HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1994/11/01
Tuesday, November I, 1994 Council Chambers
4:00 p.m. Public Services Building
(immediately following the City Council meeting)
Joint Meetin2 of the RedeveloDment A2encv/Citv Council
of the City of Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL: Agency/Council Members Fox -, Horton -, Moore -,
Rindone -' and ChainnanJMayor Nader -'
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 23, 1994; October 11, 1994; and October 18, 1994
CONSENT CALENDAR
(None)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Agency by one motion without discussion unless an Agency, a member of the public or City staff requests
that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to
Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk
prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak infavor 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 Submitted.
* . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR' *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the
Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak
infavorofthe staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staf/recommendation.)
Comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
4. AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING LEASE OF THE PARCEL LOCATED EAST OF 825 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 SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR USE AS
A PARKING LOT AND BE LEASED WITHOUT PUBLIC BID--Staffhas
Agenda -2- November I, 1994
been working with South Bay ConnnU1Úty 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 reconnnends approval of the resolution. (Community
Development Director)
A. AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1429 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A LEASE
FOR THE PARCEL LOCATED EAST OF 825 BROADWAY WITH
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR USE AS A PARKING LOT
5. JOINT
COUNCIL/AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A 31.63 ACRE SITE OF VACANT LAND LOCATED
SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 54 BETWEEN BROADWAY AVENIÆ
(NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD) AND FIFTH A VENIÆ WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE TOWN CENTRE ß REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING:
1. Review and certification of Final Envirorunental 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. connnercial 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 Connnercial - Precise Plan Modifier"; and
5. Coastal Development Permit (#068) for constroction of the ChanneIside
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 toot the Citv Council and Redevelovment Aeencv oven the vublic hearine take testimony
close the DubUc hearine and avvrove the resolutions and vlace the ordinances on first readine in the followine
seauential order:
[A] Agency Resolution If 1430 and Council Resolution If 17705 which: (1) certifies the Final Environmental
Impact Report #94-02 and adopts Addendum EIR 94-02A, (2) mIlkes Findings of Fact on the feasibility
of mitigation measures and project alternatives, (3) Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations
Agenda -3- November I, 1994
[B] Council Resolution # 17706 which Amends the General Plan land-use designation for the project site
from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial-Thoroughfare"
rC] Ordinance # 2613 which amends 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 4from
"Industrial-General" to "Commercial-Thoroughfare" subject to the "Central-Commercial-Precise Plan"
modifying District pursuant to Chapters 19.36 and 19.56 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
[D] Ordinance # 2614 which amends 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 A venue from
"Industrial-Limited with Precise Plan Modifier" to "Central-Commercial-Precise Plan"
[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 If 1431 which approves the Clwnnelside Shopping Center project and Precise Plan,
subject to Specific Project Conditions; and declares 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. Iwve been satisfied
A. JOINT
AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1430
COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 17705 CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR
94-02) FOR THE CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER; ADOPTING
ADDENDUM EIR 94-02A; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT
RELATING TO THE 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 THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 31.63 ACRES LOCATED AT
THE TERMINUS OF NORTH FIFTH A VENIÆ FROM "RESEARCH
AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING" TO "COMMERCIAL-
THOROUGHFARE"
C. COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2613 AMENDING THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND BA YFRONT 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 (First Readinl!)
D. COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2614 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
A VENIÆ FROM I-L-P (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) TO
C-C-P (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL-PRECISE PLAN) (First Readinl!)
Agenda -4- November I, 1994
E. COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 17707 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 11068 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNELSIDE
(WAL-MART) SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 220,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL
COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA LOCATED AT THE 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 toot the Redevelopment Aeencv then
avvrove:
F. AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1431 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
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.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Agency
and staffrecommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. 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 minutes.
6.A. AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1432 WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AND
APPOINTING BOND COUNSEL AND FINANCIAL ADVISOR UNDER
EXISTING CONTRACTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
FINANCE TO SELECT THE BOND UNDERWRITER THROUGH A
COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED NEGOTIATED SALE
OF BONDS FOR ADVANCE REFUNDING OF VARIOUS ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT DEBT UNDER THE 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 statutes. In order to achieve a titnely
refunding, it is reconnnended that Bond Counsel be appointed under an existing
Agenda -5- November I, 1994
contract, that Financial Advisor be appointed by modifying the terms of an
existing contract, and 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 THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AND
APPOINTING BOND COUNSEL AND FINANCIAL ADVISOR UNDER
EXISTING CONTRACT; AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
FINANCE TO SELECT THE BOND UNDERWRITER THROUGH A
COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED NEGOTIATED SALE
OF BONDS FOR ADVANCE REFUNDING OF VARIOUS ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT DEBT UNDER THE MARKS-ROOS LOCAL BOND
POOLING ACT
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the Redevelopment Agency will discuss items 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.
OTHER BUSINESS
7. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlS)
8. CHAIRMAN'SMA YOR'S REPORTlS)
9. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
CLOSED SESSION
The Redevelopment Agency will meet in a closed session itrunediately following the Agency meeting to discuss:
Unless Agency General Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency states otherwise at this time,
the Agency will discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are permitted by law to be the
subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is advised should be discussed in closed session to best
protect the interests of the City. The Agency is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports offi11gJ
action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so toot the Agency's return from
closed session, reports offi11gJ action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of
final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretary to the
Redevelopment Agency and the City Clerk's Office.
Agenda -6- November I, 1994
10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government 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 Connnunity Development/Unified Port District of San Diego
Under negotiation: The sale of Agency-owned property.
12. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to a closed session and thence 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.
******
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 acconnnodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting,
activity, or service request such acconnnodation 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 :IWP5 t IAGENCYIAGENDASI11-0l-94.AGDI
Minutes of a Joint Meetin2 of the RedeveloDment A2enCy/Citv Council
of the Citv of Chula Vista
Tuesday, August 23, 1994 Council Chambers
10:24 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Horton, Moore, Rindone, and
Chairman/Mayor Nader
ABSENT: Agency/Council Member Fox
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Executive Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency
Counsel; Chris Salomone, Community Development Director; Bob
Powell, Director of Finance; and, Berlin D. Bosworth, Secretary to the
Redevelopment Agency
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None Submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None Submitted.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
3. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, W AL-
MART STORES, INC., AND CHULA VISTA TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, L.P., FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DEVELOPING A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF
FIFTH A VENIÆ AND C STREET IN THE TOWN CENTRE ß REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA--On
12/14/93 the Agency approved a Semi-Exclusive Negotiating and Covenants Agreement with National Avenue
Associates and Gatlin Development for the pnrposes of developing a community shopping center at the northwest
quadrant of Fifth Avenue and C Streets in the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area. The Agency is
requested to conduct the Public Hearing on the proposed negotiated Disposition and Development Agreement. Staff
recommends the Agency conduct the Public Hearing and approve the resolntions. (ConnnU1Úty Development
Director)
A. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17631 and AGENCY RESOLUTION 1416 JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDING
PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33431 AND 33433, AFTER PUBLIC
HEARING, THAT THE RESALE OF THE WALMART PARCEL IS EITHER AT FAIR MARKET VALUE
OR AT SUCH LESSER PRICE AS 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 AGENCY, THAT CERTAIN REAL ESTATE BE SOLD
TO REDEVELOPER W ALMART PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT, AND BE SOLD WITHOUT PUBLIC BID
)..1
---
Minutes
August 23, 1994
Page 2
B. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17630 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING FOR EXECUTION A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND AMONG THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, THE CITY
OF NATIONAL CITY, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND THE
NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSES OF
COOPERATING ON THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTERS
ALONG THE SR-54 FREEWAY CORRIDOR BETWEEN FOURTH AVENIÆ AND NATIONAL CITY
BOULEVARD WITH THE CITIES OF CHULA VISTA AND NATIONAL CITY--The staffs of the City of
National City and Chula Vista have developed a Memorandum of Understanding in that regard which is presented
to the Agency for consideration. Staff reconnnends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director)
C. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1417 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING FOR EXECUTION A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND AMONG THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, THE CITY
OF NATIONAL CITY, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND THE
NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSES OF
COOPERATING ON THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTERS
ALONG THE SR-54 FREEWAY CORRIDOR BETWEEN FOURTH AVENIÆ AND NATIONAL CITY
BOULEVARD WITH THE CITIES OF CHULA VISTA AND NATIONAL CITY
Community Development Director Salomone made a brief staff presentation. The inception of the process began
approximately two and one-half years ago when Wal-Mart came to the City seeking a site. Wal-Mart's interest in
the current site resulted in a Semi-Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, which the Council approved in December
1993, and concluded in the Disposition and Development Agreement now before the Agency. The project, located
on the northwest comer of Fifth Avenue and C Street at Highway 54, between Broadway and Fourth Avenue,
consisted of 219,000 square feet of retail on 21 acres. The Disposition and Development Agreement applied only
to the Wal-Mart portion which consisted of a 120,000 square foot facility on 13 acres. The Agreement was
contingent upon a number of entitlements which the Agency ¡Council would deliberate in the near future. Additional
actions to follow by the Agency/Council wonld include consideration of an Envirorunental Impact Report, General
Plan Amendment, a Re-Zone, and a Local Coastal Plan Amendment. A draft Envirorunental Impact Report has
been circnlated, a public forum has been held by the Design Review Committee, and the Planning Commission held
a hearing to consider the draft Envirorunental Impact Report. Key to the Development Agreement was a subsidy
by the City. The Agency was also requested to consider a Memorandum of Understanding by and between the City
of National City and the City of Chula Vista. The City of National City has undertaken a retail project on their
adjacent parcel at about the same time Chula Vista began negotiation with Wal-Mart. Staff of both cities deemed
it appropriate to work together in a spirit of cooperation on a number of issues which included public improvements,
traffic circulation, architecture, and signage. The City Council of the City of National City adopted the
Memorandum of Understanding at its meeting on August 16, 1994.
Marcia Scully, Esq., of Paone, Callahan, McHohu and Winton, and Agency Special Counsel, described the formula
and rationale for the subsidy contained in the Disposition and Development Agreement. The size of the subsidy
was $1,915,000. The Agency relied on the assistance of an economic consnltant to determine the size of the
subsidy. The economic consultant looked at the extraordinary infrastructure costs--a bridge to be built from
Broadway, above the wetlands, onto the site--that wonld be required for the development of this particular use of
the property. The economist also analyzed the value the Agency and City would receive as a resnlt of the project.
The subsidy was stroctured as a traditional land write-down. Wal-Mart would front the entire cost for the property.
The Agency would be obligated to repay Wal-Mart the $1,915,000 over a 15-year period. The Agency's obligation
was contingent upon Wal-Mart concluding construction and opening the store within 24 months after the approval
of the Agreement. Agency payments would be made on a quarterly basis and the amount of the payment wonld
be a stated percentage of the sales tax generated by the Wal-Mart. These ratchet up from an initial 20 percent
payment in Year I to a 50 percent payment in Year 5. The purpose of the ratcheting was to account for any
transfers of sales from other retail businesses within Chula Vista during the initial period of operation of the Wal-
Mart store. If, during any time of the repayment period, the Wal-Mart store either closed or was sold to another
2#;2.
Minutes
August 23, 1994
Page 3
retailer, any remaining debt would be forgiven. The $1,915,000 was a maximum repayment in the event the store
did not generate the projected sales tax revenues. If the full debt was not paid at the end of the 15 year period, any
remaining debt wonld be forgiven. The Agreement also called for the City and Agency to enter into a Cooperation
Agreement. That Agreement wonld be presented to the Agency/Council for consideration at or before the time the
entitlements came before the Agency/Council. The purpose of that Agreement was for the City to agree, in the
event the Agency did not have sufficient funds to make any of its quarterly payments, to lend those funds to the
Agency. Wal-Mart would be a third-party beneficiary of that Agreement. In the event Wal-Mart did not build and
open the store within 24-months after the approval of the Disposition and Development Agreement, the Agreement
would automatically terminate and Wal-Mart would be obligated to pay the Agency $50,000 for the cost of
negotiating the Agreement.
Chair/Mayor Nader sought clarification regarding the subsidy being stroctured as a percentage of sales tax.
Ms. Scully replied the armual amount of the repayment would be measured by the sales tax.
Chair/Mayor Nader inquired if the reason the City had to guarantee the Agency's ability to make payment was
because the sales tax went to the City's General Fund.
Ms. Scully stated that was correct.
Chair/Mayor Nader pointed out the term subsidy had different meanings to different people and it was important
people understood this was not a handout of tax dollars. What the Agency/City was doing was providing a
percentage of the sales tax generated by the project. If the sales tax was not generated, so as to create a net gain
to the City, then the City would not have to pay the so called subsidy.
Ms. Scully replied that, too, was correct.
Member/Council Member Rindone noted that was true to a certain extent. What was being abated back was the
alleged sales taxes that would accumulate from businesses that would lose sales because of this particular new
business. How would the City know what Wal-Mart attracted in the way of sales taxes from other businesses?
Principal Community Development Specialist Lyle Haynes responded the figures were based upon the logic and
analysis performed as part of the Envirorunental Impact Report w!tich evaluated what the transfer effect would be.
That analysis was evaluated by the Agency's financial consultant, Keyser Marston. The majority of the transfer
effect would occur within Years I and 2 and falloff dramatically in Years 3 and 4. By the end of Year 4, the tax
dollars projected to be earned by Wal-Mart would be new tax dollars.
Executive Director Goss said the Wal-Mart project would have some impact on businesses in Chula Vista as well
as businesses outside the City, and this commercial development would bring new sales tax dollars into the City.
Chair/Mayor Nader asked the name of the economic experts.
Mr. Haynes replied John Onauka, a sub-consultant on the Envirorunental Impact Report, prepared the economic
analysis and that analysis was verified by Keyser Marston Associates, the Agency's financial advisor.
Mr. Salomone added that representatives of Target Stores were brought into the negotiations and they agreed with
the economic analysis that Target would lose up to 25 percent or more of its business to the Wal-Mart, but after
a few years Target wonld experience an increase in sales because of the Wal-Mart.
Mr. Goss stated !tis belief that staff did an excellent job on the project and he generally supported the economic deal
now before the Agency/Council. Between now and when the environmental documents and other permit documents
~-3
Minutes
August 23, 1994
Page 4
come before the Agency/Council, staff would be asked to look at the possibility of structuring the economics
somewhat differently. Some infrastructure contributions may be provided covering roughly half the Agency's
contribution in order to take some of the pressure off the sales tax as it would be used to write down the value of
the land. That may provide an advantage to the City by having less of an itnpact on the reduction in sales tax
revenue the City would have over time. It would be stroctured to not have any itnpact on the Agency's budget,
funding, or capital itnprovement budget. If a workable structure can be worked out there may be an effort to bring
back a better economic deal. If not, what was negotiated was very good. The intent of re-Iooking at the economic
deal was to make it better, if possible.
Member/Council Member Rindone stated he was favorably impressed with the project, including creation of 450
new permanent full- and part-time jobs. A concern, however, was the size of the subsidy. How comfortable was
staff about the size of the subsidy? Why wonld the deal not have an impact on the Agency budget?
Mr. Goss replied the Keyser Marston study reconnnended, based upon their analysis of the economics of the deal,
that the project would require a subsidy in an amount approximate to what was being proposed. The deal was
structured to be a sales tax rebate, or land write down, which would not have an impact on the Agency. In terms
of the concept of doing infrastrocture costs, there might be road tax money--not gas tax or Transnet--that may be
available that could be utilized to do some infrastructure improvements which would not come out of the Agency's
budget.
This being the time and place, the public hearing was declared open.
William McMahon, 245 Sea Vale, Chula Vista, 91910, urged the Agency/Council to reject the Disposition and
Development Agreement. It was an unlawful giveaway of nearly $2 million in tax dollars. The Agency was in
violation of AB1290. The project did not make economic sense as Wal-Mart would take business away from
existing retailers. Retailjobs, with decent employers who provide health benefits and decent pay, wonld be replaced
with low-wage Wal-Mart jobs without health benefits. The project would have an enormous environmental impact
on traffic, etc. The Agency could not legally approve the Agreement without sitnultaneously considering the
Envirorunental Impact Report. The vote on the Disposition and Development Agreement should be postponed until
the Envirorunental Impact Report can be considered. In February 1994 the CommU1Úty Development Department
was requested to notify him of every public meeting concerning the project. A draft Envirorunentallmpact Report
was circulated and a Planning Commission meeting had been held, neither of which he received notice of. Because
of the Brown Act violations, it was urged the matter be tabled to give him time to comment on the Envirorunental
Impact Report and appear before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Haynes respectfully disagreed with the statement made by Mr. McMahon. Mr. McMahon was on the mailing
list for the Envirorunental Impact Report and had been notified of all meetings. Mr. McMahon was in the office
last Friday, 8/19/94, and was given a full packet which included the Staff Report and the Sunnnary Report.
Chair/Mayor Nader asked Agency Counsel/City Attorney if he had any comment regarding the timing of the
Envirorunent Impact Report.
Agency Counsel/City Attorney Boogaard noted the Agreement before the Agency/Council reserved the unfettered
discretion of the Agency/Council to approve or reject the Envirorunental Impact Report. The Agreement was
contingent upon Agency/Council approval of the Envirorunental Impact Report. The Agreement would be voided
should the Agency/Council not certify the Envirorunental Impact Report. The draft Envirorunental Impact Report
had been circulated and the Planning Commission had closed the public hearing, and no significant urunitigable
impacts were identified, with the exception of air quality and that only because of the cumulative affect on the air
basin.
;)~H
Minutes
August 23, 1994
Page 5
Chair/Mayor Nader noted in the past he had voted to certify an Envirorunental Impact Report but not voted to
approve Overriding Considerations where there was siguificant unmitigable circumstances. What would be the
impact on the project should the Agency/Council certify the Envirorunental Impact Report but not vote to approve
the Overriding Considerations?
Attorney Boogaard pointed out the City was not obligated to override unmitigated impacts.
Agency Special Counsel Marcia Scnlly concurred, and further noted there were provisions in the Disposition and
Development Agreement which expressly provided a number of entitlements--a General Plan Amendment, a Local
Coastal Plan Amendment, Zone change--that would be necessary to move forward with the project. The Council
has full discretion to approve or reject any of those entitlements. It would not be deemed to be bad faith if they
were rejected.
Jack Duncan, real estate consnltant to Dixieline Lumber, 3250 Sports Arena Boulevard, San Diego, 92110, offered
to answer any questions the Agency/Council might have, as Dixieline was the seller of more than half the Wal-Mart
Center site, as well as a co-tenant of the Center. He noted that while there was objection to the project, primarily
by labor, Dixieline supported labor.
Mark Ostoich, 600 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, representing Wal-Mart Stores, said he was also
available to answer any questions and thanked the Agency/Council for its consideration. He noted staff had been
excellent to work with. The deal, though very hard fought, was equitable to both sides.
Member/Council Member Moore noted Chnla Vista offered, through Southwestern College, training of employees
for major employers such as Wal-Mart and that was available to Wal-Mart should it be interested in availing itself
of those resources.
Chair/Mayor Nader thought one conld assume that a Labor Union could organize Wal-Mart just as easily as any
other employer.
Mr. Ostoich stated Wal-Wart was subject to all Labor laws of the United States and the State of California.
Attorney Boogaard sought to clarify a statement made by Mr. McMahon relative to AB1290. The Agreements had
been crafted in a manner which did not identify sales tax as any source and therefore there was no specific
obligation to use sales tax to provide the subsidy. Any source the City or Agency had available to it may be called
on. Sales tax was only identified as a measure for the subsidy.
Chair/Mayor Nader complimented Attorney Boogaard on the crafting of the Agreements.
Attorney Boogaard demurred, noting Agency Special Counsel, Marcia Scully, and Deputy City Attorney, Glen
Googins, deserved the compliment. Attorney Boogaard stated he wanted it on the record that Counsel found the
AB 1290 issue was not a risk since the history of the development of the site showed prior development and therefore
the ABI290 constraint against using sales tax would not apply on this particular property.
Philip Adams, Gatlin Development, 12625 High Bluff, San Diego, said Gatlin was involved with the project for
over one year at Wal-Mart's request. Wal-Mart came to Southern California about two years ago and identified
several locations in Chula Vista as potential sites--this site and one other. Wal-Mart realized the site had an access
problem and asked Gatlin for assistance. Gatlin worked with the staffs of the City of Chula Vista and the City of
National City to solve the difficulties the site presented. Gatlin was working diligently with Wal-Mart and the City
to go forward with the project and was pushing forward for a 1995 opening. Wal-Mart authorized $150,000 worth
of surcharging within the last month. There was considerable bad press against Wal-Mart with respect to their
employment practices. Wal-Mart was rated in the Top 10 type of employers people want to work for. Both Wal-
Mart's full- and part-titne employees have full benefits, which include medical, stock participation, and such.
~~5
Minutes
August 23, 1994
Page 6
Agency/Council Member Rindone asked what was surcharging.
Mr. Adams replied the problem was that the site was a fill site, that is, the site was unstable and soil was reqnired
to be brought in and stacked about 30 feet high and then compacted to re-stabilize the soil. It required a six-month
process to do that.
Jerry Alford, National Avenue Associates, 2445 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, spoke in favor of the project. The
project wonld create a tremendous symbiosis in the area. The Chula Vista project would generate approximately
450 jobs and the City of National City's portion of the project wonld generate additional jobs.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Agency/Council Member Rindone, quoted from page 3-8 of the staff report, It is possible the subsidy paid to Wal-
Mart in anyone year might be greater than the new sales tax revenue actually generated by Wal-Mart in that same
year., and requested staff explain.
Mr. Goss responded that was a possibility, in the sense, that if the sales tax was drawn from other businesses in
Chula Vista, then the increase in Wal-Mart generated sales tax would be counter balanced by a reduction of sales
tax revenue of other businesses in Chula Vista and, therefore, the amount of the subsidy that would be forthcoming
would be a negative to the City. As a practical matter, because of where Wal-Mart was located, and based upon
the projections by the economic advisors, it was very unlikely that would happen.
Mr. Salomone added that sales tax projections were very conservative. The sales tax projections did not
contemplate the other sales tax generators on the site--the projection was based only on the 120,000 square foot Wal-
Mart. There was an additional 80,000 square feet of connnercial/retail which would generate sales tax but those
were not contemplated to be used as a part of the Development Agreement. The net increase in sales tax to the City
would be substantial.
Mr. Goss noted a typical Wal-Mart generated two to two and one-half times greater sales tax revenue than a typical
Target store.
Chair/Mayor Nader pointed out a Labor Unionindividnal had indicated there were alternative proposers to develop
the property as well as documentation on the negative economic impacts of the project that was before the
Agency/Council. Had any other proposals for development of the property been presented to the CommU1Úty
Development Department?
Mr. Salomone said there had not. That Labor Union individual was offered the opportunity to propose, and Owner
Participation Rights were extended under the Law. No proposals were received.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17631, AGENCY RESOLUTION 1416, COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17630, AND
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1417 OFFERED BY AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER RINDONE, reading of the
text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1, with Fox absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
-;).-10
Minutes
August 23, 1994
Page 7
ACTION ITEMS
4. RESOLUTION 1411 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FY 1994-95 AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--The FY 1994-95 Redevelopment Agency Budget was reviewed as part
of the City budget approval process. As the Redevelopment Agency is a separate legal entity, it is necessary to
approve the budget separately as reqnired by California Community Redevelopment Law. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Athninistration)
Executive Director Goss gave a brief report. At the 6/21/94 Agency meeting, the 1993-94 budget was adopted and
the 1994-95 budget adoption was deferred pending staff response of two issues: [II the City Attorney was to
analyze the legal aspects of the proposal to invest City funds for acqnisition of Agency-owned real estate, and [2]
staff was to review the 1994-95 budget in greater detail. The City Attorney has indicated, that under the Charter,
it did not appear legally viable. Staff now reconnnended selling off some Agency property and returning to the
Agency mid-January 1995 with a mid-year progress report. It appeared, given the current economic situation of
the Agency, there was a need, on a selective basis, to make liqnid some of the Agency's assets in order to provide
revenue for balancing the budget of the Agency. It entailed selling the Marina Motor Hotel and Cappos property
to the Port District. The Fuller Ford and South Bay Chevrolet sites were being marketed for sale, as well as
Requests for Proposals being prepared for development opportunity of those two sites. A Request for Proposals
was proposed to sell the EI Dorado Bnilding and leasing whatever parts the City continued to need for its operations.
Over the past several months, it had been learned the Agency wonld receive a portion of the expenses, related to
the Paint Pit at the Corporation Yard, back as revenue. In terms of refunding the 1986 Bayfront TABS, it now
appeared the savings for 1995 wonld be $816,000. The monies the Agency had been paying to the State for the
past three fiscal years would stop, unless the State took additional action. The sunnnary shown on pages 4-10 and
4-11 of the staff report, was prepared to identify items that wonld be beneficial for future Agency budgets. The
Agency still had other property assets it could sell, if necessary. The sale of the identified properties was a major
work effort, and a high priority, by staff.
Member/Council Member Horton noted part of the financial plan included selling off certain properties the Agency
owned. Why was the EI Dorado Building being done through a Request for Proposals.
Mr. Goss replied the only buyer for the Marina Motor Hotel and Cappos property was the Port District. However,
through a Request for Proposals process for the EI Dorado Building, staff could recoup the value of the building
based upon existing long-term rental commitments that might make it more desirable from au economic standpoint
of a buyer. Staff may want to further elaborate.
Mr. Salomone concurred with Mr. Goss. The South Bay Chevrolet site may be in question as the envisioned project
was on hold.
Member/Council Member Horton asked the purchase price of the Fnller Ford, South Bay Chevrolet sites, and the
E1 Dorado Bnilding.
Mr. Salomone noted the approximate price of the South Bay Chevrolet and Fnller Ford sites was $2.5 million each.
The EI Dorado Bnilding was purchased for approximately $1 million.
Member/Council Member Moore had a concern with the sale of the EI Dorado Bnilding. The Agency/City was
paying for nearly 80 percent of the occupancy. Prior to the Request for Proposals process, staff needed to prepare
information which showed present income, what the Agency/City was paying to lease space in the bnilding, and
what the Agency/City would pay to lease the space shonld the building sell.
Mr. Goss said staff wonld prepare those figures. The EI Dorado Bnilding was purchased, in part, because it was
within a redevelopment project area and it provided needed office space for the Civic Center. Non-profit
~.'7
Minutes
August 23, 1994
Page 8
organizations subsidized by the Agency/City was a burden on the City's Operating Budget. If the City was to lease
the building, it would need to be determined if South Bay Connnunity Services would pay market-rate rent, or
whether there would be some other way for the Agency/City to subsidize South Bay Community Services, though
that was a policy issue.
Member/Council Member Moore pointed out the bnilding did not need to be sold for Council to change the policy
with respect to the subsidy for South Bay Community Services.
Mr. Goss noted that after analysis and discussion, it was determined the Agency should not subsidize City operations
to that extent.
Member/Council Member Moore noted one was better off to own than rent, unless of course, one bought high and
sold low.
Mr. Goss said an option wonld be for the City to buy the building from the Agency. There wonld, however, be
a corresponding reduction in General Fund Reserves, but the City would have an asset and the Agency would
receive money.
Member/Council Member Moore stated he liked that scenario, but would prefer the City Manager to place that in
the Annual Budget and not use the Reserves.
Chair/Mayor Nader noted the South Bay Chevrolet site was being considered for use for the Teen Club.
Mr. Goss said staff had previously been directed to pursue the sale of the South Bay Chevrolet site.
Mr. Salomone noted South Bay Connnunity Services' proposal was only for eight months to one year for use of
that site. There was the possibility of them using the site and the Agency still sought a buyer for the property.
Staff was exploring other sites for the Teen Club.
Mr. Goss noted all five Agency-owned properties listed in the staff report would not have to be sold this year to
balance the Agency's budget. Unless otherwise directed, staff would seek to sell the South Bay Chevrolet site and
wonld most likely do a Request for Proposals to determine interest in the site. Staff has been encouraged to look
at other sites for the Teen Club.
Member/Council Member Horton thought should the Agency have the opportunity to sell the South Bay Chevrolet
site then it should do so.
Member/Council Member Rindone wanted to know what was an excluded major capital expenditure, as stated on
page 4-5 of the staff report.
Director of Finance Powell pointed out capital expenditures were excluded from the report as Agency expenditures.
Member/Council Member Rindone asked why they were left out of the prior report.
Director of Finance Powell thought it was due to misconnnU1Úcation between the Finance Department and
Redevelopment Agency staff. CIP expenditures were excluded from that prior table.
Member/Council Member Rindone explained he had made it clear when he voted on the 1993-94 Budget on
6/21/94, that he voted on it only because the Agency was ending with a positive balance. Because these figures
were excluded, then the Agency did not end the fiscal year with a positive balance, it ended with a negative balance
in the sum of $863,289. The current value listed for the Fuller Ford property was $1.1 million, yet when that
property was discussed on page 4-3 of the staff report in conjunction with the proposal by Joelen Enterprises, that
~..3
Minutes
August 23, 1994
Page 9
amount of money would be realized. Council had stated it wanted that project examined, and if it proved feasible,
then to go forward. Why was that property listed at $1.1 ntillion when it was known that was not in the realm of
possibility?
Mr. Salomone stated staff needed to look at a pro forma of the Joelen Enterprises project and the $1.1 ntillion was
the figure Joelen Enterprises was willing to pay. However, their offer was below market value.
Mr. Goss pointed out Joelen Enterprises had a concern over fees and once those were addressed, and resolved, it
ntight make a difference in their economics and have an impact on land value. Secondly, the total number of
properties staff recommended for sale exceeded by a considerable amount the amount needed to balance the Agency
budget.
Member/Council Member Rindone said the direction staff proposed to take--balance of the Agency's budget--was
one the Agency encouraged. The $5.5 ntillion, wltich was reflective of the property sales, was only going to happen
should everything be perfect. To have an Agency budget with a positive ending balance, staff would need to sell
four of the five properties.
Mr. Goss noted staff was projecting a surplus of $2.1 million.
Member/Council Member Rindone acknowledged he understood; however, if one looked at the current value, as
shown in the staff report at the top of page 4-4, the current value was $5.5 million. In order for the Agency to end
with a positive balance, as well as make up the more than $1 ntillion operating deficit that actually happened in
1993-94, then at least four of the five properties listed would have to be sold. That was going to be difficult.
Mr. Goss replied, not necessarily. If the Fuller Ford and South Bay Chevrolet properties were not sold, the other
three properties add up to slightly less than the projected surplus. Selling the two properties to the Port District
at current market value as well as selling the EI Dorado Building wonld do it.
Member/Council Member Rindone said that approach would leave a very thin margin. What would the Agency
do next fiscal year?
Mr. Goss said staff would have time to work with the Fuller Ford and South Bay Chevrolet sites.
Member/Council Member Rindone asked was there other properties staff might consider selling.
Mr. Goss replied there was the Merziotis and 340-368 Bay Bonlevard properties, wltich staff was recommending
not be sold. Another property was the Shangri La property, but Council's policy direction was to sell that property
to the Port District in order to provide money to the Olympic Training Center.
Member/Council Member Rindone asked what was the 340-368 Bay Boulevard property.
Mr. Salomone explained those were two vacant lot properties on Bay Boulevard, south of F Street, on the west side,
just south of the first lot, on which the Risi Building sits.
Member/Council Member Rindone asked the reason for holding those properties.
Mr. Salomone stated the rationale was the Agency had created value by the building of the Rohr corporate
headquarters adjacent to that property, and when the Bayfront developed that, too, would help to increase the
property's value.
¡-,~
Minutes
August 23, 1994
Page 10
Mr. Goss said if the Agency's inclination was to pursue the sale of other properties, then the 340-368 Bay
Bonlevard property wonld head the list.
Member/Council Member Horton stated she could not support the sale of the 340-368 Bay Boulevard property.
Member/Council Member Rindone stated the Agency should not be restricted to a litnited number of properties that
could be sold, and that he was not pushing the 340-368 Bay Boulevard property be included for sale.
Member/Council Member Horton noted it was connnon for a Redevelopment Agency to carry debt.
Member/Council Member Moore pointed out Redevelopment Agency must run a deficit.
Member/Council Member Rindone said his concern was there might be properties which would be more marketable
than those on staffs list.
MINUTE RESOLUTION [Moore/Nader] to amend staff recommendation on page 4-1 to read: "That the
Redevelopment Agency adopts the resolution which approves the Fiscal Year 1994-95 Redevelopment Agency
budget and approves the following Financial Plan: [IJ sell the Marina Motor Hotel and Cappos properties to the
Port District; [2J market for sale the Fuller Ford and South Bay Chevrolet sites; ßJ issue Request for Proposals
(RFP) for the EIDorado Building subject to Agency approval offinalform; r4] return to Agency in January 1995
with a mid-year progress report; r5J issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for the South Bay Chevrolet site subject
to Agency approval of final form; and, r6J prior to issuance of a Request for Proposals for the El Dorado
Building, return to the Agency with a report which shows a prior period of income from the El Dorado Building,
what future funding requirements--at a fair market value--would be needed if the City were to continue to lease
space for various departments' staff and continue providing a rent subsidy to South Bay Community Services to
occupy space in the El Dorado Building." Approved with Resolntion 1411.
RESOLUTION 1411 OFFERED BY MEMBER/COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was
waived.
Member/Council Member Rindone asked what money staff was proposing to use to defease the non-refundable
portion of the existing Bonds.
Mr. Powell noted that was not part of the proposal before the Agency.
Member/Council Member Rindone wanted to know why it was not.
Mr. Haynes stated staff provided a discussion in the staff report, as shown on page 4-4, third paragraph, under
Redemption of a Portion of the 1986 TABS.
Mr. Powell informed the Agency that that portion of the Bonds was technically not defeasible as that portion had
been refunded twice, and under existing tax, law they were not defeasible. The plan was to take property sale
proceeds and set them aside to earn interest and thereby, in effect, defeasing the Bonds using those proceeds and
interest earnings to pay down debt service.
Member/Council Member Rindone pointed out that was new information.
Mr. Goss noted, as staff reported to the Agency last May, by refundiug the 1986 TABS the annnal debt service
savings was estimated to be between $100,000 and $200,000 annually; it now looked that the savings would be
closer to $650,000.
.Å~IO
Minutes
August 23, 1994
Page 11
Member/Council Member Rindone thought staff could explore similar options to reduce Agency expenditures so,
should the Agency be able to accumulate funds, those could be used to pay down debt of other Bond issues.
Member/Council Member Rindone indicated, while he hoped staff was right, he had very serious reservations about
the proposed budget surplus, as indicated on page 4-7 of the staff report, as it appeared to be overly ambitious.
In the mid-year report to come back to the Agency in January 1995, if the projections had not been reached, then
staff needed to inform the Agency of that, and at the same time inform the Agency how to remedy the situation.
Mr. Goss concurred and noted staff believed, understood, and was cognizant of the fact it was a very serious
situation. As previously stated, he had stressed the point to staff that making it work was a very important part of
staffs work program.
Member/Council Member Rindone commented the critical period was during the next three years; however, major
projects were being developed by staff which could be beneficial to the Agency. He was pleased staff understood
this was, indeed, serious. The mid-year repon to the Agency was viewed as very important; and, if the process
was not going as anticipated, then staff needed to reconnnend option(s) so the Agency could come close to the
projections indicated in the staff report.
Member/Council Member Moore remarked redevelopment agencies do not make anywhere near the property tax
they used to. What they do do, if successful, was generate sizeable sales tax revenue to the City, wltich does not
necessarily help the Agency.
Member/Council Member Rindone asked where the $1.9 million subsidy from the Redevelopment Agency to Wal-
Mart was factored in.
Mr. Goss replied it would show as "a wash." The Agency would pay the $1.9 million, but it would be from income
that would come out of taxes from the City's General Operations into the Agency, then to the third party.
Member/Council Member Rindone asked if staff was saying there would be no negative or positive impact to the
Agency because of the subsidy.
Mr. Salomone replied it was possible there would be no negative impact on the Agency. The major portion of the
payback of the $1.9 million would come from new money generated by the whole project, not just the Wal-Mart
project through property taxes.
Member/Council Member Rindone asked that that be addressed in the Wal-Mart staff report when it came back to
the Agency.
Joseph Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chnla Vista, asked if the Redevelopment Agency could tie-in with the
International Monetary Fund as that would solve a lot of the Agency's problems. They lend money and it never
gets paid back. He asked if staff conld write a staff report in simple language wltich could be understood by the
lay person. However, the analysis done by the City Attorney's office was appreciated because it was easy to
comprehend. Mr. Salomone and his staff need the chance to straighten out the Agency.
Chairman/Mayor Nader commented the purpose of redevelopment was not simply to generate revenue for the
Redevelopment Agency. The purpose of redevelopment was to serve other purposes on behalf of the City--the
upgrade of neighborhoods, the provision of affordable housing, the better provision of services our citizens need.
The evaluation of redevelopment activities, including the budget, should be judged in that light and not simply in
terms of revenue production which was not an end in itself in redevelopment. It was never intended to be.
VOTE ON MOTION: 4-0-1, with Fox absent.
~-n
Minutes
August 23, 1994
Page 12
OTHER BUSINESS
5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTIS) None.
6. CHAIRMAN'S/MA YOR'S REPORTIS) None.
7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
. Member/Council Member Rindone asked staff to prepare a one-page staff memorandum on status of the
Lucky Market at Third Avenue and J Street.
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 12:16 A.M. (Wednesday) to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on Tuesday,
September 6, 1994 at 4:00 p.m., innnediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers.
Respectfully Submitted,
-
Berlin D. Bosworth, Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency
[C:I WP51 IAGENCYIMINUTESIO8-23-94.MIN]
~-I~
MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, October 11, 1994 Council Chambers
8:25 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Chairman/Mayor
Nader
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/City
Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Oclober 4, 1994
MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to approve the minutes of October 4, 1994 as presented.
BUSINESS
3.A. RESOLUTION 17682 APPROVING A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND LOAN AGREEMENT
INCLUDING AFFORD ABILITY COVENANTS AND ASSOCIATED LOAN DOCUMENTS WITH SOUTH
BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF 12 UNITS AT 17
FOURTH A VENIÆFOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES; AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS; AND APPROPRIATING
$360,016 IN FEDERAL HOME PROGRAM FUNDS IN ORDER TO FUND CITY'S LOAN OBLIGATION
THEREUNDER AND CITY'S LOAN REPA YMENT OBLIGATION THEREUNDER WITH RESPECT TO
50% OF A $200,000 LISC LOAN TO SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES--On 7/28/92 the
Council/Agency gave conditional approval of financial assistance to Soulh Bay Community Services (SBCS) to
acquire and rehabilitate 12 units at 17 Fourth Avenue for transitional housing for homeless families. SBCS is now
ready to acquire the property after securing all necessary sources of funding and salisfy the conditions of the City/
Agency loan. Staff is requesting a minor modification in loan terms, loan document approval, and an appropriation
of funds. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. t4i5îiiSiVôtiiLR:iiåûltêifl
B. RESOLUTION APPROVING A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND LOAN AGREEMENT AND
ASSOCIATED LOAN DOCUMENTS WITH SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR THE
ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF 12 UNITS AT 17 FOURTH A VENIÆ FOR TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES; AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS; AND APPROPRIATING $118,000 IN
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING FUNDS IN ORDER TO
FUND AGENCY'S LOAN REPAYMENT OBLIGATION THEREUNDER WITH RESPECT TO 50% OF A
$200,000 LISC LOAN TO SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES t4i5tiiSVôtêRiiðmi'iiifl
Agency/Council Member Rindone stated he would abstain from participalion on the item.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated when the abstention was due to a property interest or some financial conflict
potential the FPPC suggested that it be identified as a parcel of property within a distance regulated by the FPPC
from the project. Agency/Council Member Rindone owned property within that radius.
:).-13
Minutes
October 11, 1994
Page 2
David Gustafson, Assistant Director of Community Development, stated the process began in July 1992. The
transitional housing was for low-income people that had been homeless and had been helped to get hack on their
feet with short-term housing at 31 Fourlh A venue or the intervention of social service agencies. The conditions for
the previously approved financing for the project had all been met and the funding phase of the project was ready
to be completed. With Agency/Council approval South Bay Community Services would move forward to acquire
and rehabilitate 12 rental units at 17 Fourth Avenue for Iransitional housing.
RESOLUTIONS 17682 AND 1426 OFFERED BY AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE, reading of the
text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-0-1 with Rindone abstaining.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
4. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - None
5. CHAIRMAN'S/MA YOR'S REPORTlS) - None
6. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS - None
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 8:29 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on Tuesday, October 18, 1994
at 6:00 p.m., innnediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
by: .~~~
Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy Clerk
,Å~ 14
MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, October 18, 1994 Council Chambers
7:25 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Chairman/Mayor
Nader
ABSENT: Agency/Council Member Fox
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/City
Attomey; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Item pulled: 4)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER RINDONE,
reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Fox absent.
3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None submitted.
4. RESOLUTION 1427 APPROVING THE WAIVER OF CONTINGENT INTEREST
(EQUITY SHARE PARTICIPATION) ON THE AGENCY'S $15,069 LOAN TO MS. FRENCH, ORANGE
TREE MOBILEHOME PARK, 521 ORANGE AVENIÆ, SPACE 125--In 1988 the Agency and State
Department of Housing and Community Development gave a loan to Ms. French, a low-income resident of Orange
Mobilehome Park, to assist her in purchasing her space when the park converted to resident ownership. The Orange
Tree Homeowner's Association has been trying to sell Space 125 since they acquired it at a trustee's sale. Ms.
French's heirs walked away from the properly as there is not sufficienl equity to payoff the debt owed. The
Orange Tree Mobilehome Owners Association has asked the City to consider waiving its equity participation. City
requested the State Department of Housing and Community Development waive their interest as well. They have
agreed to do so. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Department) Pulled
from the Consent Calendar.
Member Rindone felt the staff recommendation was excellent and he supporled it. He questioned whether there was
a possibility of a lien on the estale for full recovery.
Shelia Shanahan, Community Development Specialist I, responded that in talking with the Homeowners Association
that the estate did not have sufficient funds 10 cover the full debt.
Member Rindone questioned whether the estate had been settled.
Ms. Shanahan responded that she would have to check and report back to the Agency.
~-15
Minutes
October 18, 1994
Page 2
Chris Salomone, Director of Connnunity Development, stated the typical remedy was foreclosure when there was
a death and the heirs did not wish to take over the debt. That was what staff was trying to prevent.
Member Rindone stated he wanted to be sure that all of the public services had been well served. He requested
a follow-up memo regarding his question. Should staff find that there was a concern as a result of his question it
should be reagendized.
RESOLUTION 1427 OFFERED BY MEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and
approved 4-0-1 with Fox absent.
Member Rindone stated the "Reconnnendation" statement in the report did not include how much was being
requested waived. He felt that should have been included in that section.
5.A. RESOLUTION 17688 APPROVING THE MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE
PROGRAM AND ASSIGNING ITS ALLOCATION AND PROGRAM TO THE AGENCY TO IMPLEMENT;
AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY TO APPLY TO THE CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION
COMMITTEE FOR AN ALLOCATION OF QUALIFIED MORTGAGE BONDS; ELECTING TO
EXCHANGE SAID ALLOCATION FOR MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES, CERTIFYING THE
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE REQUIRED PERFORMANCE DEPOSIT OF $200,000;
APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM LENDER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING
ITS EXECUTION IN CONNECTION WITH LENDERS APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR--
Applications for Mortgage Credit Certificates issuing authority are made by local agencies to the California Debt
Limit Allocation Committee. Staff recommends the City apply for a $20,000,000 allocation. If the application is
approved, the allocation would yield $5,000,000 in actual Mortgage Credit Certificates under the Federal conversion
program. With this, the City could issue approximately 202 Certificates. Staff recommends approval of the
resolutions. (Community Development Department)
B. RESOLUTION 1428 APPROVING THE MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE
PROGRAM AND ASSIGNING ITS ALLOCATION AND PROGRAM TO THE AGENCY TO IMPLEMENT;
AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY TO APPLY TO THE CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION
COMMITTEE FOR AN ALLOCATION OF QUALIFIED MORTGAGE BONDS; ELECTING TO
EXCHANGE SAID ALLOCATION FOR MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES, CERTIFYING THE
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE REQUIRED PERFORMANCE DEPOSIT OF $200,000;
APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM LENDER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING
ITS EXECUTION IN CONNECTION WITH LENDERS APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Agency/Council Member Horton questioned how the City advertised the availability of the program to potential
buyers.
Judy Foland, Administrative Analyst II, responded that staff had done extensive adverlising through Ihe Chula Vista
Quarterly, word of mouth through lenders, and brochures and flyers.
Agency/Council Member Horton felt the Agency should work more closely with the Board of Realtors locally as
they dealt directly with bomebuyers.
Ms. Foland stated staff could send out the MCC Information Circulars to the Board of Realtors which outlined the
program in detail and gave potential buyers a list of participating lenders.
¡-Hp
Minutes
October 18, 1994
Page 3
Chairman/Mayor Nader suggested that staff: I) get on the agenda for the Board of Realtors; and 2) sponsor a
seminar for the lenders and realtors, advertised through the Board of Realtors, on the City's program.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated staff understood the direction. Staff had done both
of those things when the program was started but it had been almost four years.
ChairmanlMayor Nader felt it should be an annual occurrence.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
6. JOINT COUNCIL/AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A 31.63 ACRE SITE OF VACANT LAND LOCATED
SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 54 BETWEEN BROADWAY AVENIÆ (NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD)
AND FIFTH A VENIÆ WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TOWN CENTRE ß REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: I) Review and
certification of Final Environmental Impacl Report (FEIR 94-02), Findings of Feasihle Mitigation Measures,
Mitigation and Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a proposed 212,000 sq. ft.
connnercial retail shopping center to be anchored hy 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 Lintited Manufacturing" to
"Connnercial Thoroughfare"; and, 3) Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 1f12) for the project site (the
"Inland Parcel") to change the land use designation for both the Baytront 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 "Lintited Industrial - Precise Plan Modifier" to "Central Commercial -
Precise Plan Modifier"; and 5) Coastal Development Perntit (/1068) for construction of the Channelside Shopping
Center consisting of approximately 212,000 sq. ft. of commercial-retail floor area anchored by a "Wal-Mart" store
at the project site. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Citv Council and RedeveloDment AQencv
ODen the Dublic hearinQ. take testimonv. and continue the Dublic hearinQ to a date and time certain. that
bein!! Tuesdav. November 1. 1994 at 4:00 D.m.. immediatelv followinQ the Citv Council meetin!!.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There was no public testimony.
MSC (Nader/Moore) to continue the public hearing, as per staff recommendation, to the meeting of 11/1194.
Approved 4-0-1 with Fox absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ACTION ITEMS
None Subntitted.
~-11
Minutes
October 18, 1994
Page 4
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Item pulled: 4. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
7. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlS) - None
8. CHAIRMAN'S/MA YOR'S REPORTlS\ - None
9. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
Member Rindone
a. Member Rindone stated Wal-Mart was advertising that they were building environmentally sensitive stores
and hoped that would be included in the Wal-Mart being proposed for the area.
Chris Salomone, Director of Corrununity Development, stated staff became fanúliar witb tbat in the núddle of the
negotiations with Wal-Mart and staff had encouraged them to incorporate as many of those features as possible for
the project they would be building. They had stated Ihal tbey would and staff would try to get more information
for the Agency prior to the public hearing nn 1111/94.
ADJOURNMENT
The Redevelopment Agency meet in a closed session al 7:36 p.m. to discuss:
. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8
0 Property: School District property next to Conununity Hospital Medical Center.
Negotiating parties: John D. Goss.
Under negotiation: Potential acquisition of site for Veterans Home.
The Redevelopment Agency reconvened at 10:19 p.m. and announced that no final actions had been taken in Closed
Session.
ADJOURNMENT AT 10:20 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on November I, 1994 al4:oo
p.m., innnediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers.
Respectfully subnútted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City
Clerk
by:
~-\ß
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item -1-
Meeting Date 11 /1 /94
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: LEASE OF THE PARCEL LOCATED EAST
OF 825 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 SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR
USE AS A PARKING LOT AND BE LEASED WITHOUT PUBLIC BID
RESOLUTION /1),9 Authorizing the Executive Director to
execute a lease for the parcel located east of 825 Broadway with South
Bay Community Services for use as a parking lot
SUBMITTED BY: Comm""", O".'oom,"' O~ ~
REVIEWED BY: Executive Director J~ ~
....4 (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No _X.J
BACKGROUND:
South Bay Community Services recently signed a lease with the owner of the restaurant
property located at 825 Broadway for use as a teen center. The teen center is directly
adjacent to properties owned by the Redevelopment Agency that were acquired as part of the
auto park project. South Bay Community Services is seeking use of one of the vacant parcels
that is owned by the Agency for parking as indicated on the attached map. (Attachment A).
Without a portion of this parcel available for use as a parking lot, the teen center will not be
able to achieve the desired capacity and remain in compliance with the parking requirements
set down in the Municipal Code (Section 19.62).
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency approve the Resolution and direct the Executive
Director to execute a lease at a nominal rate with South Bay Community Services in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The teen center at 825 Broadway will not be able to operate at the desired capacity unless
adequate parking is made available. The use of the Agency-owned property will allow the
teen center to increase parking from 28 to 77 spaces and thus expand capacity from 70 to
193 teens based on a parking ratio of 1 space for every 2.5 customers. Approval of this
resolution will allow the teen center to open in a timely manner and operate with full
occupancy. South Bay Community Services is requesting a lease at a nominal rate for a 100
foot by 168 foot portion (approximately one third) of the parcel.
The property in question (APN-572-270-60) is not currently in use for any purpose and was
in fact utilized as parking by the previous tenants of the restaurant building. There are no
reuse proposals pending for the lot or the South Bay Chevrolet dealership site in general, but
ii-\
Page 2, Item L
Meeting Date 11/01/94
a Request for Proposals fot Real Estate Development is currently being circulated with
responses due back by November 29. The lease with the teen center would be terminated
when the development process requires the use of the parcel for other purposes. When it
becomes necessary to end South Bay Community Services' use of the parking lot, the teen
center will either have to reduce its level of occupancy, seek other parking near the site, or
relocate if shared parking cannot be achieved.
The lease will be in a form approved by the City Attorney. South Bay Community Services
will stripe the now vacant paved lot in accordance with City guidelines. South Bay
Community Services will be bound by the lease agreement to adequately light the property,
to keep it clean, to indemnify the Agency, and to carry a liability insurance policy covering any
mishaps there. South Bay Community Services will waive all owner participation rights and
relocation benefits.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The South Bay Chevrolet dealership site was appraised at $15.60 per square foot in 1990.
Applying an 8.5 percent capitalization rate would yield a monthly lease rate of $1,856.40 for
the amount of the site proposed for lease to South Bay Community Services (16,800 square
feet). However, it is extremely doubtful such a rent could be obtained by the Agency due the
configuration of the subject parcel and the reduction in property values since 1990.
The parcel in question has no street frontage and currently has little value by itself, other than
as parking for the adjacent building, where the teen center is located. As a portion of the
Chevrolet dealership however, it is quite valuable in that a future developer will require its use.
Therefore the ability to terminate this lease at any time with 30 days notice will be required
as a provision of the lease.
[C:I WP51 IAGENCYIRA4SIP ARKING.RA4]
>1'~
.-.. ¿
80
::x
)
~
-
?
r
~
FOR USE AS A PARKING LOT ~
0> C
r
)
'-' {
-
2"0 ~
r
"
~CEDAR @9
(J1 ~
/ ~
( . (
@~ r
¡
@~ 1
PM2... r
~@ t
@) .- t
~
'"~@ . ~ (j) ,
. ~
' ;0 !
, n~@ <
~. TJ
. '" .. TJ
~ NZ.>Z '
. ~
i!,,~@ .'
'" '" .
~ ~",... 8<
-",. J .s.~
( Plat Map J AVE. \\'
t1.~
, .
Clfzú POfJE: !Blank!
J-t'~
RESOLUTION /f~r
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A LEASE FOR THE
PARCEL LOCATED EAST OF 825 BROADWAY WITH SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY
SERVICES FOR USE AS A PARKING LOT
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 South Bay Community Services to locate
an adequate site for a teen club with the goal of assisting low and moderate income youths;
and,
WHEREAS, the site selected for the Teen Center, 825 Broadway does not currently
have adequate parking for their intended use but is directly adjacent to an Agency owned
vacant lot which could provide said parking, and,
WHEREAS, South Bay Community Services will improve the lot by lighting it and
striping it according to City guidelines and will be bound by the lease to carry insurance and
waive all possible relocation benefits,
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 are no other pending proposals fOt disposition of the lot, and the
parcel's individual value other than as a parking lot for the adjacent user (teen center) is
extremely low; and,
WHEREAS, South Bay Community Services will be required to vacate the site when
the Agency sells the property for future development,
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 lease were made and received
at said heating.
Section 2. The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that low and moderate
income persons shall be the primary beneficiaries of this lease,
Section 3. It is in the best intetest of the Community, City, and the Agency that the
lot be temporarily leased to South Bay Community Services,
~-5
Section 4. The Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute a monthly lease
with South Bay Community Services for the a 100 foot by 168 foot portion of the parcel
directly east of 825 Broadway (APN-572-270-60) in a form approved by the City Attorney.
PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
~ ~ ~-
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
[C:IWP51 IAGENCYIRESOSIP ARKING .RES]
){-to
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA STATEMENT Item S~)r~~~r
Meeting Date 11/01/94
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and
Redevelopment Agency regarding a 31.63 acre site of vacant land located
south of State Route 54 (SR-54) between Broadway Avenue (National City
Boulevard) 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
Thoroughfate"; and
3. Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 1f12) 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 "Industtial 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 ofthe 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 Environmental Impact Report (EIR 94-02) and
COUNCIL Adopting Addendum EIR 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 "Commetcial-Thoroughfare"
COUNCIL: ORDINANCE 2613 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 "Commercial-Thoroughfare" Subject to the
"Central-Commercial-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 Date 11/01/94
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
Development Permit #068 for the Construction of the Channelside
Shopping Center Located at Southeast Ouadtant of National City
Boulevard (Broadway) and State Route 54 Subject to Conditions of
Approval
AGENCY: RESOLUTION 1431 Approving the Channelside 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
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Have Been Satisfied
SUBMITTED BY: Commoolty D,""OPm';!Jr¡ct" !.- C, .
Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ '(J ....-:.
(4/5ths Vote: Yes - No .xJ
Council Referral No. ~
BACKGROUND:
In December 1993, the City Council and Redevelopment 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 Av~mue and
C Street just south of State Route 54 in the Town Centte II Redevelopment Project Area. In
August 1 994, the Council and Agency approved the DDA contingent upon approval of all
discretionaty 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
developed 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~';--
Page 3. Item~
Meeting Date 11/01/94
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 all of the items are being presented to the Council and Agency for their consideration
at one time, the consideration of each item must follow in the order outlined. Please see the
"Recommendation" section below for a complete explanation.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that, in accordance with the instructions and incremental sequence
recommended by the City Attorney (set forth below) the City Council and Redevelopment
Agency (1) open the public hearing for all public hearing agenda items; (2) receive and
consider the staff reports and public testimony with tespect to each such item; (3)
incrementally close the public the hearing with respect to each such item; and (4)
incrementally, in their joint or respective capacities, as appropriate, approve and adopt the
following resolutions and ordinances in the ordet 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 General" 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 Waf-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 all necessary CECA
analysis has been completed and the Final EIR certified prior to any Council/Agency action on
discretionary project approvals; and (2) that all 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 11/01/94
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 facilitate 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
apptoach.
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
Environmental 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 Progtam 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 supporting documents are referenced and attached for your
review and information.
I. CERTIFICATION - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IEIR 94-02)
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. futute expansion), a
5" -'-I
Page 5. Item~
Meeting Date 11/01/94
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
undeveloped but has been graded. The portion of the site proposed for grading and
development (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 public 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 Resoutce Conservation Commission considered the Draft EIR on July
25, 1994. The RCC voted 4 - 1 to recommend its certification. Membet 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 11'01'94
1. land Use Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
Impact: Project impacts to coastal salt 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. Biolollical 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. S-IP
Page 7. Itemí
Meeting Date 11/01£94
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 Caltrans 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 will 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 Demonsttation 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 Date 11/01/94
to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the
attainment of project objectives, or would be more costly."
The following discussion presents a brief summary of each alternative analyzed in the Draft
EIR.
1. "No Proiect" Alternative
No changes to land use would occur 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 "environmentally supetior"
alternative, due to a reduction in significant impacts (though not to a level below significance).
3. "Reduced Density" Alternative
Development of 146,877 square feet of commercial floor area would occur, rather than the
219,219 as proposed by the project. Generally, 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 detetmine whether another site might be
environmentally superior. Generally, similar impacts or scale of impacts would occur with
each of these, and project objectives may not be met due to the non-viability 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, all 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 resulting in its identification as the "environmentally superior" alternative.
II. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT fGPA 94-04)
A. BACKGROUND
National Avenue Associates requested an amendment to the Chula 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-Matt as the major tenant. An amendment
s~t
Page 9. Item~
Meeting Date 11/01/94
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 includes the analysis on the rezoning request)
is included as Attachment 6.
B. DISCUSSION
1. Existina 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 Sweetwatet 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 a 30 ft. access easement along
the southern edge of the existing Dixieline Lumber Company site.
2. Adiacent Zenina 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.)
Commetcial-
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
5,-'/
Page 10. Item2
Meeting Date 11/01/94
3. ProDosed General Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment to the General Plan for 31.63 acres involves a change in the
General 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
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" linked by a trail system.
The proposed General Plan amendment 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 Manufactuting" designated property will continue to front on Fifth Avenue and
between existing major retail 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
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 commetcial. Existing retail
commercial property is located to the east, at the northwest quadtant 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 commercial center. Access to the project site will occur via a 30
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 necessary 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 trail 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 15ft. 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 ptoject 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 ILCPA #12)
A. BACKGROUND
The following amendment (Amendment #12) to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program (LCP) is proposed: 5-/0
Page 11. ltemL
Meeting Date 11£01/94
Amendment #12 entails changing the land use designation of 31.63 acres of undeveloped
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 Plan
amendment for the proposal to develop about 31.63 acres of the "Inland Parcel" in the Chula
Vista Coastal Zone with the Channelside Shopping Center. The amendment will make the
project consistent with the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. Environmental Impact
Report EIR-94-04 of possible 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 development, although the historic Sweetwater River runs
along the western edge of the property. There is potentially sensitive habitat on the site
which will be addtessed 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 Plan 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 totaling 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 Commetcial 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 commetcialland 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 along "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
S~II
Page 12, Item 5
Meeting Date 11/01/94
site will be subject to traditional zoning development criteria, the site will continue to be
subject to the Bayfront Specific Plan and the Land Use Plan policies which will insure
consistency with coastal related issues.
1. ChaDter 3 Findinas
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 designation of the Inland Parcel, therefore, will not directly 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 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
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 Dr 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-C)
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 ptOvided 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 ptOvided for additional clarity.
The ptoposed ptOject involves an amendment to the zoning on the propetty, 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
PtOgram (LCP) amendment which will modify the project site's land use to allow the proposed
retail commercial project. If the LCP amendment is apptOved, the site will be developed in
accordance with Central Commercial zoning subject to a Precise Plan modifying district. The
S~/¡'---
Page 13. Item~
Meeting Date 11/01/94
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, California Fish & Wildlife and Coast Guard review. Compliance
with all conditions of approval from reviewing bodies will 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 access bridge 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 btidge will consist of a 4-lane paved roadway including
sidewalks, cutbs 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 will 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 along 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 line 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 will be required.)
Preliminary planning efforts identified three potential bridge designs and subsequent
construction scenarios. The bridge design identified as the environmentally 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
potential 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, temoorarv impacts to
Southern California Coastal Salt 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
will 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 majotity of the adjacent areas
situated within the wetland buffer area. Revegetation of 3.4 acres of sensitive habitat will
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 11fO1r94
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
effectively mitigate unavoidable impacts to fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
proposed work." The USFWS will evaluate the final mitigation program when reviewing the
project's federal 404 Permit application and the State application for a Streambed Alteration
Permit.
C. WETLAND BUFFER
The wetlands will be buffered from the project by an average 107 foot buffer (80 ft. minimum
and 130 ft. maximum) as required by the Broadway Plaza Biological 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 will be revegetated with native sage
scrub or southern willow 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 will 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 professional 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 t.f
Page 15. Item £;
Meeting Date 11/01/94
2.~
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 several 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 since 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 11/01/94
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 Waf-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-/6
Page 17. Item~
Meeting Date 11/01/94
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 Wal-Mart Store. (Please review the
Market Analysis conducted by Onaka and Associates as part of the project EIR
for clarification if 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 Wal-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. ~ 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:
1»/7
Page 19, Item~
Meeting Date 11/01r94
PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT
IIAL-MART STORE
WAL-MART NET SUBSIDY NET TAX TOTAL
SALES TAX PROJECTED WAL-MART % PMT TO SALES TAX INCREMENT REVENUE
YR PROJECTION TRANSFERS SALES ,:I'M SHARE IIAL-MART TO CITY REVENUE TO CITY
1 HOO, 375 $240,375 $160,000 20.00% $80,075 $79,925 $90,000 $169,925
2 H24,056 $180,266 $243,790 30.00% $127,217 $116,573 $90,000 $206,573
3 $449,148 $120,317 $328,831 35.00% $157,202 $171,629 $90,000 $261,629
4 $475,747 $60,002 $415,745 45.00% $214,086 $201,659 $90,000 $291,659
5 $UO,O43 $0 $UO,043 50.00% $245,022 $245,022 $90,000 $335,022
6 $504,740 $0 $504,740 50.00% $252,370 $252,370 $90,000 $342,370
7 $519,894 $0 $519,894 50.00% $259,947 $259,947 $90,000 $349,947
8 $535,514 $0 $535,514 50.00% $267,757 $267,757 $90,000 $357,757
9 $551,557 $0 $551,557 50.00% $275,779 $275,779 $90,000 $365,779
10 $568,082 $0 $568,082 50.00% $284,041 $284,041 $90,000 $374,041
11 $582,284 $0 $582,284 50.00% $291,142 $291,142 $90,000 $381,142
12 $596,841 $0 $596,841 50.00% $46,171 $550,670 $90,000 $UO,670
13 $611,762 $0 $611,762 50.00% $0 $611,762 $90,000 $701,762
14 $627,056 $0 $627,056 50.00% $0 $627,056 $90,000 $717,056
15 $642,733 $0 $U2, 733 50.00% $0 $642,733 $90,000 $732,733
TOTALS $2,500,808 H,878,OU $1,350,000 $6,228,OU
SUBSIDY REPAYHZNT SCHEDULE
BASED ON ABOVE REVENUE PROJECTIONS
INT. PRINCIPAL INTEREST PRINCIPAL TOTAL
YR RATE BALMCE PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT
1 4.00% $1,915,000 $76,600 $3,475 $80,075
2 4.00% $1,911,525 $76,461 $50,756 $127,217
3 4.00% $1,860,769 $74,431 $82,771 $157,202
4 4.00% $1,777,998 $71,120 $142,966 $214,086
5 4.00% $1,635,032 $65,401 $179,620 $245,022
6 4.0Ot $1,455,412 $58,216 $194,154 $252,370
7 4.0ot $1,261,258 $50,450 $209,497 $259,947
8 4.00% $1,051,762 H2, 070 $225,687 $267,757
9 4.00% $826,075 $33,043 $242,736 $275,779
10 4.00% $583,339 $23,334 $260,707 $284,041
11 4.00% $322,632 $12,905 $278,237 $291,142
12 4.00% $44,395 $1,776 $44,395 $46,171
13 4.00% $0 $0 $0 $0
14 4.00% $0 $0 $0 $0
15 4.00% $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-/Y
Page 19. Itemí
Meeting Date 11£01£94
Council/Agency Board for consideration in the near future. In any event, at no time will the
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 tables.
C:\WP51\HAYNES\REPORTS\WALFINAL.113
5,.-lr
, .
ClC.ú Pa:JE. !Blank!
.Ç-;20
~ / tf3ð
RESOLUTION NO. C~ /776-5
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 CENTER; ADOPTING ADDENDUM EIR 94-02A;
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE
FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the area of the land which is subject of this
resolution consists of approximately 31.63 acres located at the
terminus of North Fifth Avenue in the city of Chula Vista,
California within the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area,
and further identified as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 562-324-02 and
562-324-04 ("Project Site"); and,
WHEREAS, a person having control over all or a portion of
the development of the Project Site, National Avenue Associates
("Developer"), has proposed the development of an approximately
212,000 square foot retail shopping center currently known as the
Channels ide 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 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
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
I, 1994 on FEIR 94-02, Addendum 94-02A, (collectively "FEIR 94-
02"), the Discretionary Approvals Applications, the LCP Amendment
and the CDP to receive the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, as the Responsible
Agency, and the Redevelopment Agency, as the Lead Agency, have
reviewed, analyzed and considered FEIR 94-02, the environmental
impacts therein identified for this Project; the Findings of Fact
("CEQA Findings"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency
have found, in their independent judgment, that FEIR 94-02, the
CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
the Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared in
accordance with requirements of CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines, and
the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula vista.
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~~3
ì)
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 herein, 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 J.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
-.-...
, .
~ Pl1fJE; !Blank!
5' 'J.-t£;
EXHIBIT A
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCil
OFTHE
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 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 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, letters and other planning documents ptepared 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;
Channe/side Shopping CentN ElR Pg.'
5'Jn
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) Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
c) Chula Vista Threshold/Standards Policy
d) Town Center II Redevelopment Plan
e) Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dixieline Drainage Channel Realignment (lS-93-
037)
f) Chula Vista, City of. 1993a. Addendum Mitigated Negative Declaration 91-508 Fifth
Avenue Golf Range 5ports Center. January 19.
g) Chula Vista, City of. 1991. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chu/a 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 Center, 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 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 terms therefore must be gleaned from other contexts in which they are
used. Public Resources Code Section 2 10a1, 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 statutoryterhl is consistent
with Public Resources Code Section 21001, which declares the Legislature's policy disfavoring the
approval of projects with significant environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures
or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" will refer to the ability of one or more mitigation
measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. In contrast, the term
"substantially lessen" will refer to the ability of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the
severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to a level of 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 has simply been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant). Moreover,
although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that
ChanneJ,ide Shopping Center fiR Pg.2
5").<6
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 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 adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while one cannot be
avoided.
Potentially Siçnificant 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 term local and cumulative impact to air quality (PMlO) (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.
Channelside Shopping Cente' fIR 6~¡~ Pg.3
Biolo!!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 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).
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 Califocnia 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 Potential indirect impacts to the light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow as a
result of construction noise are considered significant (FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
Public 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 « D) for the 5th
AvenuelC Street intersection if left unsignalized (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
0 Implementation of the prop~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).
Channelside Shopping Cente' fiR Pg.4
5'30
0 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 potentially significant impact to proposed structures (FEIR, p. 4.9-9).
Hvdrolo\!yfWater Quality
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 with
City design and threshold standards is considered a potentially 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.
Si2nificant 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 individually 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 measures or alternatives
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 Siçnificant Effect; Implementing the crossing from National City Boulevard to the site
would result in impacts to coastal salt marsh. This is considered to be a significant land use
inconsistency with the LCP which calls for preservation of wetlands (FEIR, p. 4.1-13).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Miti2ation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have
been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these
findings (FEIR, p. 4.1-15;4.1-16).
Channels/de ShoppIng Cent", ElR Pg. S
5'3\
The land use impact associated with the inconsistency of the project with the wetlands preservation
goals of the LCP, which have resulted 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 Environmental Management Program as required
by the LCP.
Potentiallv SÍlmificant 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 significè':lt (FEIR, p. 4.1-12).
~: 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 strip/buffer 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 strip/buffer as well as along the back edge of the 1 DO-ft. wetlands buffer. Plant materials for
each of these areas shall be subject 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 tetm local and cumulative impact to air quality (PMlO) (FEIR, p. 4.3-7).
Findinl!s: 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.
Channe/side Shopping Cent., fiR Pg.6
5" 3:t
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.
Sil!nificant Effect: The project's impacts to ozone levels contribute to a cumulatively significant
regional impact that is not mitigable at the project level (FEIR, p. 4.3-7).
~.
~: 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 impact
is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and/or other considerations.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially 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 the 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
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 petmit 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.
Potentially Significant 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. 4.6-7).
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.
Channels;de Shepp;ng Cenle' fIR Pg.7
s- 3?J
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. 4.6-7).
Impacts to coastal salt marsh are the direct result of the proposed bridge connecting the project with
Broadway to the west of the site. For purposes of this impact analysis, a "worst case scenario" has been
assessed, i.e., the most intrusive bridge design has been evaluated. It is strongly recommended that
the bridge design that is the least intrusive into the coastal salt marsh habitat be selected, thereby
minimizing impacts to this sensitive habitat type. The "worst case" design not only results in the direct
loss of approximately 0.15 acre of salt (J1.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
salt marsh shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 by area, preferably on-site. Hence, excavation and salt
marsh revegetation should be conducted in the southwestern corner of the site adjacent to existing
coastal salt marsh habitat. It is likely that a Section 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act will
not be required because the impact is less than an acre; i.e., the impact is likely to be covered by the
Nationwide permit process. However, a Section 1603 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.
Potentially Sienificant Effects: Direct impacts to Coulter's salt marsh daisy are considered significant
(FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
firu!ings.: 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.
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. 4.6-7).
Direct impacts to Coulter's salt marsh daisy shall be mitigated through salvage and transplantation on-
site prior to grading for constructio.n.
Potentiallv Sienificant 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).
firu!ings.: 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
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.
Channels/de ShoppIng Center fiR Pg.8
5-34
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).
.Ei.n.di.ngs: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final ErR.
Mitil!ation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and has been
required as a condition of approvatrhrough these findings (FEIR, p. 4.7-10).
The applicant shall pay State-mandated impact fees of $0.28 per square-foot of building area.
E. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION & PARKING
Potentially Si¡:nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project without a connection to the
National City Boulevard/35th Street intersection is not proposed since this option was not analyzed and
total project traffic impacts are not known under this untested scenario (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have
been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these
findings (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
The 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 Si¡:nificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would result in unacceptable
LOS « D) for the 5th Avenue/C Street intersection if left unsignalized (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
~: 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: Implementation of the proposed project would result in an adverse
traffic impact at 4th Avenue and Brisbane Street without signalization and additional capacity for the
southbound and eastbound approaches (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
Findinf.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.
Channebde Shopping Cenle, fiR 6'35 Pg.9
MitiQation 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).
0 Project applicant shall construct an access road connection between the site and 4th Avenue.
The roadway should align across from Brisbane Avenue and have two left-turn lanes and one
through/right-turn eastbound approach lanes and two westbound lanes.
0 Land use buildout of the Channelside Shopping Center, National City Marketplace and Target,
plus project cumulative traffic \Vi,! I 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 (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 City Marketplace projects proceed, the offset
intersection will be allowed providing that the cost of the interim improvements are borne by
the Channelside Shopping Center or National City Marketplace developers. Furthermore, these
two projects shall be conditioned to provide for the ultimate improvements. As such, a
condition will be placed on the approvals for the Channelside Shopping Center/National City
Marketplace projects to provide a pro-rata share of the ultimate improvements. Final design
approval will be subject to financial security via a bond, 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.
0 If Channelside Shopping Center and National city Marketplace developers proceed with their
projects in advance of their ability to achieve the ultimate improvements, the project applicants
shall be responsible for not only the interim improvements, but for their pro-rate share of the
ultimate improvements 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 intetsection.
Potentiallv Sienificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would slightly worsen an
unacceptable future LOS peak hour condition on SR-54 west bound off-ramp at Highland Avenue and
Broadway and E Street (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
Findin'¡\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.
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).
Channe/slde Shopping Cente, fiR Pg. 10
5<~[p
0 SR-54 westbound off-ramp at Highland Avenue. Applicant to pay fair share cost to widen the
ramp to allow a second westbound left-turn lane.
0 Broadway at E Street. Applicant shall pay fair share cost to add eastbound left- and right-turn
lanes and a westbound right-turn lane.
F. GEOLOGY
Potentially Silmificant Effects: Because of the moderate to high erosion hazard, unsuitable imported
fill material, and low strength and nigh settlement characteristics of the site geology, development of
the site in its existing condition would be a significant impact to proposed structures.
Findinçs: 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. 4.9-8).
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. Ptior 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 Sil!nificant 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.
.Eim!.ings: 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. 4.9-8).
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 the current UBC at the time the application for a building permit is
submitted.
Channelside Shopping Cente' fiR Pg. "
5~31
G. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Potentiallv Silmificant 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.
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 !J1,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 Si¡:nificant Effects: Erosion and sedimentation impacts resulting from earth movement and
grading would be significant during construction of the proposed project.
Findin .!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. 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 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 tisted below under
4.1O-c and Mitigation Measures 4.3 as listed in Section 4.3, Air Ouality. pursuant to the City's
Grading Ordinance.
Potentially Si2nificant Effects: Urban runoff from the proposed project would contribute to a
cumulatively significant impact to water quality.
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
be.en requited either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the City through these
findings (FEIR, p. 4.10-15).
Channe/side Shopping Cen'" fiR Pg. 12
5"3~
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 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 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081 [8])
The approval of the project would~ause 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 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 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
commerciallrestaurant uses.
No Project Maintain site in its currenl condition.
Existing General Plan and Zoning Development of Ihe project sile in accordance wilh the
adopted research and limited manufacturing land use
designalions and zoning.
Reduced Density Commercial Building areas would be reduced by one third.
Alternative Site (1) Otay Rio Business Park
Alternative Site (2) Eastlake Business Park (Phase II)
Alternative Site (3) Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center
Channels/de 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 this alternative would not achieve the objectives of the adopted
General Plan and Town Center II Redevelopment Plan which call for providing retail uses within the
Central Chula Vista area.
Additionally, this alternative does not as effectively expand the retail tax base of the City of Chula Vista,
or provide the project's level of sales tax revenue to the City to enhance public services city-wide.
~ .
The No Project alternative would not meet the objectives of the project or the goals of the Town Center
II 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
would result in significant unmitigable impacts to air quality. As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Oualitv
of the FEIR, cumulative impacts to air quality are due to regional conditions. Only adoption of the No
Project Alternative would avoid the project's contribution to the air quality impacts. Short of denying
this project and future projects, these cumulative"impacts will 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 Element and therefore is rejected
as infeasible. '
Reduced Densitv Commercial
Impacts associated with this alternative would be of a similar type to those anticipated under the
proposed project. However, for most of the impacts, the intensity or extent of the impact would be
reduced but not avoided under this alternative. Implementation of this alternative would result in
significant unmitigable impacts to air quality. Cumulative impacts to air quality are due to regional
conditions. Only adoption of the No Project Alternative would avoid the project's contribution to the
air quality impacts. Short of denying this project and future projects, these cumulative impacts will
incrementally increase.
Under the reduced square footage alternative, the project would not likely support a large, high
volume, discount retailer, thereby requiring a different type as well as size of commercial use than is
currently proposed. As a result, fiscal benefits would be reduced.
Channe/,ide Shopping Center fiR Pg. 14
5'40
As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided
under this alternative and the economic benefit to the City would be reduced as compared to the
proposed project. The alternative is, therefore, considered to be infeasible.
Alternative Site (1)
With the exception of potential biological, hydrology, and greenbelt impacts associated with the
proposed project, implementation of the project at this location would not eliminate any significant
adverse impacts associated with the proposed location. As discussed in Section 5, Alternatives of the
FEIR, potentially significant land U5e impacts are associated with this site due to the current land use
designation of the site, Research and Limited Manufacturing, as well as potential conflicts associated
with siting a commercial use in a business park. Potentially significant traffic impacts are also
associated with this site due to access concerns. Implementation of a commercial use in an alternative
site would have similar impacts to air quality, schools, public utilities, and geology, as would
implementing a commercial project at the proposed site.
Additionally, implementation of the project at this location would not be consistent with the goals of
the General Plan and the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan. As discussed in Section 4.1, ~
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, Alternatives of the FEIR, land
use impacts under this alternative would be considered potentially significant due to the current land
use designation of the site, Research and 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, ~
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.
Channelside Shopping CentN fiR Pg. 15
5'*\
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 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 199(1 ilnd, therefore, infrastructure would not be available to serve
the project. For this reason, the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center site is not considered to meet the
objectives of the project.
As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided
under this alternative. Additionally, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the project.
Based on these factors, the alternative is rejected as infeasible.
Channels;de Shopp;ng Cen'e, fiR Pg. 16
5" 4;).
CHANNELS IDE SHOPPING CENTER EXHIBIT 8
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Monitoring Program Description and PUI:pose
~.
The California Environmental Quality Actrequires alead or responsible agency that approves a project
where anEnvironmental Impact Report (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 ofChula Vista is the lead agency for the Channelside Shopping Center proj ect. A Draft and
Final EIR were prepared for this project which addressed potential environmental impacts and, where
appropriate, either recommended mitigation measures to reduce identified significant impacts below
a level of significance or a recommended alternative to avoid the impact. A Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented.
The City 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 ofChula Vista has the primary enforcement
role for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator
(ERe) will provide final approval for the completion of the implementation of mitigation measures.
The ERC will appoint a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) who will be responsible for the
actual monitoring of the implementation of the mitigation measures. The MCC will interface with the
ERC, the City Engineer, the City Landscape Architect, the Construction Supervisor, and the
Construction Inspector(s), all who have some responsibility for the implementation of the mitigation
measures.
~'i~
MMRP-I 9/1""
, .
~ Page; !Blank!
5,44
M
~
ë
~ .Ii!
=
~
~
~
"
g ~
I ~
~
Eo<
00 ..
~ :
u
~ 0
U ~",:Jii ~ :J
~ ;;'2 ~ ë ~ . ~ ì!
g,~ ~ ÌiÌ-.H ~.¡¡,
MC"'C ":2 "'c
.... .Ii! ::Ii." :;: !!' .;; ~ :;: ~
"'" t I; ;.;;¡ :;... :.~
~-< ,,- .-ií ~ .'"
f;I;1~ ... u¡¡: c:¡ u
!Z;g
f;I;1U~ 'ë; . 'ë; . 'ë; .
~ go:: g'~ g.~ H
~~ ~t; i!i i!8. ¡¡i
¡;;;¡ "" 'æ" .'" '" .'" '" .'" '"
~ E: ~!i::~ =~ ::~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
00 """ ...
=~ ~
:r:z -
S~ 11: :f~
00 ~g "'M '"
...:¡ '" - ~ :¡ .5
f;I;1C .~~ .~~ ~ ~
~2; 'á;:: ~.~] C
~ ~ ~ ~:~ 'i .1f
0 a: 8::1i:¡¡ ~
UEo< '" ø
-
Z .~~~.~. ~~~.1f'ë;!!'~8.'ë;~S~.i S~~
0 :..~S~] c:¡w~i.~..~&~~:~~ ~~~
.... ~;...;~-~ ...~~,,~oS-~~-ë.g... u"5
"'" 3: 3:."3: OM!! ."._C]f: ;~~ ~:ã~i ...a.'-
Z ...<ã ~'!!~.]¡i~-: ~ä:;:"!!-~'!!~;¡!J.å~.ž!ig,ä. ;,!!~
~ æ ~ 'I!~n U~ 'H¡1fl!~~~i~~ ~:~ ~~.~~
-< ~; ~I'!!;~I: ~1;1¿:i¡~~iiii~;~ ~II.
C .!!g ¡¡a.'ë;-",::i;s,. ~~~.e'2i!!~is';ã::.:;I;-;:.!!::i'2 E';ãt:.§.
- 0:"" "'..!O¡¡'Ü:;;",~ "uõ;.!!,:g.. -;;==~."'."8~ ~--ti.::
Eo< ,g'oa .S=:;§8.';¡.:I- §.5.,g'",,~.5!i"'~=3'::~¡¡~õ; 8,¡!o~
;: ¡¡¡g IJ:""" "S~' 'o'¡¡¡'Ë8..5._=~...~-=ou¡¡! ~ ",.-"'!!~
"'" '-' ... ~is!i~-,Š<ò !!j¡ O¡¡ oIS-ê[';ã I; .'ë;~."':S - .¡ê].!!
~ ]"I:;¡~~ 11;1!;:s~~i~~~.~1 ~ ~!S;
~ :llJ:i~111 ~~~~i~~I~I~:SI~~'!! ~ :~I~
=s ;:.¡¡¡U!~'Ë:.ðJ ;:;Š;'¡¡¡l¡;[¡¡'!!J!i;i;¡'!!'š1i-iiiB,Š;¡¡ ;:!3.[S
~
a: := &
¡¡¡'¡¡.f
.::!
.;1 ~
.~5~:: :
¡¡¡::Ii
5'115
-
...
j
C
M
]-
~
D
:¡ S
~
::
-
]
:s
. M .~ië
æ go ";; D:!j<3
g~ :;=;¡u:~!:!
~~ C~U~C
- C ... ¡;¡ '" "".
~~ ~_m~ë~~
... D'" e .
r~ ^ ~ i j~
~- ü ~~ã
c """
.~~ ¡~!
Æ~ ~~~
~:i H~
~8i!!
N
= i
-= ¡¡ ¡¡¡ .
go~ u~
~.~ i~
cr ~~
~~ ~
= ~
~
2! !I ~ 11 ~i.~ ~111~!II~lil~ll¡g
]!.~..:!!~ ¡¡ ij-!! ~~1:";;.. ~Ec¡;ê~g.c.~1!.¡¡¡~'êl~M'E.
l¡¡ ;8"; ~¡¡¡~¡;'~i~= .U'¡~.fii:ë:i~ð;1S8'~'~
è] .:.: ~~ ~ ]~~!; ::"',::.!!. lìI~; !!,'ã:;;5 ISc;l'~'iii :':I.~
¡¡:~ ...::;¡~ ':: õ'::f!i;;:g'¡¡~ §:! -i.!!¡¡¡ê ¡f'iii:2!~oä.~~e
:~ '::11 .f5~ .¡¡ ~'¡¡'!"-5¿;j..:!! 'o;il;¡.¡¡.s~"~-ã=:';.§~~~2§1;!
~~ 9 '¡¡M~I~ ~ ~~;¡~~!"; '~~SE~~JJ;5~~~ .~~~
DC !I -;¡~_.s '¡¡¡,:.:¡';¡'~¡";; 'of!!!,cct: o1;",~ ~c-!.-
"".!!.; ¡'ãi!;D;€ =",o~o;~;¡.s_; i"""MM.g""."ii:'~M-~;'¡¡~ 0;
I!I..'" '" '!;!¡;'. ¡!IS~ ."~,,g:~'3ESg¡ü 0 .!ij~I; .¡,t:i!!i!?:!i<3'" ;
E'g <3 ~.æ:-c'j¡;¡ð.è.~~f!!;..:!!:¡'~i:¡¡ .!ì':;;~'¡;e"'~o;f:.:g:~lo~¡¡.g~
:;;8 ;: ";;~.s;t:.g::!.s=ãf"~~o: 5!!'-1¡¡¡=3:. ;¡8~¡;'!äc¡¡.,.i!!
i ~1~~I~titl~III~1 ~ ~~!~~!~!I!:i;t~11
'" "'~E=UD""_"'-U~D">~ C ~'¡;-~~"'Ü¡D-"o;M- õ~
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ !11.~~IJ:lil~~i;~
0
=~1:,
¡¡¡.E:
~
IS 0
:~j,g ~ :
:¡¡:;;
5"~lo
"
...
~
. .:!
c
.
It
8
c
c .
11 c::
::
"
~
:s
. ,.,-.; ,.,-.;
~.~ ~!il~'õ .~i!i!~'õ
c~ Ji!.:¡¡" " '"'¡¡¡¡Iii""
g,.~ ';;~i'",~¡¡ ';;i'i'",~i
:g ~cc~u. ~cC~u5
Ë-~ ~.~'i::ê'¡; :..!f'i~ê.fi
.- -c~~c -~-æc
~ ü£~~ ü£ð'õ
:fi ¡if ¡if
~~ i~i ~~i
cU~ ~u~
M
-gi * *
. c u u
g>~ g~ g~
'§ .~ .§ ~ .§ ~
.¡¡ t: 1ã :::> 1ã :::>
~i ~ ~
c c
¡¡~$*~ãi~~~~~'õ~;š;š.¡¡:š:¡~gii~ii!~'~¡¡'11g~¡¡.. Iii¡ë
~i~~:~¡¡J~~~~g'õ~~~¡¡~;~I~~~I;~~1 ¡ :
e'_"" . "~.5 - .5" ~ ~ u... ~ ~ ill... ~- ~e ~ '. e.5
~~'õ~;.¡¡~.~f~~~~I~J~t=¡¡¡;Š~IU¡¡gu.. i~~
II !B~I~II~I~~;i~I~;~llllltl~!I~~!1 ~~;
51 i.;šiii:~c~¡:t~~=dB~:~;š=li~:g~~lg:~ ~.ë
~- _~g~ãie~~1ã~~~~;š~g:d~_~~~~"'~"æ ]~:¡¡ ~=~
J¡:: 'â ~~¡;-.~~:g~;š~g'ii!i!!-:a:!1ã~~:ë~':;c~J!!:,¡¡¡':;¡'3 l!~~
i~ ~ 111~J~~~:~!~~II~]$J.~I~!;~~~~I!~~ ~~~
"'g .;:: :gë.e'õ' .:;.~;ši~¡¡j.,!1!~c.5.g.';¡;~U]!§.:;!.il8¡¡~iI1¡¡~.¡¡i! =~g
~u 5 :;š=Nt~=~=. ,-~~ë.¿~g!~~~~~~~~:¡¡g~~! ~~.g
; ;'õ!I~~~~=~~~II!f~I~~:J!~~~:lil~.llljl
.F ¡¡'§U!.~e1;;~ !J,i.~ d;Š!: :.€::~~~~.~:: iii.í!'j¡ u= '2õ:S ¡;¡ -¡¡ 2'!;
¡¡¡ .§ f! [of ~ E ¡Lä B'~ Æ=.5 ~ ë g,J§ ~ iU ~ lii oS i'J;š... ë.c æ B::! ~ B i5 ~ Þ 8
.
",:1:,
¡¡¡.i!,f
.:!
.§ e
~5~ : :
:ë~
5-'~'T
w
...
Ë1
. .:!
.
.
]-
¿j
õ
0
:¡ ~
::
..
]
:š
--.; . oil oil
~.. :liii:; $-~' :I-I :11-
';;.5 $EË ~ ~.. ~..
g:; ...1i:!l.1:t:! .¡t ... .!'ii . .~ii
¡¡-.¡¡ .2g~",¿j.~ t! g. .2 e-U ]1 e-H
~:2 :¡;!,.~äE.[ -~ ;;~'8'g. ;;~gg.
t::; Z:-'...2'5i< o.¡¡ >'1!~Q Z:-'~ Q
~- ¡:;~~~ B~ tí~ ¡:;~
U m :W m m
:! :! ¡¡, g ~ ii tJ ¡;¡ 1J .; 8' 1õ :~ '"5 1õ :~
"'u. E~ .'J! ï.~~ . ~~
- in.h. ¡::š¡¡ ~š¡¡ <t
Q .;
:1 B .~ I I
.5~ ; 13 Ë:: e e
.~ 'f .~ ¡g ~ ! g .~ .if
:2 ~ ~ ~~¡jj ~ ~
.. '" in 8 8
]B~~~.rJ~.~~ ~~ NB~~.~ ~
~~~~r~~'~~~;.!' ~s ~j:q~:; ~
li~=-~I1õ~.'1 0 ~~ .~ jÆi ~
õõg! :1" :.~.~ ~-5 !'¡¡Ï¡!i ~ ~1i :gz . =.?i'1 :!
:Se -5 ...Sa2-e'-:;j> Eg;;¡ !I. .~1;;'I"~j¡:¡
=~ Sd]~2;~~li'~'i:; t; ;1,;:; ~.j~.n'¡:
:!- ,,".~-8¡¡ °.J52~¡¡ Q .'"l!! wu 1õ¡: ~
g~ 'â ¡¡-:;'ii~-::€!!!st"'~1!!,:¡¡ .~:§:g, ~¡¡-5;;:Z""!!!
I~ ~ .~.~I:.].~u~~ ~ ]]. ~ .~~i!j I~
:E~.S ü'" ~¡¡'~].åa!¡gg.;::~ ~ .:!~;g ~ !t~_.¡¡.s!'1õ .,,~
:!¿j g ~~a!o~-.J5~~1õd~'â ffi ~_.2 '" _o.~~¡~ ~~
~ ~'ii¡g,:~:;"~,":fJ'2~i 0 .i!~~ ~ .!;t=ã.'Eii:;...~ -1õ
1;; 'E!-:".,,~-"'~"~¡¡~!' ~ :I.~ ¡¡: [.".~~...:¡ i.
~ !!IË:§1¡¡~.h'¡¡'5ig¡:¡'g ¡; ~¡H ~ .~~å.!!!.:§'~ ~¡¡
¡¡¡ ~,,1!¡¡.¡;'¡;¡Ii1¡¡.~...::~ ~ æ,:;rr;¡- I!: ¡:';¡Æ.liiiU!11 ~.'<
.
~t~
~
.§ e
.ia:¿ : ~ ~ ~
:i5:!
S.y<g
"
-
¡¡
. .:!
c
.
...
E
8
0
g .
:: ~
:5:
"
.
c
...
;i go .;1 ¡¡ "
:." > ë !!'-
8..¡ ~i';¡1
.!! 0 '-' c.$ :;;
E~ ;.!!'.fi!
~- i:3 ~
¡;:
1;';¡..
'" ~.5 e
Ii ~If
::¡¡::¡¡ ",-.,g
.¡¡ J! 'ð
~Š8 ~
~I 8
~.~ ~
~i
.. ~
"-
I~J~~ 1~~li~lli~f IliIBI~!I'$~~I~i~
"~~~- ~:;;~u;$"=.>~ ~o;~~o1DE;§~ 'c~u;~
=<~~= =~=~~_..:!<. .~~~c ~~~.§~o=&~ .
~~E=~ ;~~¡¡:I~~~I. $~.:I~~~~t~~~~[~I]
~i ~ ~:~j~ ~B~~~~~~~~~ ~1~!~..;:;;~8>~~B=~.
=~ ~ ~~~~= ~luiÆ~Eu~1D$ ~~=¡~.[~¡¡~.i"'~.~.~
~~ J ~~¡~J~ ~j]~ljfli~~ j!~!~~1eit;~:JI~ji
-!g;; ~~';;;~¡¡¡.!! =~.Æ.8~:..!!:::1Dj¡¡ .~~¡¡¡'-'8:£'ä~~.8::.§iI.~"..¡¡¡
~~ ~ ~~~:cl :6~]1Dæ:~~~I~ iä"~~.~i~.i~~~6~~~
;~ ~ -ilo>-o ~-E-1D o.c..~ -=.:;;---~.u- - ~ u
~~ ~ J]!~II ~IB~II¡.;¡;I~~ :¡=~J~:~I]I[';¡~JI[.J
~ ~~~~~iI ~~i~:E~~~i~¿ j¡È~ ~~~j~~J~~~.EB
~ i~~~~1 !~I.J~~~~I~I ~~"~,-,B~~,-,::¡¡:~¿~j~~i
~ l8!Si~ ~~I~~Jt~~~$~ !.iJ.~I~~BII~~~IJI
.
'" ~ !1,
¡¡¡.E~
.:!
.§ ~
.~~¿ :
:¡¡::¡¡
5;YC1
-E
~
D ~
C
D
ræ
~
D
g S
~ ~
::
w
~
:š
~.. s !:!-,'~
.- c ." c- "
!I'I: > > C
g,.~ ~ ~ ¡¡.g
:g <3 <3",..
"':::i! - ...S
E :; . :':":Hi
~- ~ 5~!
.§ ¡¡ .~ ¡¡j ] c !!'
goD ogi2 og~ .g~'E
Jj ~.!! ~.! iffl
:;;~ áie .å~¡¡
~;~; ,¡¡.- '"
~g 1!i:j =
go.!: ~!;i Æ
'1: .. c æ -
cc U> 0
~I ~I.~
~ ¡¡. 5.5 ~:;.
'" ¡¡¡. '§
a..",
Jj~~] I~li~~i !~fd:g U~ !~~ :::~~
<S~a¡~""" ':¡~c~iSl5i ii:.iËËii;S'¡;¡ ~.s]¡ ~'¡¡¡-¡;, .J!!ii.!!'l!
~s<38¡¡ ~>.s~g~t ~'"~.s~-~ I~~ ~-~ "~~~
-~ - ~¿~- i ãia¡._c~w a~!I~ac:; ~~ ~~~ D!ii~=
~ë ;: ¡¡.~-;;::.!!'¡; :;g= .~~i -;. '[~-;.~.š :;::;;5 i.8,g iä~a¡;
:~ .~ ;S:;'~'É.!!fi... ¡¡:::-~w~.slil ~:;SDl!!~'¡¡'~ 1õ8i ,g=:ï '~8&!!
.. - .- ~." ".5 ~:; D ,,- > ""~,, D D ~D '" 2 0 w
~1; 8 0 i~ D E,g .!!'~:: > i!.~ ~ ~ §!]~~:Ë~ f~~ ~:g c 8.5 a.'~
.gc - :. _;S_'!! ~~ce""'.". -.. ~-e" 'r".,c D .J!¡c
_c a e=c-~ ~>D~E!iiD~ ãi ~oãi-" =_w DO] -c~u
~~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ G ~ a ~ p ~ æ ~ ~ .g,~ gj :,! D:2 t-;.; g¡ ~ w .~ ; ~ ~
:&c ~ cc""1õ~: ~..!!,¡;"c¡;1iw ii'áiái~¡f~<D ,9~.!I ........:!! w""¡f';¡
~ ~ ¡jl¡~1 II;I:J~E IIIIII~ i:! :i: ~ ~;;!
~ ~ãi~iZ2 c~ø~~~1;> £.sl!.s£.s~ ~.ãi I:. 9 ~1!iI~
! 11:1]1 ~Bt~IJjj 0 0 gjliJ ~IIJ ~ :111
..
'" ~ ~
¡¡¡.:!~
~
.§ e
.~~¿ ~ ~:
:¡¡:::i!
5J85 D
.
~
~
D .:!
D
D
...
E
8
..
:¡ D
:: .!:
,:
D
~
:¡¡
;¡ oo ~ .!!' ¡! ;-' ~ -s !!' ¡! .§'
:1 -Ë ¡¡ . .¡; f; ~- '. .¡; .~ "
.." eJ! .!! it J! DOOm
=-'2 D"" .slitc "" :¡¡'¡;E
.:!.. iI'oo uc!!'i-oo U""D
Ë~ ';~ :'!!"ìic~ :.!!'~
:!,$ ;;¡j 5j.g,1;¡j 5!i
~.¡; ~
- -
.. ..
~D g~ g~
J~ Ji Ji
......
~ i .5 ¡¡j i
:"¡: .!i>~ .~
I~ ~I ~
." 'E f! D -
~~ :~ ;
.:! ;;; 'E .m
£~ ~
i"~~.!!' ~~~~~=~ ~.!!.~~(::d.~I~ ...ê~D
~!~:;I ~~14Iil III~=. ~~;~~I ;;I~;~
'1!.,,;:ii';;D &~¡;¡~.">.,,. ;¡~.¡;g¡;j' ¡¡::;:;¡i",:!!, '¡;Iii'ii¡;j
-.. :;8'~~:s..¡; ~ii .'"~"'E :;~'iM1JDDä'::'!!'~!!' rJ;¡¡_.5~¡¡
;~ ~I~~~$ ~:¡1t"f. ~j~t~~~N~~~. E II~.B~
: ~ ... ~ ~ .. ~ ~ :n D ; ! .: .~.~ 1 i '~'M'" = .g .~ .! ~ ~ -: ~ ~ .¡; l ~.¡; ::
:2- .§¡!~'~:!!'" ..¡;¡~:;ë2.":;; -se..::"'l.slHíi=D'¡;- CI ~.~>6'i.!!
:¡.. 'â .~:iiD"~ "c$8"'¡ME'S ."'!!'~'-"="'.:!!!,=$ '" _u"'~ ...
II J I~~£¡t 18 ~1it~ ~;~~!I~~:.II ~ III.~~
~~ ~ :s.~f!¡!I~ I.:;.¡;-~~¡¡ ..;¡-~~u~ ."':::¡ ~ -¡¡~'E~
~8 8 D.I'¡;~-. ~.-s~...iiãi r~i~~~~~~-s~. ~ ~...~§~.
¡; ~~~D~':¡¡ :_¡¡..g¡¡&1'~.g: ~~¡¡:::!~~:;æ¡¡.I':aj ~ ~.g.5:s.D'::!!,
CI .,,;¡,g:¡¡~.::~ E...~:¡"qi¡¡!!ì !3,g.!i.i!3e>!3.¡;.¡¡.s§.¡;:: CI ¡;¡-¡¡..ii"']!..
ffi !J¡¡=U;g.ä~ DË8;r.~"!i:; ~~!J~~:g.¡;~!î."D~ ~ ..]§::;ë~
~ ~.!il-s~¡¡~ ~8~8:2!.~ ~~~:!",.¡;¡;¡~£~,gl. = ~~..~.¡;~
D
"'~~
¡¡¡:¡.f
.:!
Ij~ ~ ~ §
5--5\
M
~
ë
a ¡¡¡
"
~
iJ
"
" "
" ~
:!:
~
:= ~I ~I
'M .5 :> 11 :! š! !! :!
g,.~ j~~ ~g~
:::; u"";¡¡ u"";¡¡
i: I-I !-I
,:,- 5~ 5~
~ ~
- -
" "
.~11 H H
i~ ~i ~i
~ ~
CO
0 5
... !! ~ "- "[ .
:;:: ~~ .~.,,~
- .['5, .¡ ~ ~ ¡¡ ~
$.5 f 1õ -~8.
.,<: "~ $.--
:p. ~" ;¡¡¡~
¡¡¡ E U .,,:¡¡¡ ¡;
~ Æ~~
. 1~I!tllllll!'.flll~~ I~.!I~;II
~ g.';'i¡;;~'5:q~:;;:§"'~...ii;:¡¡'¡¡';;=i '1iE<;;!!!':;" .'1i...
:; ¡§n~ä Š]!'É!~,,-!iå!!!2.,:;a~:i1 ::i!&K..~¡¡::
- H "=~2_~M~æi~..~.~-~"gl "~~g.¡;'5S".
~:¡ i= 'i!~:>~~~1i.g "i:g~S.5"- "~.",= ::"~,,I5."~:I~-'
§j ~ i~!J~~lj.~i!;1iII~II. i 11~;:iBlli
~':; ~ ðr:IIE21It~~J>Æ~~¡;1i~~ ~~:¡.II-~¡;
.2:; ~ .:!!u.:!!r;:'"",Jij".a:lZ:'¡""gu1t15. ;¡= _.!!~¡¡l5.ë"~a5
IE = -~~~~"[~ii~~.:!!E!~I~~~~~ ~~;æ~<~igg
~~ ~ ~ii¡~0;1iji~i~:~'~I~~~ ii~~i~jì1!
g [KIE~I~~~=1õ~~I1õ~~1iII. ~g..!!8~~.~1
c "~-"~."~"~;:.~2~~~- =u -~r;:.-="a~-
~ 1~11~1118';'i~~~i~~IIJ~1 1~:¡¡¡j~~~I~1
:c cu~'¡¡::¡¡¡¡~"'ug.¡;;¡¡¡;;¡¡¡;;ì!.Bj!¡"':2 <.~j!¡<~5"Ë'¡¡2
"
æjË
.:!
Ij~ ; ~
5-5~
EXHIBIT C
STATEMENT 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 concludes that the public benefits of the project outweigh the identified
significant and unmitigated impacts to air quality set forth in the Findings. The decision makers find
that the following factors support approval of the project, despite the identified significant
environmental impact. Therefore, the City Council sets forth the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations:
1. The project will benefit the City by providing needed commercial goods and services in the
Central Chula Vista portion of the City, by serving a growing population base in that area and
by achieving stated goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Town Center II
Redevelopment Plan.
2. The project will result in a substantial net positive fiscal impact upon the City thereby allowing
for enhanced City services.
3. 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 goals of the General 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.
Channels/de Shopping Cente, fiR Pg. ¡ 7
5-53
, .
~ YJllfJE; !Blank!
-5 --54
RESOLUTION NO. /776 b
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 City of Chula Vista ("Redevelopment Agency") has
determined that the Project may have an adverse impact on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, the Staff has determined that the Project is not
exempt, neither statutorily or categorically, from compliance with
the statutory duty, as set forth in the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") to prepare an Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, City retained the services of a Consultant to
prepare the Environmental Impart Report for the Project; and
1
5..fJ3
- -
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 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-
94-02jPCZ-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 Redevelopment
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:
1. 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"51
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 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\Atto=ey\WALCEQA1.Ree)
5
5-SQ
, .
CJI'zú Pa:Jl; !Blank!
5 -/¡J
o!.
I I ..
I "
-_J )---.
I I
,- 0-4, f--_...
"-
,
\
I
I
,
I
i i
~
, "",,","',,,w" ,"'coO>,. ,
CHULA V'tSTA PLANNI'NG ,
ø' , ' ., ',', APPLICANT: National Avenue -AØociâtês PROJECT DESCRIPTION,:, "," ", ' ""r-,:;;,,~, ~
ADDRESS: SECBroactwayudSR-54 CHANNEL SIDE SBOITING,'CEN'!E.R,..
I CJI8nge GeneI8I PI8n dMIgI dOn from "RéÑaidI end *i
. SCALE: UnI8d MIIr1uf8c:Iumg' 10 "ComnMn:II8I ThoroughfanI°' -"
----- 4tt_Onnl CVU""T." ",. "
; .
~ Pa;¡E- !Blank!
5"lr,J.
ORDINANCE NO. J(ç /3
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 Envitonmentallmpact 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 prepared an amendment
to the LCP (U Amendment # 1 2 U) which entails a land use change for 31 .63 acres of the Inland
Parcel from Industrial 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 policies 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 Planning 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 consideting 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 thereaftet closed, and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a City Council 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 genetal 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 Disctetionary 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,
WHEREAS, an Addendum to FEIR 94-02 ("Addendum 94-02A") was prepared
in accordance with Section 1 5164 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 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
("CEOA Findings"), Mitigation Monitoring and Repotting PtOgram and Statement of Overriding
Considerations attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Joint/City Agency Resolution No._, (the "CEOA"
Resolution), the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have jointly certified FEIR 94-02,
and Addendum EIR 94-02A thereto, made the necessary CECA 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 Comoliance with CECA.
The City Council does hereby adopt and incorporate herein Resolution No.
of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency cettifying FEIR 94-
02, and adopting Addendum EIR 94-02A, the CECA Findings, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
SECTION II. Consistency 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. California Coastal Act Findinas
The City does hereby find that the subject Amendment #12 complies with
Chapter 3, Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies, of Public
Resources Code, Division 20 in accordance with the following findings:
The Inland Parcel is not located 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 directly affect Bayfront "coastal resource" planning.
The Inland Parcel does not have access to coastal resoutces 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 aqua cultural 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 #1 2 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,
therefore 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.
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 Regulations.
SECTION V. Amendment #12
Exhibit #3 - Land Use Districts, Sections 19.81.040,19.81.050,19.81.070 of
the certified Chula 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. ofthe certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan
are amended in accordance with Local Coastal Ptogram 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 #1 2 of the certified
Local Coastal Program by the California Coastal Commission, whichever is later.
SECTION VII. Invaliditv: Revocation
5-/05
Otdinance 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
election fully revoked and of no further force and effect.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
Chris Salomone Bruce Boogaard
Community Development Ditector City Attorney
a:\walmart\wallcpa.ord
5- to~
EXHIBIT A
, .
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 12
1{I!t¡BIJ.ïJ1~îfl;
DeletieH5 strike aut
5- /P 7
~ .
~ PCUj¿; !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 clas!;ifications, "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 uses 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 Connnercial: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as Thoroughfare
Commercial shaJl be permitted to acconnnodate the following uses:
a. For Subarea I - Midhayfront 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 Connnercial
6) Automotive Fee Parking Connnercial
7) Group Assembly Commercial
8) Parking Services Civic
9) CommU1Úty Assembly Civic
10) Administrative Civic
11) Utility and VehicnIar Civic
12) Special Signs
13) Development Signs
14) Realty Signs
15) Civic Signs
16) Business Signs
ërl¡htl¡I1î§f~~.~
~1Ii~1Er.~__1~.~8j
3. Commercial - Professional and Administrative: Alllands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated
on Professional and Administrative (including portions within the Central Resort District), shall be
permitted to acconnnodate the following uses:
29
5-101
, .
~ PClfJ~ !Blank!
5~70
~ (]) C')
ro~ ~
-1-' ~
;5- ~! '.
; ~ ~i} f ~
~ ~ ~ljÆ I ~
~ J ~Ji l I ¡
0. 1- . - ill.'.:'.: ~ i
cc :' ~ H
U :; ~ I
. ;~ ~
I i
~ .§ I
~ J B-
"" "" .% .~
~ ~ ! ãi ~ ;
~ ~ ~ & ðð
0Ð~0D
J
....t:
."..,
~
e
~ ~ ! 1;jI ~~
~~ ~d M!I ] ~&
0 0008§88 ," ~:~ \ :3J
5-1/ It-- 0]
ueLd J~}~Jads +UDJ}Áeg 'þ£ aBed
.. 21# +uawpuawlf d:Jl
, .
~ fPa;JE; !Blank!
5-~~
LCP Amendment /112
Page 35
Specific Plan
19.81.050 DEVELOPMENTCRITERlA
A. Purpose and Scope
This Chapter of the Chnla Vista Bayfront Specific Plan provides development criteria for each Land Use District
with the plan area. Additional developmenf'crlteria are included in Chapter VII, 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 Ratio (FAR), a specific maxitnum square footage
allowance, or through setback and height controls, depending on the subarea. Following are the applicable
development intensities for each land nse 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: Maxitnum FAR 0.5
b. Industrial- Research & Limited: Maxitnum FAR 0.5
s. CeHlHiefeiai ThoFoagliflH'o: Maximum PAR Q.25
d. Public-Quasi Public: Area designated for landscaped parking may be incorporated into the adjacent land
use area for FAR calcnIations.
e. Parks & Recreation: Development intensity limited by minima1ly permitted uses.
f. Open Space: none
g. Special conditions "CO and "F" on Exhibit 4, Bnilding Heights: see ~ial standards in Chapter .VII for
Subarea 2.
3. Subarea 3 - Southern P=I: The only land use in this subarea is Industrial - General which is limited to an
FAR of 0.5.
4. Subarea 4 - Inland Parcel: ...Ii!W;~_.Wi:!!ì!!it!!.~The aBly 1& \ISO iÐ. !his sabllfea
is IBIæstrial Ceaeml. T the maximum development intensity is established by the Height Regulations, Section
19.81.050 D. and Site Development Standards, Sections 19.81.050 I. and Section 19.81.070 D.
5. Subarea 5 - Faivre Street subarea: The only land use in this subarea is Industrial- General. The maximum
development intensity is established by the Height Regulations Chapter V-D; and, Site Development Standards,
Chapter V-I and Chapter VII-E.
35
s-ïJ3
LCP Amendment #12
Page 41
Bayfront Specific Plan
5) To provide standards of acceptability for signs in order to facilitate the review
and approval process by the City of Chula Vista.
b. Scale of Signs for the Miqþ¡¡.yfront 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 this 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. Fonn 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 healthy state to ensure the aesthetic enjoyment of
marshes and the wildlife which inhabit them.
b. Change the existing industrial image of the Bayfront, and develóp a new identity
consonant with its future prominent public and commercial recreational role.
41
57q
LCP Amendment /112
Page 91
Bayfront Specific Plan
j. Compact parking stalls shall be pemtitted 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. Inland Parcel Subarea
,.
Development iì~:tiJí¡tlJ!!!!¡¡iJi\,@!!~¡~~lt!Mî~ in this Subarea is subject to the I-General Industrial zone,
Chapter 19.46 of the Chula Vista MU1Úcipal Cnde, 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 Industrial use zoned M-54 (FP), manufacturing industrial zone with flood plain overlay zone, except as
modified by this Specific Plan.
F. Palmar/Bay Boulevard Subarea
Development in this subarea is subject to the I-L-P, Litnited Industrial Zone with Precise Plan Modifying District,
as described in Sections 19.44 and 19.54 of the Chula Vista MU1Úcipal Code except as modified by this Specific
Plan.
91
5..1f5
, .
fJfzu PO-f}E; !Blank!
5-110
~ Q)(J) '"
C/)t5~
--I:Ja: ~
f-W
en
0
I ~~
~~ ~ .e'
~ i jíJ ~ ~
I Hln i "
~ Irn~
- ¡; ~
~ ~
it ~
~ ~
~ j M ë=
"" "" elf .2
~ ~ j ! J~
00~0D
~
~
r
t ~~
I If. ~ ~~
- ~ I b "" 56:
~ d:1! J ] fg; ~:~ k ~
~ 000ag'BB
5~r'J7 ueLd asn puel
21# +uawpuawv d31
, .
~ fPa:JE. !Blank!
5I}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
LAND USE ,. TOTAL ;h .? 1. ~ §. .2. Z
Residential. high 18 18
Commercial
- Visitor 11 11
- Thoroughfare Wfiì ~#
- Professional &
Administrative 12 * 12
Industrial
- Research & Limited 81 10 8 63
- General -.g. ~¡¡þ 155 98 *4'
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__--_-
. Allocated within Central Resort District as a permitted use
NOTS, Acreages ere indicated tc the neareet acre based on planimeter readingo and availablo info",,"ticn. Minor
retinemonts that may result from the dovelopmont permit and oubdivioion procooe ohall not.requir. an amendment to
this LCP provided that the character of development and approximato proportion of land uses is maintained.
III-ll
5-7q
~ .
C1I'zú fPll.fJ£ !Blank!
.5-W
LCP Amendment #12
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,
,<;Ie.]); 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.]
Thorou2hfoFe Visitor Hil!hwav. This land use designation includes
primarily motel and restaurant facilities similar to the existing
development that principally serve auto-Qriented traffic and require
clear visibility from the 1-5 corridor. Additional pennitted uses
wou!d include gas stations and similar traveler directed goods and
servl
Land uses not permitted withm t IS esignation 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 leAUitted uses
include, convenience retail, food and beverage retail sal~, business
and peFSonal §ervie~, and emeFtainment facilities. Allocation:
approximately n , acres (1 percent of d",'elopment area, not
¡Deluding RHl¡jOF eiFeulation).
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
alljacent industrial uses. The second area is a permitted use within
the Central Resort District of the Midbayfront subarea, which
pennits 60,000 sq.ft. of Professional and Administrative, including;
administrative and executive office, financial offices and services and
medical offices.
III-7
5-~1
, .
9I'zú g:J~£. !Blank!
5..3;l
LCP Amendment #12
Land Use Plan
Page III-15
TABLE 3-2
PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
SUBAREA/LAND USE DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
,.
Subarea 1 - 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 "C" (see notes)
Commercial - Visitor/Highway FAR 0.25 except Special Condition "F" (see notes)
Commercial - Prof. & Admin. Special Condition 'C" (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, 5, and 6
Industrial §~lim Existing Zoning
Subarea 7 - Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge
Open Space Determined by USF&WS
u---
NOTES: FAR . Floor area ratio or ratio of gross building area to net developable land area.
Special condition "C': FAR of o. 7S permitted subject to special conditions - See Special
Condition 'C" (Bayfront Specific Plan Sec. V.D) and subarea 2 Standards of the Bayfront
Specific Plan, provided that the corresponding demolition/removal of existing structures
elsewhere on the Rohr campus commensurate with the allowed bonus will occur in a timely
fashion and associated traffic impacts 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
properties located at the northeast and southeast corners of Bay Boulevard and "J" Street
by covering adjacent drainage channels, the on-site FAR and setbacks may vary in
accordance with Special Condition 'F' (Bayfront Specific plan Sec. V.DI and Subarea 2
Standards of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
III-IS
5-g3
, .
C1f'zú fPa;¡~ !Blank!
~~~
LCP Amendment #12
Land Use Plan
Page IV-13
C. Subarea 3 - Southern Parcel
I. 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 generating plant. In addition, there is a small area (4 acres) which is used as
part of the salt works, and an area (21 acres) which 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 perind. The remailÚng area is designated
for industria1 use on the General Plan and is zoned I (Industrial), consistent with its use.
It is anticipated that the SDG&E facility will remain in operation on a permanent basis, while the salt works will
continue into the foreseeable future. The industria1land 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 Preclnde 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 Sweeìwater River Charinel.
The property is designated for !:m!!§jï!i.lt*~1îijjjIJJ¡;q!îm.jMœ~._;- æaearsll 8B<l
limiteli ioous!åallJSos ia !he Ceae<al PIaa 8B<l is ~aaeli P I (Flaaliiøg) 8B<l I 1. (bigIH Iøàaa!fial.).
2.Subarea ObiectiveslPolicies
Ohjective S5.A Allow, connnU1Úty oriented connnercial development IJS a BeOOiliaøal
lJSe, Bammo,oial "gFa"fJ assembly" Ele. elB !lll.eÐ! 8B<l aBoea.my ase. with
assurance that improvements are adequately protected from flood
IV-13
5,~5
, .
CJ/!zú g:>~£ !Blank!
5'~{P
ORDINANCE NO. :< ç. I '-I-
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-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
Channels ide 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 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 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.
Page 3
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, 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:
1. 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.
j"~
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 following 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, si te planning, building design and
identification is necessary to enhance the public
convenience, health, safety and general welfare; thus
5~90
Ordinance No.
Page 5
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-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
S..~I
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 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
Director of Planning
(M: IsharedlattorneYI Walrezon. oed)
5.11~
RESOLUTION /17ð7
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. FT. 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 Local 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 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,
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 Chu1a 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
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 I, 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 I, 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 Channels ide (Wal-Mart) Shopping Center proposal to
construct approximately 220,000 sq. f1. 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 finds, 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 Channelside (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 rmd, 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
5f1~
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 will 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.
S. 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 disk\cdp68.rsol
5 ~f15
, .
~ p~/!, !Blank!
Sl1lo
ATTACHMENT I
Coastal Development Permit #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 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 #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 Chula 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,~1
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 conditions 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 Plan, 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 will 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.
lLCPAlf12 disk\CDPMT68.CON]
5,lf6
.
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 Channels ide 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 (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.£tQ
Resolution No.
Page 2
City of Chula Vista on November I, 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 duly 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 94-02A, 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, 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 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. Project/Precise 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 I, 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 -'100
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,Iohored\attom",\"""'Y.~
5-101
, .
fJ/'zú p~£ !Blank!
5"'/ Od-
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-94-381
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
building.
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 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.
5"lD3
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 implement 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 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 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 below.
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 National 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.
S"'/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 lane.
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 Boulevard) 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
5.,/05
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. shall be made in writing at
least 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 shall 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 allow for the
construction of the concentrically 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 will be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
b. 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.
5;(Db
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 signalized
intersection to the project site. The final design of the access road
shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
9. If the applicant 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 appraisal 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 established 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 shall not be
obligated 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" will 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,
including land acquisition, shall be borne by the developer. In the event that
the developer fails to contribute their pro-rata share, the City shall have the
right to draw upon developer's security to the extent necessary to fulfill
developer's pro-rata contribution obligation.
ylDï
Channelside Shopping Center Page 6
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 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
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 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.
)-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 increase 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 (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 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 (UBC) 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- J 6~
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 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).
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.
5-I}O
Channelside Shopping Center Page 9
Conditions of Approval
Attachment 1 to Redevelopment Agency Resolution 1431
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.
[AKdisk/walconds.lstJ
5~1 I
, .
:JI!zú PtUJE; !Blank!
5 - /12-
. ."".".-.-- ~
[E]
. 0::
¿ >- ..e ::>..q<
"=>' >- £!
Q' ~ ~. 0 u.
CJ '" 8. ;¡
h. ¡¡ ....g ,
Vi g; ii.1i~~
...... '>-. Q T 5~ï'
~ ~ ~ .1.1'1'.i'I'i..~..'I,..;j~ 0 ~m
w - :0 , '. . I ;!;"~.
:E: ¿u , ',' " ~~Q~
:I: - '" . .' , ' .;£ I!;;;. 00
u -J Co '.' ~ jj ~,."
::t: ~:5 . ,'.. ,:, "~'~!,I ~
¡::: Q'- " ,'¡¡i¡¡èJ
~ --II ' . I'~ ;..'~ @
w !tItttttttttttt' I
;¡ I ,
¡¡' ~.i '11!ttJttt1tt!tHt I ; : :
~ .- ~ 1tmJtttd'll JI ~
<c !ill Olaillllllillill
:> 8 ommmmmru "
è: !tIttttttttttttii
u € I~
;i ;! &1tHttt8JI I'
5 I!ttJttt1tt!tHt ,
~ ~!tItttttttttttt1 ~
== I' C!J ¡.....:
L!tItttttttttttt I yj Cf)
"~ I ~' .~ s:
I~!
, .~,;"',,.. ,."",'..'..."
: ¡I' . ~
.- -..J
::)
. :r:
. ()
1i.- '"
: '
~-~
:I-,
1rt1l;. i"r
l!Jl
0 , ~
~ , ~
\
I ,
! ~
_._l_____.----.------------ --- ----- ----------- ~
I I ì ~¡
I . I ~7
~ ~o
, .
~ g:J llfJ ¿; !B fnnk
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: Member 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. APPROV AL 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 pennitted; Mr. Rudolph responded that
information sharing would be acceptable, but discussion could not be for the purpose of developing
collective concurrence.
E. PRESENT AnON OF PROJECTS
1. DRC-94-48 San Diel!o Divers SuDDlv
1084 Broadwav
Commercial Buildinl! & Site ImDrovements
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
14.3
.
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 nonconforming 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 noted 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
220000 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 Wa1mart 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 permit 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.~
.
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-95-0l LB. Partnership
885 East "H" Street
Planned Silm Pro!!ram
4. PSP-94-06 LB. Partnership
865 East "H" Street
Planned Si!!n Pro!!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 COMMITTEE -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 will 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-illuminated; 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.
1~~
A-b
ATTACHMENT 3
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:30 p.m. Conference Room #1
Mond<\)' 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (KrachalHall) (4-0) to approve the minutes of the July 11, 1994 meeting, as presented.
NEW 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 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 starrs 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 (Hal1/Kracha) (4-1, Myers opposed) to accept draft EIR 94-02.
A-7
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 (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 Improve 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 Commission for July 27, 1994
Mr. Reid reviewed the Planning Commission agenda. Regarding item #2 (pCM-94-26), member
Hall stated she would be opposed to higher densities.
Staff Comments Mr. Reid noted that 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
A-~
, .
~ qJ~E, !Blank
A../o
ATTACHMENT 4
PC Minutes -5- September 28, 1994
Excerpt from unapproved 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
LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 54 (SR54) , BETWEEN
BROADWAY (NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD) AND FIFTH
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 firm had in the past represented Gatlin Development. While his firm 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 WalMart in terms of recruiting
employees on their site on 1-805 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 impermissible 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.. II
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 Final 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
form 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 EIR, 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
firm 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-/l.
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 adoption 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 A venue 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 final 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-I:;
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 terms 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 considerations. 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/Broadway 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 atay Ranch, etc. Mr. Rosenberg
concurred. It was included in the EIR 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. III
PC Minutes -9- September 28, 1994
very small compared to the ultimate growth expected on that particular section of the street
system.
Commissioner 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 adequate 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 term 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 A venue 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 EIR, they were in agreement with the EIR 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 terms 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 permanent 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 formed 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 {¡;
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 alay
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 berms 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 A venue, 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-If!
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, Mr. Rosenberg concurred that most of the traffic would be attracted
to the full interchange at Fourth and Highland/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 A venue 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 bridge 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 motorists who wished to access the
Price 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 bridge
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 describe 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 driveway into the Center and to the four-way intersection
where an exclusive left-turn would be created. The right 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-Ig
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 ballfields, 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
performance. 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 a 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 fine 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-Iq
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 Commurtity 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 rezorting with the
Montgomery Specific Plan. Her proposal was inconsistent with that zorting, 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 detennined 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 tenus 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-d..D
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 amendment, there were no changes that actually change
a land use. It brought the tenus into consistency by not using two different tenus. 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 staff's 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 tenus for clarification and all the new infonnation
had been brought in from the previous Local Coastal Program before going through the major
amendment--if there was an inconsistency in tenus, typographical errors, etc. The Coastal
Commission had detennined 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~¡I
PC Minutes -16- September 28, 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 confirming 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 excused) 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 all 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 undetermined 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
Permit.
Commissioner Ray asked to receive a copy of the development agreement when it had been
signed and agreed to by City Council.
A.~'
, .
fJhti gJ CUj £ !B tmk
A.¡~
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: Chaitman 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 Managet, 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 ttaffic 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 Progtam
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-'J.5
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 ptoject.
Mr. Haynes continued to provide background 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 developet 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 Boulevatd 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
Centtal 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 (GESJ. 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-;).'7
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 neighboting 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 satisfaction with 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 ptoject 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 industtial 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
about 400 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
p,.l~
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 ptoject
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 and Southwest Redevelopment Project Areas. Regarding the diminishing
number of actes 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) (4-0-1-1 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.
'[) D
IFiI.,'TCPACMINIb,'o"6-94.miol
It - ;;/1
, .
Clhü q> a;¡ £. !Blank
A-3D
. .,, ' ATTACHMENT 6
.
,'. . H-
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1994 Page 1
2A. 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 lSR54)' between Broadwav (National
.. CitY Boulevard) and Fifth Avenue - National Avenue
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 IT Redevelopment Plan (amendment
is enacted concUITent with approval of the GPA), a LocaI 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 Plan approval, and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA).
. .- -
The Channelside Shopping Center Draft EIR (EIR-94-O2) was circulated for public
review from June 16, 1994 to August 10, 1994. The closing public hearing before the
Planning Commission on August 10 on. the Draft EIR concluded tIÍis 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 coITesponding 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 (MOU) with the
City of National City regarding the coordination on planning issues between a proposed
retail commercial project on the Dixieline site (National City Market Place) 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
""" .
~ ".
." .
City Planning Commission
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 attached .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. Existing 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 54 (SR54) 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
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:J.
,..
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1994 Page 3
2. Adjacent Zonin!! and Land Use (please see Exhibits B & C)
.UenerafPlan . ~ . : ..' .. .......... ... .', I.. ... .i:.{'
. Ii:':
.. Öesign3¡ion "" ...... i~... ..".i, .'..'.. v~
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 Lintited C.V.* "I-L-P' Light industrial
ManufactUring Industrial warehousing
subject to
Precise Plan
N.C.. "CG-PD" Lumber yard
General (future retai1 connn.)
Commercial-
Planned
Development
West Research and Lintited N.C.* "CH-CZ' Light industrial/commercial
ManufactUring Heavy and open space
Commercial-
Coasral Zone
* C.V.-ChulaVista/ 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 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 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" linked by a trail system. The proposed General Plan
amendment from "Research and Limited MaÌl.ufacturing" 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 retail areas to
the east and the project site.
~3
"
." .'
City Planning Conmússion
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1994 Page 4
4. Rezoninl!
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 Commelcial 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
that the state-mandated fees are being applied in every case. In view
of the school district's position, staff will continue to work with the
districts to resolve the issue.
b. Traffic Safety - Comments have been received from the attorneys for
.GES Exposition Services, located at 491 Fifth Ave. (adjacent to the
»1
.
"~
City Planning Commission
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 reserved for future consideration rather
than being imposed at the time of approVal of discretionary actions by
the City. The City ~I 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 biological 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
necessary 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
ÆS
0
... ,0
.,. ..
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 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 ca1Ijng for a 15 it. to 25 it. 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 "P" 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-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.
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 return for additional review if any
modifications to the plan were necessary.
".-
(:\IIO~NOIFRANK\OP A94-04.PCI)
Á).3lo
~'"
.!
I I ..
, I I
, I ~-_.
u.J .
1- --l_- /.--..
--
\
\
Þ"
,-
~
CBULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
C) "PPLIcANT:NatioaaJ Avenue AJ.ociates PROJECT DEiCRIPTION:
ADDRElS: SECBroachra)'udSR-54 CHANNEL SIDE SBOPPINGCE~R
QIIng8 GeneI8I Plan d88Igndon fnIm "R8March end :;.
. SCALE: FILF. NUMBER: Unl8dManulllcturqfIo"Commlldll'Thonlughl8t8"
----- ... - O^^' ~1J"_O.oLnA -no "
F\~---.._...., I i..--- ...:J....;..; :.ttJlJ j: ".": ¡ ._.~.-,:: J . , .
1\ ---L.._,: ...-j._-.j~_..- ¡ : .¡~ ...;' ":: ¡ ~~;~tfE~;:~ ~~:~}."t::. - .
\ ¡, . . . I ~ .0---' '-- ..-' ~U.-_.
\ k\ : :O¡~H i. :~'T': ::J W; ::::: en'
~ , h- r--ttlO ; ~ : ~/ .- I~~
I ~ ~ .-,-- IL' r"-:..
~ ....... I ¡ : /A - 5 ~
~ - .. ~ : ~ ~ ~ ¡:;...- ....,.
~ ~.. & "
; ~
I ~~ ..~
~-"'J~' ',.', . ~
' ,1'.---' " 1111
, I r,.)Lf[jiiLi': , P, h
~ . ~
Q"'~~ - _.__._~ r=
: H...-_uJ' I'
, ~_.:.. ¡ --
\ ......1- osp;, ¡ IT CR i := L
- : ¡ II" "'.,. ...,..~. .......~J. ~
t::~ CR";; PRK ~-:-¡,,:~:-~¡....;:~....... ....
.. . , .. .~.. " "4," I '!
:'~~"/~~'-~~~;
. ¡..:.:..:. I- !-.:.;1t.'II""""~"':A"": '
Jl . ...Ld ¡;:.;;þ='" I- ~ :~-;"'~~í:,~'i.~:"[j'/'¡1-"lJl B '- ~
;..:,~.~,::~"'~I"Œt!::ë mil tl(~i~ì'J,('~""::;b;;n s:.! J
) f I....:':: "4fI"'::~ ~ m f-n TO RMH
.. RMH .....~I c ~ LlJ g = l-
I- :'~o::JJ~ I III T I-
- .......... III ..... F-""
-- 111 IiJiLM ~ I
... - . I ;:::¡ t::
~ :=":-.....'- .. RM ' - I-.... - 1=
. ¡:::x:: ..r! ~ .- -
.."...:- II' ':.;:' -
I ,.~& I ': i:¡; . 1-+--1
cv PQ tf. I- CR. . -;-. ..... I
CJ;.'! I
.. .f I L,..,". 1 IT -& . 'II ;¡, co I "
'r\í11~R IfFf ~ u m :II'IIIPYJEFJ=
C'HÅÑNEL SIDE SHOPPING CENTER CAlI 810" GPA - 94 - 04
'. ,.,', -
L18I- x . -"-: NaIIonaI ",... A8ooIaIM .~: H
, RLM '. tOW-MEODENSRYRES. (a. 6du,1oc), ,,' ", '., ","
RM MEDIUM DENSRY RES, ( 6 .'1 cIIiac) NOJIC1 LQeAfION: ..' t", .,.. DODD" ,
RMH MEDlUM.HIGH DENSRY RES. (11 .11 dIioC) SouIh8O8I 0- of IroadwaY and .~ IOD
CR COMMERCIAL RETAIL IOD fl.
CV COMMERCIALVlSITOR . ,.
Il RESEAACH.UMITEOINDUSTRlAl EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
pC! PUBLIC . Qu.-.51 PUBLIC ~
PRKPARKS . RECREATION ')-
ð!lP PARICUOPENSPACE ~ ~.~.~~"'~1I8~EMT I EXHIBIT: ~
".
::~~¡:.:t._Jt::- J
:::f--i.------
CC
~
NOaCt -'." """"ê'J.':, t:'~" "cGPA.- '94 - ;.04-
CHANNEL SIDE 'SHOPPING ":CENTER,.
",,~
LHlIID: NcdIonaI ANnu8 A8ooIaIeI :J
-: 0 m ....., ..
IINGlE.JAMtlY ESIÒ£NIIAI. ZONE" . "'A-
R-1
R-a NWI1MENT R£SIDENT1AL ZONE.. P2 dItOc I NOJEC1 lOCAtION:
MHP . MOBILE HOME PNII( ZONE SouIh8a8I coomer 01 Iroadwayand 11-64
CC . aNTIIAL COMMERCIAL ZONE JOO Ft. "100
CCO aNTIIALCOMMEIICIAL ZONE . DESIGN CON1IIOL DIST.
CCP CENTRAl. COMMERCIAL ZONE. PR£CISé PIAN OI$T: 'i EXlS11NG ZONING DESIGNA110NS
CT 1HOIIOUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE
CTP 1HOIIOUGHFARE COM.' ZONE.'.PRECISé PIAN DI$T.
~U. ,,-~""""""" """"--':::ISI;PlANDIST.
"
, .
,
.
&AI
~
Z
w .'
>
c .
,.. I
""'. '
r-l
I .
I I
I ,
I I
---'
ST. ---- "'8111'
.J '. r "
c I{
z .
0 ",
, ,
to- . , .
4 :
z I ,
irr~
II I .
., , .
EXHIBIT D
CASENUM8fR: PCZ-94-C CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
IOUQ.: 30 I HEREBY CERTIfY THAT THIS ZONING MAP
WAS APPROVED AS.A'PARTOF, ORDINANCE
SCALE: ,. = 400' ". .,~BV THE'(]TY mUNCLON .
"',v",.¡
D.\TE:
6-29-94 Q1YD.EIIC ,', ',...'
. ~ IT\ í:
OŒCIŒD BY: \.J
NORTH
>,:""
, ,'.
~.
~.
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. GPA-94-02/PCZ-94-C
'" .
A-1/ ,
~ ') r,/
, L
, .
~ (P aLJ £ !Blank
If-Jf;¡
.',
RESOLUTION NO. GPA-94-04fPCZ-94-C
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TIIAT THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR
94-02) FOR THE CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER; MAKE
CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE FEASmruTY
OF MITIGATION~t-ŒASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES;
ADOPT A MITIGATION 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" (UMITEDINDUSTRIAL-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 filed 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 puIpOse,
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 Overriding Considerations; and
~ ,'9 /';;;: A-Jf3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission frods 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 E.ì\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, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission recommends
that after full consideration of PEIR-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 FURTHER RESOLVED THAT 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 PEIR-94-O2, 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 FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
owners of the property and to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CAliFORNIA, this 28th day of September, 1994 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
WiIIiam C. Tucbscher ll, Chairman
ATIEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary ¡;J.JI~
1M :\SHAREDICHSIDEPC .RES)
I
.',
",
. DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
.
ft .1./5
- :¡. A-: r;<
, .
~ ~WJE- !Blank
A#4/f)
,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFYING THE FINAl,. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 94-
02) FOR THE CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER; MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS OF FAct. RELATING TO THE FEASffiILITY OF MITIGATION
MEASURES AND PRO1ECT ALTERNATIVES; ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; ADOPTING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND AMENDING THE GENERAL
PLAN FOR 31.63 ACRES LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF NORTH
FIFTH AVENUE FROM RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING
TO COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE;
I. Recitals.
A. Project Site.
WHEREAS, the area of the land which is subject of this ordinance is diagrammatically
represented on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; consists of 31.63
acres located at the tenninus of Nonh 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 tenninusof Nonh Fifth AYenue and
diagrammatically presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit A. as such project is more
particularly described in Final Environmental Impact Repon. FEIR-94-02, ("Project"); and
C. Application for Discretionary Approvals.
WHEREAS, on 1anuary 21. 1994, the Developer filed applications with the City of Chula
Vista for (1) a General Plan Amendment from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to
"Conunercial Thoroughfare", and (2) Rezoning from "I-loP" (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan)
to "C-C-P" (Central Conunercial-Precise Plan) ("Discretionary Approvals Applications"); and,
D. Planning Commission Record on Applications.
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Discretionary Approvals Applications andfor the
Final EIRwas 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 fonh in the record of
its proceedings, which are incorporated herein by reference as if set fonh in full, made certain
J.:lJ,J
.',
Resolution No.
Page 2
findings as set forth in their Recommending Resolution GP A-94-02fPCZ-94-C, and recommended
to the City Council the approval of said Discretionary Approvals Applications based on certain
terms and conditions; and,
~.
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 Approvals Applications, and
to receive the recommendations of the Planning 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 Environmenta1 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 detennined 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 (CEQA
Guidelines Sec. 15061); and
.
WHEREAS, City retained the services of a Consultant to prepare the EIR on the Project;
and
WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 1994, evaluating the
proposed Channelside 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 Environmenta1lmpact 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 on the draft Environmental Impact Report; and
",'. '
WHEREAS, written and córnmentsfrom the public on the draft Environmental Impact
Report were accepted from June 16, 1994 to August 10, 1994; and
A-I./<i
.~
Resolution No.
Page 3
WHEREAS, on July 25, 1994 the Resource Conservation Conunission accepted
Enviromnentallmpact 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 Enviromnental 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 Enviromnentallmpact Report was prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the Califonûa Enviromnental Quality Act and its applicable Guidelines.
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has 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 to the Discretionary Approvals Resolution as Responsible
Agency; and
WHEREAS, The City Council does fmds that FEIR 94-02, the CEQA Findings, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations
have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Califonûa Enviromnental Quality Act
(CEQA) , the State EIR Guidelines, and the Enviromnental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista as also adopted in Resolution No.
WHEREAS, the City Council fmds that FEIR 94-02 reflects the independent judgement
of the City of Chula Vista City Council. .
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows:
ß. Planning Conunission Record.
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commiss¡on 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.
m. Conditional Approval of General Plan Amendment.
The Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Diagram is amended as set forth arid.
diagrammatically shown on the attached Exln'bit A.subjeêt to thê General Coriditions hereinbelow
set forth.. The City Council aIsofindstbat the project. including but not limited to the General
Plan . Amendment, .the; rezone and. .the Local Coastal. Plan Amendment, ". including supporting
documents, is and will be consistent with the general plan as anieÌ1ded by this Resolution.
~7
.', ,.
Resolution No.
Page 4
IV. General Conditions of Approval.
The approval of the foregoing Discretionary Approvals Applications which are stated to
be conditioned on "General 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. hnplement 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 they are, by their tehns, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and
maintained according to their tenDS, 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.
VI. FEIR Certification, CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
A. Certification of Final EIR, FEIR-94-04
The City Council does hereby certify the final Environmental Impact Report, FEIR-94-02
as being prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and its Guidelines. .~ '
Resolution No.
Page 5
B. Adoption of CEQA Findings.
The City Council d~'hereby approve, accept as its own incorporate as if set forth in
full herein, and make each and every one of the fIDdings contained in the CEQA Findings
attached to the Discretionary Approvals Resolution.
C. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted.
As more fully identified and set forth in the FEIR for the Cbannelside Shopping Center
and in the CEQA Findings the Council hereby fmds 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 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 said
CEQA Findings.
E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 2i081.6, the City Couneil hereby
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reponing Program ("Program"). The Council
hereby fmds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation
the pennittee/project applicant and any other responsible panies 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 environmenta1 effects caused by the project,
or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula 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 environmenta1 effects acceptable.
Ii .51
.;::¡ ~ / f'
.'.
Resolution No.
Page 6
VTI. 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 filed with the County
Clerk of the County of San ~go.
vm. 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 tenus, provisions or conditions are detemúDed by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the City so detemúDes 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 form by
Robert A. Leiter Bruèe M. Boo¡¡aard
Director of Planning City Attorney .
( d,ISIIAIŒDIOISIDECC....¡
~
.
~ .
EXIllBIT A
AREA MAP
-
A:53. .
::f I),,; ¿9)r
, .
~ gJ WJ ¿: !Blank
A..sLf
,.
: ,: I I ~
....... I I
:-.r:~> --~ t--
'. ,- --"---;----'
\
~
CBULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Œ) APPLIcANT,National Avenue Aøoc:iates PIIOJECT DElC"'PTION:
ADDIIElS: &EC8I"D&chra)'_d&R-St Ç'RAWNEL RIDE SHOPPING CE~R
QwngI G8nII8I PIIIn dwIQ. oIIIon from "RI888Iå\ 8nd
SCALE: IFILl'. NUMIEII: II ~ 1D"ÕamrnIIdII~'
.,nl)TQ 1" - 800' I GPA-94-04 ^lLj...~"'íJJ.-., ÐCHII!T: A
, .
Clhti q:> WJ £ !B tmk
A .510
"
~.
~.
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
-
If-57
~A-- ~-::,
, .
~ g:J a:J £ !Blank
A *58
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCil
OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RE: PROPOSED CHANNElSIDE SHOPPING CENTER
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE P~ECT
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 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 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 Chura 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, letters and other planning documents prepared by the
environmental consultant and the City that are not privileged communications under the Public
Records Act;
3. All documents submitted by members of the public, and public agencies in connection with
the proposed project;
4. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all public meetings and public hearings held by the City;
~.~
Channe/side Shopping Cenre, fiR Pg.
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) Chura Vista General Plan -2010
b) Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
c) Chura Vista ThresholdlStandards Policy
d) Town Center II Redevelopment Plan
e) Mitigated Negative Deçl~ration for Dixieline Drainage Channel Realignment (1S-93-
037) ~.
fJ Chula 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 (or 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 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 terms therefore must be gleaned from otller contexts in which 'they are
used. Public Resources Code Section 21081, on which CEQA Guideline Section 15091 is based, uses
the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate
"mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent
with Public Resources Code Section 21001, which declares the legislature's policy disfavoring the
approval of projects with significant environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures
or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" will refer to the ability of one or more mitigation
measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. In contrast, the term
"substantially lessen" will refer to the ability of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the
severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to a level of insignificance. Although CEQA
Guidelines Section 1S091 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 caSê will
specify' whether the effect in question has been fully avoided (and thus. reduced to a level of
insignificance) or has simply been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant). Moreover,
although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that
Ch.nnelside Shopping Center.ElR A~(¡;{) Pg.2
~ :::P r:-
. , "
an EIR identifies as metely 'potentially significant; these findings will, where appropriate, nevertheless
fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR,'
IV. LEGAL EFFEO 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 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 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 Oty 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,
Channels ide Shopping Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
VI. SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFEOS 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.
~
.
CJ 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
w~ich calls for preservation of wetlands (FEIR, p. 4.1-13).
CJ 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 Oualitv
CJ Implementation of the proposed project during the construction phase would result in a
significant short term local and cumulative i~~ct to air quality (PM,o! (FEIR, p. 4.3-7).
CJ The project's impacts to ozone levels contribute to a cumulatively significant regional impact
that is not mitigable at the project level.
~~
Channel,;de Shopping Cenle, fiR Pg. J
Biolo2ical 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. 4.6-7).
0 Direct and indirect impacts to c;pa,stal 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. 4.6-7).
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. 4.6-7).
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 « D) for the 5th
Avenue/C Street intersection if left unsignalized (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
0 Implementation of the proposed project would result in an adveJ'se traffic impact at 4tlr Avenue
and Brisbane Street without signalization and additional capacity for the southbound and
eastbound approaches (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
C 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).
~
C 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).
¿) ~fl ~
Channel,ide Shopping Center fiR ,~ :l Pg.4
0 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 potentially significant impact to proposed structures (FEIR, p. 4.9-9).
Hvdrolo\!ylWater Oualitv
0 The potential for a hydraulic capacity deficit in the earthen channel which runs along the
southetly portion of the project site to convey 50-year ultimate storm flo.ws in accordance with
City design and threshold standards is considered a potentially significant impact.
",
Short-Term
- Erosion and sedimentation impacts resulting from earth movem.ent and grading would be
signi~cant during construction of the proposed project.
Long-Term
- Urban runoff from the proposed project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact
to water quality.
Sienificant 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 individually 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 measures oraltematives
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
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 calls for preservation of wetlands (FEIR, p. 4.1-13).
findin&: 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 approvalor have been made binding on the City through these
findings (FEIR, p. 4.1-15;4.1-16).
Ch.n",,¡s;d. Shopping C.nt., ElR .~ ') '1"5 Pg.S
A.{p3
The land use impact associated with the inconsistency of the project with the wetlands preservation
goals of the lCP, which have resulted 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 Environmental Management Program as required
by the lCP.
Potentiallv Sil!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).
.Eindin&1: 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. 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 loa-ft. wetlands buffer. Plant materials for
each of these areas shall be subject 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
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 (PM.oI (FEIR, p. 4.3-7).
fÎJ1dÍW: 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).
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, 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.
~ - 01'7
Chann./side Shopping C.nt., fiR - P,. 6
A.(,Lf
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.
Sienificant Effect: The project's impacts to ozone levels contribute to a cumulatively significant
regional impact that is not mitigable at the project level (FEIR, p. 4.3-7).
~: No mitigation measure(s) iiiare 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 impact
is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and/or other considerations.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentiallv Sienificant 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.
~: 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. 3.1-5).
Proposed mitigation for impacts to the drainage include reconfiguration and maintenance of a new
drainage channel. It is likely that an individual Section 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act
will not be required because the impact is less than an acre. Owing to the limited acreage involved,
the project is likely to be covered by the Nationwide permit process. However, a Section 1603
Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to the California Fish and Game code will-be required prior
to construction activities. Application for the 1603 agreement will need to be accompanied by
biological doc\.lmentation 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 Sienificant Effects: Direct and indirect impaàS 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.
fiDdina: 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.
~ 0'9 ~QI
Ch.n~ls¡de Shopping COni., fiR /i.iØ Pg.7
,,----.....
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 thro'ugh 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 haQi!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, preferably on-site. Hence, excavation and salt
marsh revegetation should be conducted in the southwestern corner of the site adjacent to existing
coastal salt marsh habitat. It is likely that a Section 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act will
not be required because the impact is less than an acre; Le., 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 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.
Potentiallv Sil!nificant Effects: Direct impacts to Coulter's salt marsh daisy are considered significant
(FEIR, p. 4.6-7).
fitufir¡u: 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).
.
Direct impacts to Coulter's salt marsh daisy shall be mitigated through salvage and transplantation on-
site prior to grading for construction.
.
Potentially Si,nificant 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).
.Eindiw:1: 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 indirect 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 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.
,¥-~/
Channe/side Shopping Center fiR Pg.8
D. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Potentiallv S¡1Znificant 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.
Miti1Zation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and has been
required as a condition of approval through these findings (FEIR, p. 4.7-10).
The applicant shall pay State-mandated impact fees of $0.28 per square-foot of building area.
E. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION & PARKING
Potentially Sienificant Effects: 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).
~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final ErR.
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).
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 Sienificant 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). -
~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final ErR.
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).
The applicant shall signalize the intersection of 5th Avenue at C Street.
Potentiallv Sienificant Effects: Implementation of the proposed project would result in an adverse
traffic impact at 4th Avenue and Brisbane Street without signalization and additional capacity for the
southbound and eastbound approaches (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
~: . 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.
~,~ - 3"cv
Channe/si.;., Shopping Center fIR A~(P7 Pg.9
.
Miti2ation 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).
0 Project applicant shall construct an access road connection between the site and 4th Avenue.
The roadway should align across from Brisbane Avenue and have two left-turn lanes and one
through/right-turn eastbound approach lanes and two westbound lanes.
0 Land use buildout of the Channelside Shopping Center, National City Marketplace and Target,
plus project cumulative traffic wif! 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 (TargetJ, 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 City Marketplace projects proceed, the offset
intersection will be allowed providing that the cost of the interim improvements are borne by
the Channels ide Shopping Center or National City Marketplace developers. Furthennore, 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 City
Marketplace projects to provide a pro-rata share of the ultimate improvements. Final design
approval will be subject to financial security via a bond, 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 Chura Vista and National City regarding costs and
responsibilities for public improvements.
0 If Channelside Shopping Center and National city Marketplace developers proceed with their
projects in advance of their ability to achieve the ultimate improvements, the project applicants
shall be responsible for not only the interim improvements, but for their pro-rate share of the
ultimate improvements when those improvements occur. '.- .
0 Project applicant shall pay fair share cost to widen 4th Avenue on the west side between SR-S4
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 AvenuelBrisbane
Avenue intersection.
Potentially Sil!nificantEffects: Implementation of the proposed project would slightly worsen an
unacceptable future LOS peak hour condition on SR-S4 west bound off-ramp at Highland Avenue and
Broadway and E Street (FEIR, p. 4.8-26).
. .
£indin&i: 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).
;~ -'1 - .:::5_-5
Channelside Shopping Cenler fIR h-lo~ Pg.IO
"
0 SR-S4 westbound off-ramp at Highland Avenue. Applicant to pay fair share cost to widen the
ramp to allow a second westbound left-turn lane.
0 Broadway at f Street. Applicant shall pay fair share cost to add eastbound left- and righi-turn
lanes and a westbound right-turn lane.
F. GEOLOGY
Potentiallv SÌlmificant 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.
~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated.into, the project which will
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final fiR.
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. 4.9-8).
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.
Potentially Sil!nificant 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.
~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpo{ated 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. 4.9-8).
(J 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 the Cùrrent UBC at the time the application for a building permit 'is.::.d
submitted. '.
3rt 'il
~~
Chant>e/,ide Shopping Cenre. fiR A,ltft Pi. II
,'.
G. HYDROlOGYIWATER QUALITY
Potentially Siçnificant 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.
findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will
avoid'the potentially significant environn¡~ntal 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. 4.10-151.
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 Sienificant Effects: Erosion and sedimentation impacts resulting from earth movement and
grading would be significant during construction of the proposed project.
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.
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. 4.10-15).
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 (NPDESI 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 (SWPPPI concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The
SWPPP shall include the erosion control and pollution prevention measures listed below under
4.10< and Mitigation Measures 4.3 as listed in Section 4.3, Air Dualitv. pursuant to the City's
Grading Ordinance.
Potentiallv Sienificant Effects: Urban runoff from the proposed project would contribute to a
cumulatively significant impact to water quality.
fi.odinø: 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. 4.10-151.
¿;f., . -j' C;
Channel,ide Shopping Cenler fIR A-'}D Pg.12
.',
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 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 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081 [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 approved 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 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 ancho~ and accompanying -
commerciaVrestaurant uses.
No Project Maintain site in ilS current condition.
Existing General Plan and Zoning Developmenl of the project site In accordance with the
adopted research and limlled manufacturing land use
designations and zoning.
Reduced Density Commercial Building areas would be reduced by one third.
Alternative Site (1) OIay Rio Business Park
Alternative Site (2) EaslLake Business Park (Phase II)
Alternative Sile (3) OIay Ranch Eastern Urban Center
.;¡a 3/f'
ChannoJ,¡do Shopping Con'or fIR A . ryl Pg. IJ
No Proiert Alternativp
Adoption of the No Project Alternative would avoid potential impacts associated with the proposed
project. Howeyer, implementation of this alternative would not achieve the objectives of the adopted
General Plan and Town Center II Redevelopment Plan which call for providing retail uses within the
Central Chula Vista area.
Additionally, this alternative does not 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 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.
Existin¡¡ General Plan Dpsi!!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 Dualitv
of the FEIR, cumulative impacts to air quality are due to regional conditions. Only adoption of the No
Project Alternative would avoid the project's contribution to the air quality impacts. Short of denying
this project and future projects, these cumulative impacts will 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 i.rejected
as infeasible.
Reduced Densitv Commercial
Impacts associated with this alternative would be of a similar type to those anticipated under the
proposed project. However, for rnost 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 irnpacts will
incrementally increase.
Under the reduced square footage alternative, the project would not likely support a large, high
volume, discount retailer, thereby requiring a different type as Well as size of commercial use than is
currently proposed. As a result, fiscal benefits would be reduced.
Chan",,/side Shopping Cenler fiR Pg.14
..
As discussed above, the significant unmitigated impacts of the 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 project at this location would not eliminate any significant
adverse impacts associated with the proposed location. As discussed in Sedion S, Alternatives of the
FEIR, potentially significant land use"iinpacts are associated with this site due to the current land use
. designation of the site, Research and Limited Manufaduring, as well as potential conflicts 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 Sedion 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.
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.
Alternative Site 12)
With the exception of potential impads to biological resources and hydrology associated with the
proposed projed, implementation of the project at this location would not avoid any of the significant
impads associated with the proposed location. As discussed in Section S, Altematives of the FEIR, land
use impacts under this alternative would be considered potentially significant due to the current land
use designation of the site, Research and Limited Manufaduring, as well as potential conflicts with
siting a commercial use within a business park. Future projections indicate that traffic impads on
surrounding roadways would also be potentially significant. Implementation of a cornrnercial 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 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..!g
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
fadors, the alternative is rejected as infeasible.
'J 4-- 3'-t?
Channelside Shopping Cenle, fiR A"7¡ PH. IS
" ,0
Alternative Site (3j
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,i1f1d, therefore, infrastructure would not be available to serve
the project. For this reason, the Otay ~nch 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.
.;:¡ ~- ~ -f
Chann.¡,¡d. Shopping C.n.., fIR A.r73 Pg.16
" .'
STATEMENT 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 concluct~~ that the public benefits of the project outweigh the identified
significant and unmitigated impacts to air quality set forth in the Findings. The decision makers find
that the following factors support approval of the project, despite the identified significant
environmental impact. Therefore, the City Council sets forth the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations:
1. The project will benefit the City by providing needed commercial goods and services in the
Central Chula Vista portion of the City, by serving a growing population base in that area and
by achieving stated goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Town Center II
Redevelopment Plan.
2. The project will result in a substantial net positive fiscal impact upon the City thereby allowing
for enhanced City services.
3. 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 carefully 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 goals of the Gene~al 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.
"
r~~ Jfð
Channelside Shopping Cente, fiR A--7Lf Pi. Jl
, .
, .
CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER-
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
.- -
A-?Ei
~
~ gJ aLJ E- !Blank
It-ry6
..
CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Monitoring Prog-ram Description and Purpose
..,
The Calüomia Environmental Quality Act requires alead or responsible agency that approves a proj eet
where an Envirorimental Impact Report (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 ofChula Vista is the lead agency for the Channelside Shopping Center project. A Draft and
Final EIR were prepared for this project which addressed potential environmental impacts and, where
appropriate, either recommended mitigation measures to reduce identified significant impacts below
a level of significance or a recommended alternative to avoid the impact. A Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented.
The City 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 p~es of the project, incl.uding final
design, pre-grading, construction and operation. The City ofChuJa Vista has the primary enforcement
role for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator
(ERe) 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 MCCwiIl 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.
A-?7
~~ ¥~
MMRP-l ""'94
, .
Mitigation Monitoringand Reportin¡:-Procedures
The MMRP consists ofMitigation Morutoring and Reporting Program procedures, filing requirements, and
reporting and compliance certification. These procedures are outlined below.
Mi/iration Monitorinr and Renortinr Pro~ram Procedures:
The Mitigation Morutoring and Reporting Program identifies the morutórlng activity, the timing of
implementation of the mitigation measures, and the responsible agency or department that will verify
satisfactory implementation of the mitigation measures.
Mitigation Monitorin!.' and Reporting Proe:ram Files
Files shall be established to document and retain the records of the MMRP. The files shall be
established, orgafÚzed, and retained by the City of Chula Vista Planning Department.
RerJOrtin'l and Comnliance Verification
The City's Mitigation Morutoring Report forms are designed to record the morutoring activity in a
consistent manner with appropriate approvals. The fonns will be completed and signed by the
individlials responsible for the morutoring and approval of the mitig~tion measures. These. fonns will
be placed in the MMRP files.
Pro'{1"am Qperations
The following steps will be followed for implementation, morutoring, and verification of each
mitigation measure:
1. The City ofChuIa Vista, Environmental Review Coordinator(ERC), shall designate the MCC,
who will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures.
2. The ERC shall provide to the MCC the Mitigation Monitoring Report forms; a copy of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program checklist; and other pertinent information.
3. The MCC shall coordinate the implementation of the mitigation measures and shall complete
theMMRP fonn for each activity. The MCC shall then forward the report to the ERC forfinaI
approval. /1-78
.;f t ') 'i~
....- ..
.', .'
4. All completed fonns shall then be placed in theMMRP files.
Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MitigationMonitoring and Reporting Program
Summary. During any project phase,'!manticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or
addition of mitigation measures. The ER C, withadvice from stafl; isresponsible forrecommending changes
to the mitigation measures, ifneeded. If mitigation measures are refined, the ERe shall complete aMitigation
Monitoring Report F onn documenting the change, and shall notify the appropriate design, construction, or
operations personnel about revised requirements.
A. ?O
~ if}- l/ ',t"
" ., "
-
-
£
~
.
~
t;
0
g .
:: ~
~
~ - ~:
a :
u
roil
::c
u .!!'" ~¡¡ i ~
Q i-! ~ f1 i . ~ I
z &.~ ii.!!ii -! .
< - ~ Cjc.O;¡ Ô
::; :!~ -... jõ1! -~
Þ> 0 .E ~ .. 0 .'"
r :; ÞO I§. Þ>...,
""< .- ."'. ~ .'"
~c:: ~...,~ 0 ...,
~g
tJc:: õ. õ. õ.
c~ {! I.t It It
Zz =:: JO '" JO... JO...
::" - Oc:: oJ; O¡E "o!i
-E- :E:E -16 - -Ii
ø. c:: .~ !;,.~ -! Iõ
00 ~ ~ ~
::Cø. ~
: ~ g .
Q Q ...:: -::
-z c' .25
~< :,!! ~s.!' ¡;
roil C i~ .~~ ~ ¡
z.... -- ~.= ~ Ë
z- ~I =. ~ -
<ë:! :E:! U ~ .(
::co ..., '" ~
U E- '" ,'" -
~ !j]j:~~ ~1=lf~I'IÕj21~~ i1~
::; t¡t¡I~1 t:~iJl:jj!il¡~~1 IIJ
z -. 'II!.! 1; 'III! ,.I ..1,,& ..I:
~ i i 1!~1 If lifli!tif~~¡ fie. ¡"its
< :E~ .~:~...t'" 8-~o! i,;¡¡IJII.:§"~ j.¡E~
c .!¡ I¡Õ¡'II~ IR1Iiil!~.II';¡.R¡¡æ ;¡..ii.r
E ,;.~ 'tJ "il .B -e;1I .II (.iill!!!!]' e~ii'&
::; 5! ~ ;i!]11~~ D1..1lîsl[¡i;õ;~~ Sltt!
= 1~¡1I~'IIli 1"'1 ~~ l'ig11~ i ~ ~I
§ .!.1111.1' ! ,., .!i.f ¡Ii to:!! :¡ I~ ; ¡fl~
.,ii&
¡¡;.!~
:!
,
~~ó ~ ~
-.2 . .
¡:i1 ~ ~ .~ ,0/1 ~
_TlA V-
~
.', ,. "
"
.
E
.~ ~
õi.
E
~
.
c .
~ ~
5
.:
~ .
"
~
. - if
e:o ~ i......
!is ~ ¡¡æn
:g ð.rl,!o;;~.~
~~ o;;~ii~~
.:1; ... ..2.
~- 5 ee~
c """
.. so;;Í
t! I!~
~= ~~;
ii i¡i
""uE
N
" 1
"5 fi Ie
:o~ B~
."... S u
~I j~
i~ ~
E &
""
s~ ~I ; ¡- -I ~ s.-I=S]r~~11S!I.'
-~ Ii ¡Ii !!~!II!t !j¡111!iii=lil~iiQfi
B ~i 1~ = '6'1ii~¡I-[ 1-I'H!.flilil~!!2 j~o;;
51: 'I ]'" ~ 8Iii!"ii- 11 ï~ 015 1 -I ~!!!
~~ t iiii.~ ~ .i¡I¡~!ti . flllë:j . f) I, .l~]
i~ i IIJ]f .lfjt!i!lli 1¡~J'J;iI1J~I~1'ËJ;t
a! Ii! 1;111~f1f tal ".I I 1! 1."".aI.¡.t~! I I
! ~. ~Eto;;ti:l1 j11J¡ ! ¡11¡' i~j.al!R¡rlcJII
c c ~c c c c c . l!"E1~t !!~¡~æí~;
,
E¥z.
¡¡¡.!~
&
c.
i,æ,g ;:; ~
~:i ... "'IA_CJ
51. j'f U f .
,<1 ',~
" " "
"
-
¡
æ ~
fi
..
co
g ..
II a
,:
~ .
"
..
.5
.!! ..=¡¡~ _-¡iui
oS;> ~~E2'õ ~ ¡2'õ
I~ jll!U .;~~¡U
.. g u '" '" 11 .. .0; IS '" '" ,. .. .Ii
"':E -~.~-[~ -r'p[1!'
i! .~'Hæ""w .~'hæ""w
... "¡¡:~'õ U¡¡:.:Iõ
~- Ii ~- Ii
t! .~.~~ {.i~
'iJ! liL~ Iii,;;
ii iit ii
""u~ ""u
'"
~E æ æ
~g B B
;'ot ~~ ~~
!E .Ii;;; .Ii;;;
;¡r ;;'" ;;'"
i! i ~
'" "" ""
1!~i!J~~¡I¡;j~;1¡!!~illil~l~llii !1!
El.j ~%l.EK - ~i~ ~~J~ ! ~! ..
II :!iil;intHhiiiHhH~hh'I.!f If!
i.f I!l!h j.ž."'.!I!"f::'e .l 1.11,.11. J!.11 - -'1
Ii 1 ilil~ff~I;~!!¡ ii!li1~iJ~I~ jilj~~ IIi
=c => -ie-. ~~j~lfj~tl~~"~ ~.B¡j Il~¡1 i J!¡.B
2 ~ ~ ; l ~ P 11. ::.i I'!. ,i ií :! , .ø;'~ Ii i! j ;;¡ I ~ . c :.1 J i 1- ...5 !
f "'õ¡¡i§""11'¡!:i~'¡¡i 'õ.¡.zfi. .~IJ!...Bli I 'IiI!
~ 111!ëiltj:l!f1íi1;¡1¡1!f~!'!!Uilii~ 1.816
¡
~!Ë
~
...
§ e
~š~ : ;:
i:E
fl'" 't d-
¡..... 0, ,. "
M
Ê
~ ~
! -
°
g .
. .!!
~ ¥ -
.2 ... . ~
~ 1
3
~ .ii~ i-,.:!!-;
e~ ~f -'õ ~ ~~ M ~~ M
t~ :iei!H ]ií iI'li ii'li
¡g ...er;:."....~ "'Jk tic. ií tI,!¡. ií
þo:IE 'õr,!Iõ~~ -.. 'õi e 'õ.. e
1::15 z:-j,!;~"" o. ; z:-' ~e ÞO"'~e
¡:- u...~~ B~ u 5~
oLe ° or
s-i i!J!:1;o-,; °.. °..
-. ¡; ° 'Ii, <;:'Ii.'" ¡.- 1,-
"i ! 'Ii. -! .Ii -:: -
.¡: ,&1!1O o.U!o.EI...I
oj¡ ;>;;i "C'" so§' sf
:IE !=§~ 11Oii!i.= ~B ~:ii
...lni'" ... ~
E a ¡;¡ - =
":1: 2S ~ ~ ~
~,¡: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E
iir Ii~ ¡¡¡E.~' i
.¡ 'f '10 ~ 'õ - ¡;¡ .= - .S¡
° :. .I! I! š HI i
:E. 8: I-.. - -
"' "" Ii '" M
... i "'"' .§.
!!.!'õi~£J~l¡! !! JBi!¡'" ~
~IJ!flli'l:i.¡.f ãs ~].e~~f:;
- i BEi..B11~f~ ";i -I jm i
i E :1 f'[¡J;1 il ë II :¡ 'I; \i.1i51 ;
a! ~.I.!~~i~ilt!1 ~ jE~ ¡1~lli ~
II I If:!llflf!!!f I "C1Q I q~þ. h
~ !i 1°: ...¡,fgi.. ]0 & I-IllS.! 10
f lï:t!lfitt!1f i Iii ~ ~f Iff I!
¡
m]Ï
:!
-c;-
.. .
i ¡.Ii : :;::
¡:IE
~ ... ~3 ,i;¡_1 - '->' ..tI
, ,. ,'.
.
E
~ .:!
!
D
Ii .
:: ;,
~
; .
¡ ;.
...
~E ~i =
Ii ;; R t: .r Ii
""¡¡ ] ë- ¡; .s
.!1 D ... Q.11 Ii
t~ :..~Æ ~
~- 5~
-. r; .-("'
.E" Iõ
;; :! ;:
=':: ...
g~ :!l
:I: l j¡
'"
'g Ë
¡.¡; B
'i:.. .
~ 'è J!! \=:I
if; .=~
.. -
E .
l~!lj Ifi~jl~.il!if. j!j!l~lflIS~lj:j:
M!i1 ~~~~s ~~c[ ~~~Jl°:~i )"'& ~.i
ëË ~ !~jjl §1~li{;~JJl ~Jl!~l{!: 'II ¡lit
Ie I iiPI1Ihijl~iilit~ihnpj~ih~
II n.J1fil!.~..).i 1."õ~!li¡.~IM ~Io ~sl!€.h H:III¡'!II§.'lltWH11"'¡
~ I! . .~ ozA j ~ i~1 ~i- . ~il ~;-.1æ -
It ..= BIi¡: .!, ¡ ~§M õiM';; :1::. !!.
~ JI~11 ]~tímf1! fis ~:1 ::JilBitflst I
.
$1=
"'-...
&
.; !!
i5& -'!
~:;¡ .., A ""~a
- /1-0 1
.', " "
~
Ë
~ :¡
<=
~
~
0
Ii .
. co
:ê
::
¡ *-
~ .~I~ -~I
¡~ ~~i! ~~i
00 Diltz -iit
=-~ ~ it""õ.~ ~ it'"
:¡~ -",.¡.u -if
f.!! .;{. ~ .;'~.l!
~ UE~. UE~
0 . i 0 r
.~ -I;-O¡¡
~g B. i!-(Iõ.'
i~ if ¡¡it
~ ~ ~
'" '"
~= "j
q ~ i:
~~ ~ 0
II : ~u
ii i '¡~
K ~ If
1~!~1 1!.E.i!ti §ih§~. u~ :!!1~ .!:1~
.e~i&!" it~;fB:j ii~~i;i oeji !:ii :æll~
II I ¡IHd IIIIJ"iil iitili!J hI in 1.111
i! ; :i1~5~ I ¡ .!JïØ ¡:!_i:! ~:!!- !~1 -~~
~s æ ¡~.j]i tfi;i ~J- l¡i¡-I!i.1 J!I W.:..~j ~II~
~ i§el~~ 1 ~~- ~ ~~¡ ~~f i-~ f! ~ ¡~ !
$ 'El.~ Z¡ & i:S]r¡ E~.i~E~oe ~Ii. I:~ ~ ¡¡lj
!: ¡J'õ 1~ ::5¡.!1f.i'¡¡ c . c ¡oe~J -iiJ ~ oetii:ii
¡ ..
miÏ
~
-!;. ..., w
:.::.= .. ..",
~:;¡ - AI n.~ ... ...
- ---:rr- 0 v
~ ,.>,
, ,. ,0.
"
...
¡
. .:.
c
.
...
E
0
...
0
g .
. ~
~
;: , .
"
.
.s
¡¡ .. ~ .f¡' ~ ¡¡ i 'õ .f¡' :! .,
s's ~¡¡ >~j¡F.¡¡ !Ì!. ='
g,! ,,:: ..e-r::: . E
"" -", de-Oj¡", ]!...~
!~ ~! 'õË.r~r ì:"'~
". .1!.= "'1; ti...~ ...fo
~- ;Æ ~£'.m ~-
... ~
r! if 11
5:! at ä&
~= ~~ ~~
.= .:!J .~
~~ ~È i&
~ ~
.....
~~ ~~ E
;~ ~~ ~
'i r -: .¡ :¡¡
~i ~i .
~=- i~! -
E Ie ~
~i51~1 i~I;~jj i1~ltIB¡~i~i !I. ill:
M!I:!:i "!"'It~ G.-¡. ]w:! ' ¡t I-[~ 0
- fi~li.1!. 1IM~I~I~ l!t l ;]!1!1 JI Ilf¡
11 ~:III~ It11111~ 1~liJ~¡:!'I' ~ jlit!:
j'õ ~ 1¡lfl~ tl~l!i'~f ;1'111~illfl~ : 5~iii
j~ J l:i£J~ I ¡IIi; I;! I~!1 t~ 5 ili~j1
II ! .'ii~i:. 1.II'õijl! 1]:I!1f!t'õli ~ ¡--¡talf
~ ~11~ ~I liE ~II~ tl~] fl~ ~ 9 ~~J )1
co 11 .!õr-¡ .. 15r-1 ¡ .! "'i¡ ¡BI- co If¡ iJ
~ iJ¡'õ~¡!~';i If!} Ii ~~~¡ !i!¡ ~ !tl¡j_i
.
E~&
¡¡¡.:!~
Ii
.
~ ~ . - .¡; .,.
~ 5 ~ ~ ~ A ()/- ~
51::E ... '0 co or
'. " .'
..
..
E
~ ~
~
D
U
D
C .
Ê ~
;:
~
:Ei
~ ..¡ ..!'
~i ~.:! ~.!:!
gD .. I .~E
~.¡¡ 12 '" ]'" 5
! D 0", """,,;¡;
...:IE 'õflit 'õflit
.: ;; ~. '" ~. '"
~- u- u-
~ ~
~~ ii ii
;;:! a! ili
.¡¡ ..!! .11 !' .11 !'
~~ ~~ ~~
s~ s~
~ ~
co
~ ~
...E ~~ :. "'
:.ë ~~ .i.:!
-!'; 'i~ I-:,¡¡
DC ,,~ &
='f I!"§. _.~-
gD J!& "tiD
:IE =- ~u E=-~"
.. & 'E" .
u ..~-
~ Ili!ti!~!!i~~.EI~!El ~¡~~!~;~I
i I ;i~!I;i~~!~I~:iÊj ~Eil~!Î~1
- !:! §'Iii~e_¡¡;;;I~1ii'1ll i.l~i!ii II ¡Ii 1-II]'lIj.
II i J!~li(~jJij!;~t .I!I!J ji~isiBjll=
J¡" iJI]Eil.il~]f~ ~(1.", l:iill~l!
,~ i ;¡~Ë;¡;r: ¡~.! !':ii~~.i~j{ ~¡!.I1I~i_1i I
~~ ~ .l=~~ ~1~~ i;~~i~i.t~~ ¡!~~]"ii~l=
~ ll!j-eili &111.11:;1'",1 11:; ~1i1. ili.r.
.. ..8 II' 'õ,¡¡"" e .II ;¡¡u 1IJIII ~r.: .Be
~ ell il' Bfa IGI 1¡i~~ Ij]l:!l~. ~~
..1:. -
¡¡¡.i~
:!
~L ~ ¿,
-.2 - -
¡ ~ . . "Cr1 ~
,.., CV T
> .
This page intentionally left blank.
IJ;~~
,. "
, .
. .
DRAFf CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
q~fJ~~j
, .
This page intentionally left blank.
{1,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 FIFrH A VENUE FROM I-L-P
(LIMITED INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) TO C-c-P (CENTRAL
COMMERCIAL-PROOISE PLAN)
1. 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 omitted), attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference; consists of 31.63 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 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 tenninus of North Fifth Avenue and
diagrammatically presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit A, as such project is more
particularly described in Final Enviromnental Impact Report, FEIR-94CO2, ("Project"); and
C. Application for Discretionary Approvals.
WHEREAS, on January 21, 1994, the Developer f1Ied applications with the City of Chula
Vista for (1) a General Plan Amendment from "Research ànd 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,
D. Planning Conunission 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 GPA-94-02IPCZ-94-C, and recommended
to the City Council the approval of said Discretionary Approvals Applications based on certain
terms and conditions; and,
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 -' 1994 on If Discretionary Approvals Applications, and
- -qt.. ...
. "
Ordinance No.
Page 2
to receive the reconunenclations of the Planning Conunission, and to hear public testÏ1)1ony with
regard to same; and,
F. Discretionary Appr~v~s Resolution.
~ .
WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at wlùch this Ordinance was introduced
for fIrSt reading (October -' 1994), the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted
Resolution No. - by wlùch 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 environmental 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:
U. Planning Conunission 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.
ID. 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 Loca1 Coastal Program and that the public necessity,
convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice support the rezoning to C-C-P (Central
Conunercial-Precise Plan).
IV. Findings for Application of the P Precise Plan Modifier.
The City Council fmds 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.
'A.11¡.
'," "
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-54 to the north,
IL (Linúted 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 propenies 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 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: Þ. uJ I
AA to 11' ~ ~1ItP-
A. Freestanding signage may be allowed adjacent to the SR-54 corridor in lien of wall '?\.<..Ð\:t':~
sil!nal!e (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 ai, the northerly property line as a
component of the Chula Vista Greenbelt. 0 l~ -
VI. General Conditions of Approval.
The foregoing discretionazy 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 Discretionazy Approvals Resolution.
VII. Consequence of Failure of Conditions.
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their tenos, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and
maintained according to their tenDS, 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, ihstituted and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions
~~~~
'" "
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 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 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:IsbaRdIOISIDECC.anI)
- A.I14
.
.', ..' .'
~ ,
EXIllBIT D
AREA MAP
AJ1b
&-'/ ,9 ~ 7
, .
This page intentionally left blank.
A~/P
'. ',. .'
. .
.
.
~ w
:;)
z
...
,.. , .
c ,. .
---'
ST. -' ....~.,.
C I ~
Z , 1
0 II
I .
~ I I.
4 : :
z I I
¡~
_,I I :
STREE'
l' ':!1.-""'.!í)o:í/:?,./;,~
J J.~'~7'.r;'.d .. ".'.-
:...1'r;...{'..:","~r:.":" ..
".".~':"'j J"'.I"'.,.'~",..;J?,
'i"h~'-':P. : . ,'. :'
..~¡'_:t~",,1
.,;¡tJ';J'.¡".'.........
EXHIBIT D
CASENUMlfR: PCZ-94-C. CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
N:1IIJG; 30 I HEREBY aRTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP
WAS APPROVED AS A. PART Of ORDINANCE
SCALE: '" = 400' - BY THE aTY OOuNCL ON .
DATE:
6 - 29 - 94 Ø1'YaaK om
DRA~BY: ~ (T) ZONING MAP - fY~
-_Il'!'I"-.
, .
This page intentionally left blank.
It~q<¡
" ,.' ,.
...
MINUTES OF
RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF 7/25/94
.
~.. 1,/J-c,Q
~, ~/
, .
This page intentionally left blank.
It' ¡DO
-. " .,
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:30 p.m. Conference Room #1
Mondav July 25 1994 Public Services Buildint!
CALL MEETING TO ORDERIROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 6:34 by Chair
Bumscano. Present: Commissioners KAcha, 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (KrachalHall) (4-0) to approve the minutes of the July II, 1994 meeting, as presented.
NEW 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 depanment 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
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 atBroadway would bé a fill bridge,
stating that a fill bridge would destroy the greenbelt connection. Mr. Alford stated that a fùl
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 fù1. 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.
Public Comment - Mr.-William E.C1aycomb of.8SaveOlirBay, Inc.8expressed concerns
regarding the decrease of salt marsh uea and discrepancies in the box culvert size. He stated
that the blacktop of the parking uea will create additional runòff, and qucstioncdmitigation of
drainage. Mr. Alford stated that the salt marsh uea would not be decreased by this project, and
that drainage has been accommodated.
MSC (Hall/Kracha) (4-1, Myers opposed) tow-t draft,ER 94-02. .
-If)
..", ,.
Resource Conservation Commission -2 July 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 Improve 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 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 Burrascano suggested that RCC members contact the assigned staff person to discuss their
items.
4. StencUine at Drainaee Inlets
Mr. Reid stated that there is a permit process, with fees, for stenciling on rights-of-way. He
DOted 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--JO~
:J ':' ,- /"
, '" ,
Resource Conservation Commission -3 Julv 25. 1994
S. Review of Planning Commission for July 27, 1994
Mr. Reid reviewed the Planning Commission agenda. Regarding item #2 (PCM-94-26), member
Hall stated she would be opposed to higher densities.
Starr Comments Mr. Reid noted t1Üt the City Manager had talcen 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
1t~/D3
,;;' , } 4:> ;;?
THE CITY OF C:..JL4 VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE ..TATEMENT ~. ,." ,.
.tement of disclosure of certain ownership in~ts. payments,,'or campaign contributions, on all matters
ich will r~uire discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Comnús5Ïon, and all other
iciaJ. bodies. The following information must be disclosed: .
List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract or application, i.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material s~flier.,.
NATIONAL AVENUE ASSOC TES, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
h~.KurUL!.~ ~rturr!~~ ~~UA~, L!U. Gayle Jean Stephenson in Trušt 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:
!Jn14'~ Porrir" Vr"4r P.r'~'r' ~athew R. Tnn~;~ P'r'~.r
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 $250 worth of. business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Comnùssions, Comnúttees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes -
NoU- If yes, please'lndicate person(s):
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the Ci~ in tlús matter.
?artners of National Avenue Associates as listed above in #2.
-
Have you andlor your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributedmorc than $1,000 to a
Counci1member in the current or preceding elcctionperiod? Yes - No~ If yes, state which
Counci1member(s):
:J2II ÍI defiDed u: "My IN/ividll4l. firm. _ptITfMT11úp. JOiN' WIIlI/n. GU«ÚltIoIl, lodal åMb. frrltmud OTfanlvuioll.
-pqrIltlOIl, Clfate.lnIn. recei--. zyndJœie. this wtUtYorMrCIJIIIIly. dlyw œllll1ry. dIy. trUIlIidpa11ly. diIrrlCl(1r'l1IherpoUtical
>divisloll. or.tUtY orhD- ~1lJ1 (1r' oombúuzzú", /Jain, GIll IUIÛ. .
OTE: AItICb additional paps u~) . ~¿g .f?
1/2..Þ/ qif --
!.te:
Jet""ld A.. Alt".,J
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
A.ll3S\D1OC.OS1L TXt ~ , ~ Ó:3 Ælf!f \
".
-. '" -
ATTACHMENT TO DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
. FOR :~
METROPOLITAN SHOPPING SQUARE, LTD.
~
.'
'.
-----. .--. ...
- -... - ._- -. -.-
-_.-
INDIVIDUALS OWNING PARTNERSHIP INTEREST IN
METROPOLITAN SHOPPING SQUARE. LTD.**
General Partner Charles G. Kerch
Limited Partners Tom Hurlbert
Gilbert Jacobe
Jer.y Stadtmiller
Patricia Stadtmiller
Joe Hayward
Charles Borderdine
Pa~l Borderdine Trust
.- Trust Services of America in Trust for
Jerry Stadtmiller
Catherine Kerch Smith
Margaret Brydegaard
Al Stadtmiller Trust
;
.
-.
.;;> : Q-] £§
, .
This page intentionally left blank.
Pr#/tiP
JOINT AGENCY/COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ç; 4-, h
Meeting Date 11/01/94
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /13ki the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista Waiving the consultant selection process and
appointing Bond Counsel and Financial Advisor under existing
contracts; And authorizing the Director of Finance to select the
Bond Underwriter through a competitive process for the proposed
negotiated sale of bonds for advance refunding of various
Assessment District debt under the Marks-Roos Local Bond
Pooling Act
Resolution 117r1{f the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
Waiving the consultant selection process and appointing Bond
Counsel and Financial Advisor under existing contracts; And
authorizing the Director of Finance to select the Bond Underwriter
through a competitive process for the proposed negotiated sale of
bonds for advance refunding of various Assessment District debt
under the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance/)/'
REVIEWED BY: City Manager g. (4/5ths Vote: Yes _No---2L-)
SUMMARY:
The City currently has twelve special assessment districts with outstanding debt. It
has been determined that the property owners in five assessment districts would
benefit by a savings of between five and forty-four percent on their annual
assessments as the result of a refunding. In order to maximize savings, the
transaction should take place by early January due to specific call provisions in the
existing debt covenants, and be structured as a Marks-Roos pooled refunding. For
these reasons, because both firms are currently under contract with the Agency, and
because both firms have requisite experience in this unique type of refinancing, it is
being recommended that Jones, Hall, Hill & White and Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga,
Inc. be appointed on a contingent fee basis to serve as bond counsel and financial
advisor respectively. If these recommendations are approved, we will return later this
month to establish a joint powers authority under the Marks-Roos law between the
City and the Agency to facilitate the refunding and for approval of the required legal
documents. Concurrently, a competitive process will be initiated to select and
negotiate a contract for an underwriting firm to market the bonds subject to approval
by the City Manager.
~-r
Page 2. Item ~
Meeting Date 11/01/94
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution appointing the firm of Jones, Hall, Hill & White as bond
counsel and the firm of Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. as financial advisor for the
proposed negotiated sale of bonds for the advanced refunding of various special
assessment districts under the Marks-Roos local Bond Pooling Act; and authorizing
the Director of Finance to select the bond underwriter through a competitive process
subject to approval by the City Manager.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
Based on research conducted by Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. strictly on a
contingent fee basis, it appears that property owners in five of the twelve special
assessment districts could benefit significantly from a somewhat unique pooled
refinancing of existing debt. Under State statutes commonly referred to as Marks-
Roos law, it is possible to pool the credit of the five districts in order to achieve a
better overall credit, and therefore incur lower interest costs on the debt. Other
benefits of a pooled refinancing include (1) payment of only a single set of issuance
costs, (2) eliminating the need for a reserve fund to be established for each issue, and
(3) providing for ease of administration (for example, arbitrage rebate requirements
under federal law are applied only at the pool level). In order to take advantage of this
concept, the City will need to create a Marks-Roos Joint Power Authority to act as
a conduit in issuing the refunding bonds. It is suggested that this joint powers
authority (JPA) include the City and the Agency, with the Council and the Agency
Board sitting as the governing board of the JPA. The JPA will have the authority to
issue debt on behalf of the City or the Agency. Otherwise, it will have no other
functions, and incur no expenses. If this resolution is approved, Jones, Hall, Hill &
White will proceed with preparation of the necessary legal documents to both form
the JPA and authorize issuance of the refunding bonds. These documents will be
presented for your approval later this month.
The five districts selected for refunding and the estimated savings are as follows:
85-1 las Flores Drive 44% Savings
85-2 Eastlake AD 20% Savings
86-1 Eastlake AD 19% Savings
87-1 East "H" Street 9% Savings
88-2 Otay lakes Road 5% Savings
&~y
Page 3. Item 1o~1~
Meeting Date 11/01/94
Aooointment of Bond Counsel
Jones, Hall, Hill & White has worked with the City/Agency on various bond issues
since the late 1970's. In 1985, the Agency conducted a comprehensive RFP process
for bond counsel services and selected Jones, Hall, Hill & White to serve under a long-
term arrangement. The agreement provides that it will remain in effect until
terminated by written notice from either party. Jones, Hall, Hill & White has
considerable expertise in senior/junior assessment district refundings such as the one
being proposed. Because of the City's satisfaction with the services of Jones, Hall,
Hill & White over the last fifteen plus years, their expertise in this type of refunding,
and the short timeframe required for this transaction, it is recommended that they be
appointed to serve as Bond Counsel under the terms of their existing contract with the
Agency. Bond Counsel fees vary with the size of the issue and are payable solely
from the proceeds of the issue. Preliminary estimates size this issue at approximately
$25 million, yielding a bond counsel fee of approximately $60,000, which is within
the range that the City has historically paid for these services.
ADDointment of Financial Advisor
Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. is currently under contract and working with the
City/Agency on the 1986 Tax Allocation Bond Refunding. In conjunction with that
undertaking, they reviewed other City/Agency debt in an effort to determine if there
were other candidates for refinancing at this time. Their research included very
detailed analysis of every assessment district to determine development status,
delinquency status, and other factors important to insuring an adequate credit rating
for a successful refunding. Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. has been the number
one ranked financial advisor in California since 1988, based on the number of
financings completed. They, like Jones, Hall, Hill & White, also have extensive
expertise in the unique type of transaction being contemplated here. Because of the
valuable research already completed on behalf of the City leading to consideration of
a refinancing, the short timeframe required for optimizing this transaction, and the
relative ease of modifying their existing contract to include the necessary work on this
project, it is recommended that Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. be appointed to
serve as financial advisor for the refunding. Their fee would be $100,000, $20,000
of which would go to a disclosure counsel firm for preparation of the official
statement document, and is payable solely from the proceeds of the issue. These
fees are also within the range that the City has historically paid for these services.
It is anticipated that financial advisory services on future City transactions will be
obtained through a competitive process.
&--3
Page 4, Item htL ~
Meeting Date 11/01/94
Selection of Bond Underwriter
It is being recommended that the Director of Finance be authorized to distribute
requests for qualifications to a number of municipal underwriting firms soliciting their
interest and information regarding their ability to market this somewhat unique type
of debt. The municipal market is currently very unstable, but undeniably in an upward
trend. Any delay in marketing this issue will most likely result in higher interest costs,
and if the delay causes the transaction to go beyond the statutory call date on the
outstanding bonds in early January, 1995, will cost the property owners six months
of lost savings. Therefore, in the interest of time and efficiency, it is also
recommended that the Director of Finance be authorized to select the most qualified
firm or firms based on this selection process and to negotiate and award a contract,
including a fee not to exceed two percent of the par value of the issue, subject to
approval of the City Manager. This fee will also be payable solely from the proceeds
of the issue, and is less than historically paid by the City for assessment district
financings due to the planned use of insurance to maximize interest savings.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All costs of issuance will be paid from the debt proceeds, including the cost of staff
time spent in managing the refunding process. This should result in less than $5,000
in reimbursement revenue to the General Fund.
(;;-1'
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CONSULTANT
SELECTION PROCESS AND APPOINTING BOND COUNSEL
AND FINANCIAL ADVISOR UNDER EXISTING
CONTRACTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
FINANCE TO SELECT THE BOND UNDERWRITER THROUGH
A COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED
NEGOTIATED SALE OF BONDS FOR ADVANCE REFUNDING
OF VARIOUS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DEBT UNDER THE
MARKS-ROOS LOCAL BOND POOLING ACT
WHEREAS, the City currently has twelve special assessment
districts with outstanding debt and it has been determined that the
property owners in five assessment districts would benefit by a
savings of between five and forty-four percent on their annual
assessments as the result of a refunding; and
WHEREAS, in order to maximize savings, the transaction
should take place by early January due to specific call provisions
in the existing debt covenants, and be structured as a Marks-Roos
pooled refunding; and
WHEREAS, because both firms are currently under contract
with the Agency, and because both firms have requisite experience
in this unique type of refinancing, it is being recommended that
Jones, Hall, Hill & White and Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc.
be appointed on a contingent fee basis to serve as bond counsel and
financial advisor respectively; and
WHEREAS, if these recommendations are approved, staff
will return later this month to establish a joint powers authority
under the Marks-Roos law between the City and the Agency to
facilitate the refunding and for approval of the required legal
documents; and
WHEREAS, concurrently, a competitive process will be
initiated to select and negotiate a contract for an underwriting
firm to market the bonds subject to approval by the City Manager.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Redevelopment Agency
of the city of Chula vista does hereby waive the consultant
selection process and appoint the firm of Jones, Hall, Hill & White
as bond counsel and the firm of Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc.
as financial advisors for the proposed negotiated sale of bonds for
the advanced refunding of various special assessment districts
under the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is
hereby authorized to select the Bond Underwriter through a
competitive process for the proposed negotiated sale of bonds for
h --5
advance refunding of various Assessment District debt under the
Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act subject to City Manager approval.
.l
Pre"emed ~ ;~~r ;~fO~
Robert Powell, Director of Bruce M. Boog ar , Agency
Finance Attorney
C:\rs\MarkRoos
~-(p
RESOLUTION NO.~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION
PROCESS AND APPOINTING BOND COUNSEL AND
FINANCIAL ADVISOR UNDER EXISTING CONTRACTS;
AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO
SELECT THE BOND UNDERWRITER THROUGH A
COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED
NEGOTIATED SALE OF BONDS FOR ADVANCE REFUNDING
OF VARIOUS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DEBT UNDER THE
MARKS-ROOS LOCAL BOND POOLING ACT
WHEREAS, the City currently has twelve special assessment
districts with outstanding debt and it has been determined that the
property owners in five assessment districts would benefit by a
savings of between five and forty-four percent on their annual
assessments as the result of a refunding; and
WHEREAS, in order to maximize savings, the transaction
should take place by early January due to specific call provisions
in the existing debt covenants, and be structured as a Marks-Roos
pooled refunding; and
WHEREAS, because both firms are currently under contract
with the Agency, and because both firms have requisite experience
in this unique type of refinancing, it is being recommended that
Jones, Hall, Hill & White and Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc.
be appointed on a contingent fee basis to serve as bond counsel and
financial advisor respectively; and
WHEREAS, if these recommendations are approved, staff
will return later this month to establish a joint powers authority
under the Marks-Roos law between the City and the Agency to
facilitate the refunding and for approval of the required legal
documents; and
WHEREAS, concurrently, a competitive process will be
initiated to select and negotiate a contract for an underwriting
firm to market the bonds subject to approval by the city Manager.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby waive the consultant selection
process and appoint the firm of Jones, Hall, Hill & White as bond
counsel and the firm of Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Inc. as
financial advisors for the proposed negotiated sale of bonds for
the advanced refunding of various special assessment districts
under the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is
hereby authorized to select the Bond Underwriter through a
competitive process for the proposed negotiated sale of bonds for
~-7
advance refunding of various Assessment District debt under the
Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act subject to City Manager approval.
Presented by 7¡~a~cr~ by
Robert Powell, Director of Bruce M.
Finance Attorney
h --I