the sale of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Agency wishes to take its action at this time directing the sale of the Bonds which have previously been authorized under Resolution No. 1383. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista as follows: Section 1. Authorization to Staff to Comolete Proceedinas for Sale of Bonds. The Agency hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director, the Treasurer and the Secretary of the Agency to undertake and complete all necessary proceedings for the sale of the Bonds to the underwriters engaged pursuant to Resolution No. 1400; provided, however, that the weighted average rate of interest borne by all of the Bonds (taking into account any original issue discount on the sale thereof) shall not exceed seven and one-half percent (7-1/2%) per annum and the amount of the underwriter's fee shall not exceed one oercent 11 %1.,of the oar amount olus actual exoenses. for a total cross underwriter's discount not to exceed 1.2% of the oar amount. The principal amount of the Bonds which may be sold shall not exceed the amount actually required to accomplish the refunding of the 1986 Bonds, provided that such amount shall, if necessary, be permitted to exceed the limit established by Resolution No. 1400. The Bonds may be issued and sold in the form of current interest bonds and/or capital appreciation bonds, as shall be determined by the Executive Director and the Treasurer upon consultation with the underwriters and the financial advisor appointed pursuant to Resolution No. 1400; and interest on a portion of the Bonds may be subject to federal income taxation, as shall be determined by tha Executive Director and the Treasurer upon consultation with bond counsel appointed pursuant to Resolution No. 1400. The Bonds shall be sold pursuant to a Contract of Purchase among the Agency and the underwriters, in substantially the form on file with the Secretary, and the Executive Director or the Treasurer is hereby authorized to execute said Contract of Purchase in the name and on behalf of the Agency. Section 2. Official Statement. The Agency hereby approves, and hereby authorizes the Executive Director to deem final within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 except for permitted omissions, a preliminary form of Official í)-/S Resolution No. 1419 ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, this 20th day of September 1994 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Nader, Rindone, Fox, Moore, Horton NOES: None ,. ABSENT: None ABSTENTIONS: None /5/ Tim Nader Tim Nader Chairman ATTEST: ~ ~ Chris Salomone Executive Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss: CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 1419 and that the same has not been amended or repealed. Dated: September 21, 1994 ~~~ Chris Salomone Executive Secretary 7~/¿ RESOLUTION NO.~ RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING RESOLUTION 1419 APPROVING SALE OF 1994 TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS WHEREAS, on September 20, 1994, the Redevelopment Agency approved a resolution authorizing the issuance of 1994 Tax Allocation Bonds for advance refunding of the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds previously issued by the Agency for the Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project; and WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the proposed refunding is to achieve savings in annual debt service payments; and WHEREAS, included in the adopted resolution is a condition requJ.rJ.ng that the weighted average rate of interest borne by all of the Bonds not exceed seven and one-half percent (7-1/2%) per annum; and WHEREAS, under market conditions at that time, the probability of obtaining bond insurance, and the debt structure contemplated, it was anticipated that the pricing of the Bonds would result in an interest rate well under the stipulated limit of 7-1/2%; and WHEREAS, under current market conditions, which have deteriorated severely, the inability to obtain insurance, and under a less favorable debt structure due to federal tax law constraints, the consultants involved in the transaction are estimating that a higher limit of 9% is required; and WHEREAS, even with the higher interest cost, it is projected that annual debt service cost savings over the life of the existing debt are achievable, and that the savings of $800,000 estimated for this fiscal year will be accomplished; and WHEREAS, these annual savings are critical to the fiscal condition of the Agency until tax increment revenues grow sufficiently to offset the current operating deficit; and WHEREAS, due to the higher interest cost, there will be an estimated net present value cost over the life of the transaction in excess of $3.5 million. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula vista does hereby amend Resolution 1419 ~ þ~E- blank! 1r¡f ------ - --- I i CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY i I Current I Proposed State Net Savings -" --" --- 1986 1994 Refunding Net D/S Subvention After Bonds Bonds Savings "Given up" Subvention 1995 2,073,286 I 947,621 1,125,665 0 1,125,665 1996 3,125,449 2,478,897 646,552 400,241 246,311 1997 3,124,074 2,596,421 527,653 452,157 75,496 1998 3,115,534 2,598,623 516,911 401,157 115,754 1999 3,109,669 2,603,758 505,911 1---323,628-- 182,283 2000 3,106,206 2,601,554 504,652 242,155 262,497 2001 3,099,276 2,596,935 502,341 f-16Ô~178--- 342,163 - -------" "---- 2002 2,719,156 2,599,780 119,376 0 -- 119,376 2003 2,713,356 2,599,607 113,749 113,749 2004 2,710,075 2,601,607 108,468 108,468 2005 2,708,525 2,595,735 112,790 112,790 2006 2,707,919- 2,595,318 112,601 112,601 -----~- f----- --- -- --- 2007 2,707,469 2,595,806 111,663 111,663 2008 2,706,388 2,592,309 114,079 114,079 " 2009 2,703,888 2,590,043 113,845 113,845 --- f----- 2010 _~,699,181 2,588,412 110,769 110,769 ----""- ---"""------ 2011 2,691,481 2,591,962 99,519 99,519 ---- " 2012 -+-__2c~~5,02~- (2,585,025) (2,585,025) ~- --- -- -----"--- 2013 I 2,582,815. - (2,582,815) (2,582,815) 2014 2,574,737 (2,574,737) (2,574,737) 2015 2,575,337 (2,575,337) (2,575,337) "-- ~- "--- 2016 2,571,225 (2,571,225) (2,571,225) 2017 2,567,912 (2,567,912) (2,567,912) m- 2018 2,565,425 (2,565,425) (2,565,425) 2019 2,567,900 (2,567,900) (2,567,900) ----- 2020 2,559,450 (2,559,450) (2,559,450) 2021 ~ 2,549,812 (2,549,812) m- (2,549,812) 2022 2,542,637 (2,542,637) (2,542,637) - 2023 2,541,600 (2,541,600) (2,541,600) 2024 4,377,550 (4,377,550) (4,377,550) - ""m_- i 47,820,932 77,535,813 (29,714,881) 1,979,516 (31,694,397) --"--"----"~ I------~-"-- - I I Avg to 2011 Avg1996to2011 Total Average D'S Savings 314,531 263,835 5,347,025 Average "Net" Savings 203,943 146,335 3,467,028 Grigsby Brandford & Co., 11/15/94 CV_FINAL.XLS Page 1