HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/04/28 Item 9CITY COUNCIL
A STATEMENT
~...i ~. crrv of
CHULA VISTA
Item No.: "/
Meeting Date: 04/28/09
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF .THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A MEMORANDUM . OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
4/STHS VOTE:
BACKGROUND
TAE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, AND NCSDI NO. 1
(SUDBERRY PROPERTIES) REGARDING THE PROCESSING
OF ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
GATEWAY SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHERN TERMINUS OF BROADWAY (NATIONAL CITY
BLVD.)
DEPUTY CITY MANAGVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR
CITY MANAGER
YES - NO X
Sudberry Properties is planning to construct a shopping center located at the site of the former
Hazbor Drive-in theatre. The site is comprised of multiple pazcels that are located within the
jurisdictions of Chula Vista and National City. Sudbeny wishes to develop the 27 acre site as one
project, and as such, will be required to process entitlements for the project through both Chula
Vista and National City.
Both Chula Vista and National City wish to mutually cooperate in the planning and development of
the site, and each have the power to adopt and enforce land use regulations, entitlements, as well as
administer and enforce building and other development codes. Both cities wish to provide the
developer with the assurance that entitlement processing will be done in an expeditious, predictable,
and efficient manner. The attached Memorandum of Understanding clarifies the roles of each city
with regazd to discretionary permit processing, building and fire code compliance, environmental
review, impacts fees, schedule, financing of public improvements, and other related topics. Staff
from both cities, as well as the developer of the site, have reviewed the attached MOU and found its
terms and conditions to be mutually acceptable. The developer has indicated that he is planning to
submit entitlement applications for the project in May of this yeaz.
9-1
Date, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 04/28/09
Page 2 of 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a
"Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to
Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no
environmental review is necessary. The project itself will be subject to full environmental review
once submitted.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt the resolution approving the attached MOU.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS
Staff has reviewed the ptoperty holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings
within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no net fiscal impact to the General Fund from this agreement. All costs associated
with processing of the project will be paid by the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memorandum of Understanding
prepared by: Steve Power, AICP Principal Planner, Planning & Building Dept.
1:\P Ian nin g\S teveXP\c ounci lagendastatemrn t. M O U. Sudbury.dot
9-2
RESOLUTION N0.2009-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUlv'CIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDLNG BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, AND NCSDI N0. 1, LLC
(SUDBERRY) REGARDING THE PROCESSING OF
ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
GATEWAY SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHERN TER.MIlVLIS OF BROADWAY (NATIONAL CITY
BLVD.)
WHEREAS, Sudberry Properties is planning to construct a shopping center located at the site
of the former Harbor Drive-in theatre; and
WHEREAS, the site is comprised of multiple pazcels located within the jurisdictions of
Chula Vista and National City; and
WHEREAS, Sudberry wishes to develop the 27 acre site as one project, and as such, will be
required to process entitlements for the project through both Chula Vista and National City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista and National City wish to cooperate in the planning and
development of the site, and each has the power to adopt and enforce land use regulations, and
entitlements, and administer and enforce municipal codes within their respective jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the Memorandum of Understanding clarifies the roles of each city with regard
to discretionary permit processing, environmental review, impact fees, financing of public
improvements, and other related topics; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore,
pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA.
Thus, no environmental review is necessary. The project itself will be subject to full environmental
review once submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby adopt a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Chula Vista, the City of National
City, and NCSDI No. 1, LLC (Sudberry) regazding the processing of entitlements for the
construction of the Gateway Shopping Center located at the Northern Terminus of Broadway
(National City Blvd.), a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Presented by
Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP
Director of Planning and Building.
l:attomey/Resos/MOU/S.udberry MOU
Approved as to form by
~~art Miesfel
ity Attorney
9-3
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE
FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY
THE CITY COUNCIL
~~
,i Bart C. l~liesfeld
pct City Attorney
Dated: ~I Z3~ ~
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
AND NCSDI NO. 1, LLC (SUDBERRY) REGARDING THE
PROCESSING OF ENTITLEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE GATEWAY SHOPPING CENTER
9-4
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (the "MOU") is entered into
this _ day of , 200_ by and among, THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal
corporation having charter powers ("Chula Vista"), THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, a
municipal corporation ("National City"), THE NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, a public entity corporate and politic (the "CDC"), and
NCSDI No. 1, LLC, a California limited liability corporation ("Sudbeny") (Chula Vista,
National City, the CDC, and Sudberry aze hereinafter individually referred to as a "Party" and
collectively referred to as the "Parties") with reference to the recitals set forth below which aze
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully.
RECITALS
A. National City and Chula Vista have an uneven common boundary line running
approximately east and west along the Sweetwater River Channel ("Channel") between Interstate
5 on the west and Interstate 805 on the east.
B. Sudberry has an option to lease certain property, comprised of multiple pazcels
adjacent to each other, located in both National City and Chula Vista, and desires to develop the
entire property as one project. Generaily, there aze three areas ofproperties that are the subject of
this MOU, and aze referenced as Areas A, B, and C.
C. Sudberty has an option to a lease in Areas A and B. Area C is owned by the CDC.
While there are 14 parcels involved in this project, for ease of reference, they will be referred to
by the respective "Areas."
D. Area A is located in Chula Vista's jurisdiction, north of the Channel adjacent to
the common boundary line between the two cities, and is shown on Exhibit "A" as the green
cross-hatched parcel between National City Boulevazd and D Avenue ("Area A"). While Area A
is in Chula Vista's jurisdiction, it is surrounded on three sides by the City of National City and
bordered by the SR-54 freeway on the fourth side. Any development of Area A may directly
affect and impact National City and Chula Vista.
E. Area B is located in National City's jurisdiction, north of the Channel adjacent to
the common boundary line between the two cities, and is shown on Exhibit "B" as the green
cross-hatched pazcel between Highland Avenue and D Avenue ("Area B"). Any development of
Area B may directly affect and impact National City and Chula Vista.
F. Area C is located in National City's jurisdiction. The CDC owns this parcel of
property immediately west and adjacent to Area A, shown on Exhibit "C" ("Area C"), which
provides a logical linkage to Area A as part of an overall development, and which Sudberry
would like to have developed as part of the overall project. Area C is the subject of an Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement betwee~r the CDC, Sudberry, Derr Family Ventures LP, and Derco
Properties LLC. Any development of Area C may directly affect and impact National City and
Chula Vista.
W02-W EST:SBIM I WO1090580.20 9 _~
G. Sudbeny's leasehold interest is further described in Exhibit "D" and shown on
Exhibit "E" ("Property") of this MOU. Sudberry has proposed to purchase Area C from the CDC
("CDC Property"). If the CDC Property is purchased by Sudberry, then the Property and the
CDC Property shall collectively be referred to as the "Property." Any possible purchase will be
addressed in a separate Disposition and Development Agreement, if such document is approved
by the CDC.
H. The proposed project is commonly referred to as the Gateway Development. The
location of the proposed project ("Project Site") is depicted on Exhibit "F". The Project Site is
approximately 26.57 acres, of which 17.98 acres aze located within National City and 9.22 acres
aze located within Chula Vista. The Project Site is bounded by National City Boulevard, F
Avenue, and State Route 54. Sudberry has submitted the preliminary site plan at Exhibit "F" of
this MOU for development of the Property to Chula Vista and National City. The site plan shows
that part of the property would be located within the boundaries of Chula Vista, within the
boundaries of National City and within the National City Redevelopment Project Area.
I. National City and Chula Vista desire to mutually cooperate in the planning and
development of Areas A, B, and C. National City and Chula Vista each have the power to adopt
and enforce land use regulations, approve land use entitlements, and administer and apply
building and other development codes. National City and Chula Vista desire to mutually
cooperate with each other in the processing and review of the Gateway Development.
J. The Parties hereto wish to cooperate with one another to ensure that the
processing of the Gateway Development is orderly and coordinated, including without limitation
the provision of public services, the application of design, landscaping, and building standazds,
the study of environmental effects under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
and mitigation of impacts, a streamlined schedule for processing CEQA review and project
approvals, the imposition and collection of fees for development impacts, and the way in which
sales and use taxes from the Gateway Development would be allocated between National City,
the CDC, and Chula Vista.
K. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15050, where a project is to be carried out or
approved by more than one public agency, one public agency shall serve as the lead agency and
be responsible for preparing an EIR or negative declazation for the project The other public
agency serves as a responsible agency that must consider the lead agency's CEQA document
before acting on the project.. The lead agency's determination on whether to prepaze an EIR or
negative declaration is generally conclusive.
L. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15051(d), incases where two public agencies
have a substantial claim to be the lead agency, the public agencies may by agreement, contract or
other means designate one public agency to be the lead agency and provide for cooperative
efforts. Both Chula Vista and National City have a substantial claim to be the lead agency, but
have entered into this cooperative MOU designating (1) National City as the lead agency since
the majority of the property is in National City and (2) Chula Vista as a responsible agency with
expanded rights to review the project as identified herein.
W02-W EST:887M l\401090580.20 9 -2g
M. Pursuant to CVMC sections 19.56.040 and 19.56.048 and section A(3) of the
Chula Vista development application procedural guidelines, the P-Precise Plan may be used to
supplement or supersede Chula Vista's otherwise applicable guidelines, standards, and
regulations.
N. To avoid duplicative, conflicting regulations and to implement the cooperative
intent of this MOU and avoid conflicting guidelines, standazds and regulations between the
jurisdictions, the parties anticipate Sudberry will submit an application for a P-Precise Plan in
accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code ("CVMC") sections 19.56.040-048 that would
allow Chula Vista to apply National City's guidelines, standazds and regulations within Area A to
the extent they conflict with Chula Vista's guidelines, standazds and regulations.
O. It is anticipated that the project will generate impacts to both jurisdictions and the
Parties wish to assure that the burdens of development and required impact fees. correspond
proportionately to the impacts on each jurisdiction. To implement the cooperative intent of this
MOU, the parties anticipate Sudberry will submit an application for modification of Chula
Vista's Public Facilities Development Impact Fees ("DIF") and Western Transportation
Development Impact Fees ("WTDIF") in accordance with CVMC sections 3.50.160 and
3.55.160. Sudberry and Chula Vista staff anticipate the modified WTDIF would be
proportionately related to the burdens of the proposed development generally in accordance with
the following formula:
WTDIF amount per acre times total project acres in Chula Vista times percentage
of total project ADTs in Chula Vista equals modified WTDIF payment to Chula
Vista.
P. To facilitate payment of impact fees over a period of time in a manner that
facilitates an applicant's ability to secure available and affordable project financing and to
implement the cooperative intent of this MOU, the parties anticipate Sudberry will submit an
application for deferral of payment of all impact fees ("Fee Deferral Plan") in accordance with
applicable rules of each jurisdiction.
Q. In light of the complexity of this cross-jurisdictional project, the economic
downturn, and the importance of removing obstacles to economic stimulation, Chula Vista and
National City staff support and recommend use of the P-Precise Plan process, modification of
WTDIFs, and adoption of a Fee Deferral Plan, subject to the rights of the City Council of Chula
Vista and the City Council of National City to exercise their independent discretion at the time
the P-Precise Plan, modification of WTDIFs, and Fee Deferral Plan applications aze processed.
R. Proposed development of the Project Site (the "Gateway Development") is
expected to include a rezone, coastal development permit, a P-Precise Plan and a design review
permit from Chula Vista; a planned development permit, rezone, coastal development permit and
general plan amendment from National City, and is expected to require redevelopment financing
provided by the CDC. Sudbeny may process an application for the P-Precise Plan, along with
any modifications of DIFs and WTDIFs and Fee Defen•al Plans, pursuant to applicable Chula
Vista Municipal Code provisions.
W02- WEST:8B1M 1 \401090580.20 9 _~
The Parties wish to cooperate with one another to ensure that:
1. Each jurisdiction is fully informed about the portion of the Gateway
Development to be constructed in the adjacent jurisdiction and the potential impact of the
Gateway Development on each jurisdiction's public facilities;
2. One environmental document is completed and available for certification
for the Gateway Development in which National City acts as the lead agency and Chula Vista is
a Responsible Agency;
3. Adequate funding is available for all required public improvements and
that the adjoining jurisdiction will cooperate relative to completion of the public improvements
and required traffic mitigation measures for the project;
4. Site planning of the Gateway Development is coordinated between
National City and Chula Vista to ensure appropriate internal traffic circulation and ingress to and
egress from the public street system; and
5. The timing ofpublic hearings and discretionary actions aze coordinated
between the Parties, so that public hearings and discretionazy actions aze calendazed in a
coordinated and complimentary fashion between National City and Chula Vista.
T. The Parties wish to jointly consider the funding sources available to provide the
required public improvements. The Gateway Project is expected to impact both jurisdictions.
Given the physical location of the project, it is anticipated that the development may impact
National City resources to a greater degree, and financially benefit both jurisdictions. In
recognition of such circumstances and the complexity of this cross-jurisdictional project, Chula
Vista will make "best efforts" to establish fair shaze funding for said public improvements
through its Capital Improvement Program and Chula Vista staff support and recommend
including a fair share of the fixnding For the Project's off-site improvements in Chula Vista's
Capital Improvement Program.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and for good and valuable
consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which the Parties hereby acknowledge, Chula Vista,
National City, the CDC and Sudbeny hereby agree as follows:
Parties Agee to Meet and Confer.
1.1 The City Council of Chula Vista hereby authorizes and directs the.
Director of Development Services, his or her designee to meet, confer and exchange information
with the other Parties to this MOU and with the developers of the Gateway Development
regarding the Gateway Development.
W 02-WEST:8B1M I \40109080.20 9 _~
1.2 The City Council of National City and the CDC authorize and direct the
Executive Director of the CDC or his designee to meet, confer, and exchange information with
the other Parties to this MOU and with the developers of the Gateway Development regarding
that project.
1.3 The Parties shall establish a Working Group, with each Party designating
its key contacts who will be members of the Working Group. The members of this Working
Group will make best efforts to attend the meetings set by the Parties. The meetings will be
attended by those in the Working Group when agenda issues related to their azeas aze identified.
Smaller meetings of select members of the Working Group to address discrete issues maybe
scheduled by the Working Group. Designated representatives of National City, the CDC, and
Chula Vista shall meet at the locations, dates, and times set forth in the schedule attached as
Exhibit "G", or as needed, as a "Working Group" to review and summarize the status of
processing the approvals for the Gateway Development, coordinating dates and times, and
communicating issues or questions that arise for either National City or Chula Vista with regazd
to the coordinated processing of the Gateway Development.
1.3.1 Chula Vista's key contacts include one or more representatives
each from the following departments:
(a) Chula Vista's Development Services Department (including
one or more representatives each from the Planning Division, Land Development Engineering
Division, and Building Division);
(b) Chula Vista Fire Department; and,
(c) Chula Vista City Attorney's office.
1.3.2 National City's key contacts include one or more representatives
each from the following departments:
(a) National City Department of Planning and Building
(including one or more representatives each from the Planning Division and the Building
Division);
(b) National City Fire Department;
(c) National City Engineering Department;
(d) National City City Attorney's office; and,
(e) Community Development CDC.
13.3 Sudbeny's key contacts include:
(a) One or more representatives designated by Sudberry.
W 02-W EST:SBIM 1 \40109058020 Q -59
1.4 Each Party agrees that prior to any Party holding a public hearing or
taking any discretionary action relating to the Gateway Development, the Party holding the
hearing or considering taking action shall provide the other Parties with (a) ten days, or earlier if
in accordance with applicable law, written notice of such pending hearing or action; (b) a copy of
any and all written material including but not limited to staff reports and environmental
documents which will be provided to decision makers; and, (c) make a good faith effort to meet
with other Parties to this MOU at least one week prior to any hearing or discretionary action to
discuss matters of mutual concem.
2. Goals of Meet and Confer Process.
2.1 Provide an open exchange of information and concerns pertaining to the
Gateway Development;
2.2 Reach mutual agreement on all items of mutual concem relating to the
Gateway Development including but not limited to the issues set forth in Section 3 below; and
2.3 Determine whether more formal cooperation, financing or other agreement
is necessary to implement the Gateway Development, and if so, to agree on the proposed terms
of such implementing agreement and make recommendations regazding any proposed agreement
to their respective governing bodies.
3. Issues for Discussion. The following issues will be the subject of on-going
discussions amongst the Parties, but will not preclude the Parties from discussing other relevant
issues:
3.1 Coordination of the environmental document between the Parties;
3.2 Design of the Gateway Development including but not limited to mutually
agreeable design criteria and opportunities for Parties to review azchitectural design, site plan,
signage and landscape plan of the Gateway Development;
3.3 Impact of the Gateway Development on public facilities, including but not
limited to:
3.3.1 An integrated plan for internal traffic circulation within the
Gateway Development;
3.3.2 An integrated plan for vehicular ingress to and egress from the
Gateway Development;
3.3.3 Mutual agreement as to the specific improvements to the public
rights of way including streets, traffic signals, utilities and other public facilities required to
accommodate the Gateway Development across the National City and Chula Vista jurisdictions;
and,
4. Commitments of the Parties Retarding the Environmental Review Process. The
Parties agree to the following roles and obligations regarding the preparation of processing the
W02-W EST:8BJM 1 \401090580.20 9 - ~ O
Gateway Development through the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public
Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"):
4.1 Lead A e~ncy. Chula Vista and National City agree that National City
shall be the "lead agency," as-the term is defined in Public Resources Code section 21067 and as
used throughout CEQA and 14 California Code section 15000, et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"), for
the environmental review of the Gateway Development. National City shall have all discretion to
fulfill the obligations of a CEQA lead agency with respect to the Gateway Development.
4.2 Thresholds and Guidelines. As lead agency for the Gateway
Development, National City shall use the National City CEQA Guidelines and National City
rules, regulations, and policies pertaining to CEQA processing, as well as all applicable state
law, in its CEQA processing, including but not limited to, the selection of consultants. In
assessing whether impacts of the Gateway Development aze significant under CEQA,
National City, as the lead agency, shall use the same thresholds of significance ordinarily used
by National City for projects occurring entirely within the boundaries of National City.
Chula Vista and National City may have differing significance thresholds for impacts. The
Parties agree that National City will determine the thresholds to be used because it is the lead
agency, and the Proposed Project is predominantly in National City, will predominantly impact
National City, and Parcel A (located within Chula Vista) is surrounded on three sides by
National City.
4.3 National City, as lead agency, shall consider any competing standazd of
significance proposed by Chula Vista, and shall, in its sole discretion, use such standards of
significance as it believes aze warranted. National City and Chula Vista shall meet and confer in
good faith to resolve any discrepancies between the standazds of significance in National City
and Chula Vista. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to modify or limit National City's
discretion as a lead agency in fulfilling its obligations under CEQA.
4.4 Chula Vista and the CDC shall be "responsible agencies" for the Gateway
Development as that term is defined in Public Resources Code section 21069 and as used
throughout CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. In addition to those rights that Chula Vista and the
CDC have as responsible agencies, Chula Vista and the CDC shall have the additional rights of
review and comment as set out in section 6.6 of this MOU. Chula Vista shall chazge Sudbeny
for time spent by City officials reviewing technical reports, responses to comments and CEQA
findings as a responsible agency in accordance with Exhibit "L"
4.5 National City, as lead agency, shall be responsible for preparing the
environmental document for the Gateway Development. As responsible agencies, Chula Vista
and the CDC shall use National City's environmental document when acting on or approving the
Gateway Development.
4.6 The environmental review of the Gateway Development shall be
conducted in accordance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.),
California CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Section 15000 et seq.), and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA,
as adopted by National City.
W'02-WEST:SBJM7\401090580.20 9- 1 1
4.7 Chula Vista desires to review the environmental document prior to a draft
document being released for public comment. As part of this cooperative effort between
National City and Chula Vista, National City will provide Chula Vista with a copy of a rough
draft of the environmental document, including supporting technical studies, prior to the final
draft document being prepazed for release for public comment. Chula Vista will have the
opportunity to provide comments on this rough draft or portions thereof, which aze also
commonly known as screen checks. Chula Vista agrees to provide National City comments, if
any, within .l0 working days of receipt of the rough draft. National City will consider each of
Chula Vista's suggestions and comments and make any such changes or revisions as it believes,
in its sole discretion, aze warranted. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to modify or
limitNational City's discretion as a lead agency in fulfilling its obligations under CEQA.
4.8 National City, the CDC, and Chula Vista agree to use their best efforts to
comply with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "H" ("CEQA and Approval Schedule").
National City, the CDC, and Chula Vista agree to use their "best efforts" to pursue the processing
and prepazation of the processing of CEQA in accordance with those "target dates" by taking the
requisite action or actions for each tazget date specified iri the CEQA and Approval Schedule,
provided that the other Parties have substantially complied with their obligations specified in the
CEQA and Approval Schedule which are a prerequisite to such action(s). If National City or any
other Party believes that it will miss any "target date" in the CEQA and Approval Schedule, it
shall provide written notice to the other Parties, accompanied by an explanation of why the
"tazget date" was missed and an estimation of a "new tazget date" for the action and for any other
actions that will be delayed as a result of missing the "target date." The other Parties and
Working Group participants set forth in Section 1.3 of this MOU may request a meeting of the
Working Group upon receiving the written notice that a "target date" has or likely will be missed.
Proiect Review and Fees.
5.1 Uniform Standard for Completion of Application. National City and
Chula Vista shall agree within 30 days of the latest date applications aze submitted to each
agency to determine and agree upon the standazds for determining when an application is
"deemed complete".
5.2 Processine/Review Schedule. Once applications aze deemed complete,
National City, the CDC, and Chula Vista will use their best efforts to follow the schedule set
forth in the CEQA and Approval Schedule (Exhibit "H") in reviewing the requested approvals
for the Gateway Development. National City, the CDC, and Chula Vista agree to use their "best
efforts" to pursue the processing and preparation of the processing of approvals in accordance
with those "target dates" by taking the requisite action or actions for each target date specified in
the CEQA and Approval Schedule, provided that the other Parties have substantially complied
with their obligations specified in the CEQA and Approval Schedule which aze a prerequisite to
such action(s). If National City or any other Party believes that it will miss any "tazget date" in
the CEQA and Approval Schedule, it shall provide written notice to the other Parties,
accompanied by an explanation of why the "tazget date" was missed and an estimation of a "new
target date" for the action and for any other actions that will be delayed as a result of missing the
"tazget date." The other Parties and Working Group participants set forth in section 1.3 of this
W02-WEST:86J~I1\401090580.20 9- 12
MOU may request a meeting of the Working Group upon receiving the written notice that a
"target date" has or likely will be missed.
5.3 Cooperation in Processing. National City, the CDC, and Chula Vista shall
cooperate in good faith to diligently pursue the initiation and processing of the applications for
the Gateway Development, including, without limitation, executing all further and additional
documents as shall be reasonable, convenient, necessary or desirable to carry out the intent and
provisions of this MOU. National City, the CDC, and Chula Vista shall use their "best efforts"
to cooperate with each other to comply with the CEQA and Approval Schedule and to pursue the
processing and prepazation of the processing of CEQA in accordance with the "tazget dates"
established in Exhibit "H" by taking the requisite action or actions for each target date specified
in the CEQA and Approval Schedule, provided that the other Parties have substantially complied
with their obligations specified in the CEQA and Approval Schedule which are a prerequisite to
such action(s).
5.4 Processing Fees. Chula Vista agrees that the differing financial incentives
and pressures presented by different fee mechanisms would pose an obstacle to orderly
cooperation between the staff of National City, the CDC and Chula Vista in processing the
Gateway Development, and therefore, Chula Vista agrees to apply the processing fee, cost, and
deposit mechanisms to all applications for any Chula Vista permit, map, or any other approval or
entitlement related to the Gateway Development, in accordance with the schedule attached as
Exhibit "I" ("Chula Vista Processing Fee Schedule"). In the event there is a substantial
modification to the proposed project, the Chula Vista Processing Fee Schedule shall be subject to
revision to cover the fees and costs incurred as a direct result of such modification.
5.4.1 Submittal Requirements. Submittal requirements, including but
not limited to, forms, documents, and plans for all applications for development permits and
approvals necessary for the Gateway Development, shall be those required by the approving
City, unless otherwise provided herein.
5.5 Development Impact Fees/Mitigation Requirements. All development
impact fees imposed by either National City, the CDC or Chula Vista on the Project shall be due
and payable in accordance with the jurisdictions'. applicable ordinances or any approved Fee
Deferral Plan. Sudberry may seek a reduction or modification of impact fees in each
jurisdiction. Irr Chula Vista, DIFs and WTDIFs may be modified pursuant to CVMC sections
3.50.160 and 3.55.160 through filing a fee modification application within 10 days after notice is
given for the public hearing on a development permit application.
5.5.1 Costs of Public Improvements. It is anticipated that National City
and/or the CDC may assist in constructing improvements and/or providing other forms of
financial assistance to bring the Gateway Development to fruition. The Gateway Project is
expected to impact both jurisdictions. Given the physical location of the project, it is anticipated
that the development may impact National City resources to a greater degree, and financially
benefit both jurisdictions via taxes. In recognition of such circumstances and the complexity of
this cross-jurisdictional project, Chula Vista will make "best efforts" to establish fair shaze
funding forsaid publiCimprovements through its Capital Improvement Program and Chula Vista
W02-WEST~.86IM 1\401090530.20 .tl- I •3
staff support and recommend including a fair shaze of the. funding for the Project's off-site
improvements in Chula Vista's Capital Improvement Program.
5.6 Reduced Pazkina. National City, Chula Vista, and the CDC recognize that
applying the pazking requirements of National City and Chula Vista on the Gateway
Development may lead to inconsistencies and a requirement of the construction of parking in
excess of actual need, which would distort the design of the Gateway Development. Therefore,
the Parties that the Project shall provide mutual access and pazking between the pazcels in a
manner that assures that National City's applicable pazking standazds are satisfied. Chula Vista
staff will facilitate application ofNational City's pazking standazds via processing and review of
Sudbeny's application for a P-Precise Plan in accordance with CVMC sections 19.56.040-048.
Chula Vista City Council shall exercise its independent discretion regazding the P-Precise Plan
application, and, if approved, the P-Precise Plan shall govern development within Area A.
5.7 Design, Landscanine, Public Infrastructure, and Buildine Standards.
Specifications, and Guidelines. National City, the CDC, and Chula Vista agree that uniform
design, landscaping, public infrastructure and building standazds, specifications, and guidelines
should be used for the Gateway Development. National City and Chula Vista have both adopted
the Uniform Building Code and therefore do not anticipate any material differences between
their building standazds. The Parties agree that the National City Design Guidelines, the
National City Guidelines for On-Site Landscaping, and other guidelines as set out in the
National City Municipal Code should be the design guidelines applicable to the Gateway
Development and any off-site public improvements required to be constructed by the Gateway
Development, with respect to the design review undertaken by each Party. The National City
standards, specifications, regulations, and guidelines will apply to CEQA analysis, signage,
stormwater and stormdrain systems, fire systems, water systems, grease interceptors,
landscaping, hndscaping, and public infrastructure, among others. Chula Vista staff will
facilitate application of the National City standazds, specifications, regulations and guidelines via
processing and review of Sudberry's application for a P-Precise Plan in accordance the CVMC
sections 19.56.040-048. Chula Vista City Council shall exercise its independent discretion
regazding the P-Precise Plan application, and, if approved, the P-Precise Plan shall govern
development within Area A. All building plans shall be submitted for review and approval to the
jurisdiction where the proposed building is to be constructed. In the event a building is located
in both jurisdictions, National City shall process the building permit.
5.7.1 Design Review Process. Design review, including evaluation of
site plans, azchitectural and landscape components of the Gateway Development, shall be
conducted in accordance with National City and Chula Vista rules, regulations, and ordinances,
except as provided in section 5.7 above. Submittal requirements for design review will be the
same for both jurisdictions.
6. Taxes.
6.1 Sales and Use Tax. Sales and use taxes shall be allocated to the Party
whose territory constitutes the point of sale. For a pazcel that is both within the territory of
Chula Vista and National City, sales tax shall be allocated by the tax azea code in use by the
California State Board of Equalization assigned to the city, district, and redevelopment azea (if
W02-WEST:3B]M1\401090580.20 .q- 104
any) wherein the cash register is situated for the business. No Party shall require a seller to seek
a seller's permit from the Califomia State Boazd of Equalization for more than one jurisdiction,
or to assign the sales taxes from the seller's location to more than one tax azea code. If any one
city discovers that the allocation of sales and use taxes is being allocated by the California State
Board of Equalization differently from how it is envisioned to be allocated in this MOU,
Chula Vista, National City, and the CDC (if applicable), shall each execute a joint written letter
to the Califomia State Boazd of Equalization requesting that allocation be performed according
to this MOU. If the Califomia State Boazd of Equalization is unwilling or unable under
applicable law to allocate the sales taxes accordingly, National City, the CDC, and Chula Vista
shall take to their respective councils and/or boards, for their respective consideration and
possible approval, a tax revenue allocation agreement or some other legal instrument that will
redistribute the sales and use tax so that each jurisdiction would receive the same amount of sales
and use tax proceeds as if the sales and use taxes were allocated according to this MOU. A
proposed site plan is attached as Exhibit "F" ("Preliminary Site Plan"). If there are changes to
the Preliminary Site Plan that will result in modifications of gross floor area within either the
City of Chula Vista or the City of National City exceeding ten percent (10%) of that indicated in
Exhibit "F" or replacement or removal of buildings from the placement indicated on Exhibit
"F"," then this MOU shall be subject to renegotiation by the Parties.
6.2 Property Tax. National City and Sudberry shall mutually select a
consultant to perform acost-revenue analysis relative to National City associated with the
Gateway Development.
Dispute Resolution.
7.1 In the event a Party, acting in good faith, believes another Party has
violated, or is preparing to violate, the terms of this MOU, or in the event a Party identifies an
unforeseen circumstance outside the control of the Parties that the Parry in good faith believes
directly and adversely affects the terms and conditions in this MOU, the Parties shall meet at a
mutually convenient time to negotiate in good faith to resolve the dispute.
7.2 In the event that the Parties are unable to negotiate to a mutually
acceptable resolution of the dispute, the Parties may meet and agree to a formal dispute
resolution process, which may include, but is not necessarily limited to, mediation by the San
Diego County Supervisor representing District 1, mediation by some other third party, or binding
azbitration. No Party, however, shall be required to enter into, or accept, binding arbitration.
Where the Parties have agreed to submit a dispute to binding arbitration, the azbitrator's decision
in such arbitration shall be final and binding on both Parties. The Parties will mutually select the
potential mediators or azbitrators.
8. Exclusive Negotiation Agreement. National City, the CDC, and Sudberry will
comply with an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between the CDC, Sudberry, Derr Family
Ventures LP, and Derco Properties LLC for the conveyance of the CDC Property to Sudberry.
9. Posting and Release of Bonds. A surety or performance bond shall be provided
by Sudberry in the amount sufficient to guarantee completion of all wading and public
improvements in National City and Chula Vista that are required for the Gateway Development
W02-WEST:SWM14101090580.20 9-~lrj
and aze the sole responsibility of Sudberry. National City and Chula Vista shall be the
beneficiary of this surety or performance bond, to the full extent allowed by the surety. Chula
Vista staff will recommend to the City Council that the City not require any other bonds.
10. Independent CEOA Review. Nothing in this MOU is intended or shall be deemed
to affect the independent judgment and analysis by National City, Chula Vista, or the CDC, as
required by CEQA.
11. Allocation of Legal Expenses. Except as otherwise set forth in Exhibit "I"
("Chula Vista Processing Fee Schedule"), and any conditions of any permits or approvals, each
Party shall bear its own costs relative to any costs or expenses incurred incompliance with, or in
the drafting or negotiation of, this MOU, or the processing of any applications for any permit,
map or other approval or entitlement related to the Gateway Development unless there is a
substantial modification to the proposed project, in which case the Chula Vista Processing Fee
Schedule is subject to revision.
12. Entire Aereement. This MOU contains all representations and the entire
understanding among the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this MOU. Any prior
correspondence, memoranda, or agreements, whether or not such correspondence, memoranda or
agreements aze in conflict with this MOU, and whether written or oral, aze intended to be
replaced in total by this MOU. Each Party warrants and represents that no representative of any
other Party has made any oral representations or oral agreements not contained in this MOU.
Each Party further warrants and represents that it has not relied upon any oral statements or
promises made by any representative of any other Party to this MOU in executing this MOU.
13. Severabilitv. The terms, conditions, and covenants of this MOU shall be
construed whenever possible as consistent with all applicable laws and regulations. To the
extent that any provision of this MOU, as so interpreted, is held to violate any applicable law or
regulation, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be carried into full force and effect and
remain enforceable, unless the deletion of such provision or provisions would result in such a
material change to this MOU so as to cause the continuation of performance contemplated herein
to be unreasonable.
14. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in counterparts.
15. Warranty of Authority. Each of the signatories hereto warrants and represents
that he or she is competent and authorized to enter into this MOU on behalf of the Party for
whom he or she purports to sign.
16. Section Headines. The captions, subject, section and paragraph headings in this
MOU are included for convenience and reference only. They do not form a part hereof, and do
not in any way codify, interpret, or reflect the intent of the Parties. Said headings shall not be
used to construe or interpret any provision of this MOU.
17. Third Party Beneficiaries. No third party is intended to be a beneficiary of this
MOU.
W02-WEST:8B1M1W01090580.20 9- 1 6
18. Joint Prepazation. This MOU and the provisions contained herein shall not be
construed or interpreted for or against any Party hereto because said Party drafted or caused the
Party's legal representative to draft any of its provisions. This MOU shall be construed without
reference to the identity of the Party or Parties preparing the same, it being expressly understood
and agreed that the Parties hereto participated equally or had equal opportunity to participate in
the drafting thereof.
19. Parties Retain Discretionary Aonroval Riehts. The Parties understand and
acknowledge that each Party hereto reserves the right to exercise its full discretion as to all
matters which it is, by law, entitled or required to exercise its discretion relative to the Gateway
Development individually and collectively. Nothing in this MOU is to be construed as pre-
committing any Party to a decision which requires a sepazate discretionary process. Each Party
agrees and understands that by entering into this MOU no Party waives its right to review, object
to, or challenge any action taken by any other Party to the MOU relative to the Gateway
Development or any portion thereof.
20. Term. The Term of this MOU shall be one (1) year from the date of execution of
this MOU by all Parties. This MOU may be extended for two additional one-yeaz terms, upon
agreement by the Parties.
21. Notice. All notices required or provided for by this MOU shall be in writing and
delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the
principal offices of Chula Vista, National City, the CDC, and Sudberry as follows:
To Chula Vista: Chula Vista Mayor and Council Office
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attention: City Manager
To National City: National City Mayor and City Council
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Attention: City Manager
To CDC: National City Community Development Commission
1243 National City Boulevazd
National City, CA 91950
Attention: Brad Raulston, Executive Director
To Sudberry: Sudberry Properties, Inc.
5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite 260
San Diego, CA 92121
Attention: Mazk Radelow
w/ copy to: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
501 W. Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Attention: John E. Ponder
W02- W EST: SBJM 1 \401090580.20 9 _13;
National City, Chula Vista, the CDC and Sudberry may change their addresses by giving
notice in writing to the other Patties. Thereafter, notices, demands and correspondence shall be
addressed and transtnitted to the new address. Notice shall be deemed given upon personal
delivery or, if mailed, two (2) business days following deposit in the Ututed States mail Any
notice under this Agreement may also be given by facsimile or other telecommunication device
capable of transmitting and creating a written record, effective on ieceipt, or on the following
business day if received after normal business hours. Such notices shall be addressed to the
addresses of the entities set forth above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Memorandum of Understanding has been executed by
the Parties as of the last date set forth below.
Dated:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
Attest:
By:
Donna Norris, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
By:
Bart Miesfeld, City Attorney
Dated:
CTTY OF NATIONAL CITY
By:
Ron Morrison, Mayor
W02-WEST:BBIM1\401090580.20 9_l~aq
A
Attest:
By:
Mike Dalla, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
By:
George Eiser, City Attorney
Dated:
THE NATIONAL CITY COMMiJNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, a public entity
corporate and politic
By:
Ron Morrison, Chairman
W 02-W EST:8BJNI1\401090580.20 9 _1.~~
Attest:
By:
Brad Raulston, Secretary
Approved as to Form:
By:
George Eiser, City Attorney
Dated:
NCSDI No. ], LLC, a California limited liability
corporation
/'
ii
By. ~~~.c__- _ _ _
Approved as to Form:
By:
John E. Ponder, Esq.
r.
Its: Ice ~fet;o~a~'t--
W 02-WEST'8B1M I \401090580.20 - 16-
Exhibit A -Description of Area A
9-21
Exhibit A
Exhibit B -Description of Area B
9-22
Exhibit B
Exhibit C -Description of Area C
9-23
Exhibit C
EXHIBIT "D"
Project Description
1. The Gateway at National City. Also noted as the "Derr Property" or "Swap Meet Site". The
Gateway is an approximate 26 acre site bounded by National Boulevard to the west, F Street
to the east, Highway 54 to the south.
Acessor's Parcel Numbers: 562-280-29, 31, 44; 526-321-06; 562-322-01, 02, 26, 30; and a
portion ofAcessor's Parcel Numbers: 562-280-17, 22, 42; 562-252-06
2. Planned development consists of an approximate 270,000 square foot retail center to include
approximately 7 buildings.
9-24
Exhibit E -Map of Property
:^..
~ t
x ~.
r <~"
* 4 y'
A lgg
'. w' Y
~ pd
~l
e*
9
~° x
''! y +i ~
t ~~
t y
~ ~
y yR
;~,. S
~i5 AJi5'Y Jeve
'r
°'
~
r ~
~ s
,P n ~
~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
$v
+
~ .+" ?
~ >
{ riu~Y °"'~ t/'° ~ h^" Irv
ra ~
x ~~
~ ~.
~°Y~~W ~ 4 G~
_~.~
f'°° y~
~ ~ \
wkH L~ }
ffi n a t Y~
gyp, e.I ~~ ~ x k,~~
A ~ k
} ~
u ~~ ~ ~ ,,,mss
'""
Y m~ .hm! ~ M11
f
}~ p o-
jy 4f
M1 Ms4: t & ]~[^
.:n. ~
N
N R'R
~~ f?fix 4
'* ~~
i vM'SW wR AA v M
°7
s-2s Exhibit E
RESUME- SITE TOTAL
Yif AffA: 1,p59.di9 p! 55 MFFY
x1MOWOAREA: aa,ams
FAR A%
IAfpNG: 1,156 Siµ15
LSIq: ! All ION]¢
• NFANOT WCtWf9 iOTµ
RESUME- PARCEL A
Nif IIfA: lia,dla,30] ACCSI
wmlwi.ufA: ad,o]su
YAR 119151
IAwJNf: i1V 9µl5
YAIq: 3M I,Mtl Sf
RESUME- PARCEL B
yRAYA IaR,rds S]19.9a ACC31
Rll\qNO APFA: 119,P1SY
FAt a),ft11
rAVnNC: sel nuu
UTp: !B]I I,IX9P
RESUME- P_ARC_EL _C RESUME- PARCEL D
SrtFMfw SOa,aal YII153 ACa5i 1rt ACA ^a.}lgYlr.li ]RAE51
SULLDNOA~a. 1JAAYI SF
GdNENCENifk ila5]Y
FAR.I~NGANE]p ]!NY
FAR. Yr/OAIOINJ bBd%
PIIKWG: dN S(]Al5
uro: a.n]I,aoos
CO
I
N
O'
1~
~' -- PARCELD ~~ - - ~~ ~~~ ~ SCHEME G7
9 W EET W ATER RIVERBANK
~ ~ NOfIN
~~ 36oA c RGNITECTU RE ~P^IANN~No~
Snrthay Fhgrr~rr THE GATEWAY ^^ '
CNUTA VISiA/NF(IO NAI CI(Y, CALIFOINIA .w. xaw ~/,.L..
r~
r•
]r.
K
b
A
•+.
M
I.+.
K
f9
ro
C
1,
Exhibit "G" - WorkinE Group Schedule
The Working Group shall meet every 2"d and 4`h Tuesday of each month at 9:00 a.m. at the City
of National City, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, California 91950, or at any such
other time and place as the Parties mutually agree.
W02-WEST:SBIM 1\401090580.17 )"~1,$.;T G
!The Gateway, National City, California Preliminary Project Schedule
Printed on: 4122/09
~~ Sudberry Properties EXHIBIT H
ID Tasx Name ~ oar. -~slan FiMSn o09 _ ar z, z go9-__ ar3. z ooB - a/q. z oo9 out z otn prz, z om p.3, z oto
Fen Mar A r Mz Jun Jul Au Se Oct Nov Dec Jan Fe0 xW A M1N Jun Jul Au
t PRELIMINARY SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN nfinwxs ', tit9w ]/zyto IMIH Rr sIT AH wkm GDe IGH nn
z Initial Planning and Slle Design n.e wxs vt90] '. ]noon
t3 Preliminary Governmental Review Procoss '.. 6a.e wke SHage arzarag rzo
z° Planning antl Design Refinements '. anwxa v2sibs azaros loom 6/z
36 CORBptD6 $Dllding DBSIgn 39.8 Wnc 8/16/OB x6/09
°° Design Exhibits for City Development Review Process r wxs 325/09 'i siivdB v zs •m vu
°5 Prepare Design Exhibits (Arch, Civil, Landscape, Lighting, Signage) z wxa 3YJ909 gnrog Lzs " TP
I.._ wro o.algn Eambua Pmn, cl n, Lan aup• ugn9n g, 51g og•)
°6 Design Team Meehrg (FUIq Owxa anroe 4/]109 a] •yn T•am Na•Ihsg lFUlg ~
°r Renew Design ExNbits by Owner and Tenants 1 wk 4/e/os dnaroe
_ as avl.w Owgn [ nmw ey Dwur mJ T enama
I
°a Renew arq Refine Design Exhibits x wxs q/wos arzvos ae I _ R•vluv zna n.nn• D•.Ign eambu•
°9 Design Team Meeting (Pulp desks a21/d9 4rz1/a9 Ilxt De•pnbam M••MUtFUIp I
~ Review Desyn Exhibits by Owner t wx gnvo9 arzeroe uzz R•m.w Dols E:NEm by owner
6t Coordinate Design Exhibits and Print - zwxa az9/o9 9tzro9 a2 I.i cooMllm. D•algn elmlbn•ana PnM
52 Dlly Joint RIVIIW Of TPM, ZC, GPA, EAF, $t/R, POP, BMP 3°l win I. bt2Y19 t/t5/10 l
x Clt Joint avMw TPM xG, Gp A, E 6VR, DP, g P t Ns
`'3 Submll Formal AppicalionBExhibils for Development Plan Review Desna 5/tY09 5/t2/09 x SubMl Formal Appllo11on6E anl6lta for Dev alopma nl Plan flevlew
`'° 30 day completeness review 3o eoays mtzro9 s/n/BB i x wEay cnmpltle lea rovi ew
ss Letter/COmmanl510 ap1111cant owM &tt/G9 6/ttln9 61 1 ~L•x•rl Cl mnl•nb la •ppllcml
~ Prepare Revisions to Documents 3wxs rutvo9 ]rzro9 4 Pr•p«•WVi•IOna to Dacum•m. '
5r 15138 tlay revlBW by Glty 30 e0ays 9t2ro9 fi/tt/89 t 3 1~~1at 3o Jay nvl•w by Clry I
5e Receive comments from Clty owns srnie9 sn ao9 a tI Rlec•ivmmmaMS nom exy
se Prepare Revisions Documents 3wxa srtvoe ]pros a pr.pv. fl.vilans oncgm.ma
fi° Resubmit Development Package to City forfinal review owns ]/z/o9 m/oe nx a.a~bmu lia•kpm.m P;cxae• kcxy mrnulrame I
fit 2ntl 30 tlay review by City _ 3o aeaya ]rz/od anros ]/z
I
_._.
6]
Design Review Hearing (Chula Vista) °wxs t2/n/o9 vtvto
txH
t L
~Dealgn R
avMw H
•arlnp
cMYa
Vl.nl
63 Cammumty Outreach Meetings (Dates TRD) 3wxs 9tb/bs rvz/od v comnwmly omnam uonng•tDal••TSl il Ir
fi° Environmental Assessment Procoss for MND 3PA wke ?2o9 Wt9B9 i omen al uma n Proca al« o
t6 I
65 TBGIIn1l313llldles 2d8wxs 2Iro9 ]2a09 n na151 le r/N
i
66
-~ Intlal Arayss - Phase l Study x wke Y2109 P2)lo9 In lbl M la Ph•w I study
8] y ) 9wxs 3111/09 5I14ro9
Pre are Traffic Stud Internal circulation and multi-modal accessibilit -MTS Lt t pun Tank st Int«nal dreummn ana mul Fmoeal acwslbl9 t -NT5
60 °wke 9/15/09 5/1$/09
O
u
O
l U15 P
~
~
b
d
l l
i t
fig
°wxs 9/15/09 Y1y09
Prepare NGls
e
A
ly
ls Tech Cal SWdy
ats
Illlll I
IflctllY MP
ac
noN bmponry an
perm llaJlac
ot mo lia no pa
M
int nJ
JeMlal
prop•J
kal
r0 Prepare Other Environmental Technical Studies (Native Amencan Resources antl °wxa gns/x9 s/t Lae
-- I
utsi ---l PraparaaMrEnNranmanlal TacMkal Stutlksl
I
-
i By American na
I I I aourcaa
I antl N
I lantlc•
I I Slgnlfl
I canc•-
I SOHO)
]I °wxs 9/1&09 5/12/xB
Cultural Resources(ArchaeologylPaleoMOlogy)since Ibis area used to border lhr a15
I c
~~ ult«L Rgsourw•hvcnoolo
lPalaonldo
I 1 I ~ I 9Yi v1 wink nai us•J obora enrw i l.•r lna r•i•a nnua
~° lt«
r2 Lantl USelPlanning(specdlcay General Plan consistency with CVBNC)and Ae °wks 9/1909 5/12/09 a15L }L ntl UwlPlannNg lap•dxcWly Ga«ral Plan con
I I I I I I latency wlNLV8 NC1aM Aaatn
I «ca
]3
Prepare GreeMOUSe Gas mitigation measures antl reeOlrlmendaGOns 4wxa qn 909 9tv09
nisi
iP
•Gn•nnau•Gaa mwganon m•aaureaa
P nromm•
naatlon I
r°
Initial Analysis-Phase l with mitigation suggestions rwka 9[909 ]2/09
is
_}Imam MMVb Pnaunwiin muyn '
aupg••uoo
r5 Prepar2 REVl610ns/AtldlflOnS tO TeM(Ilcal $t11dI05 feglllfed by Glly RBVIBW __ xwka fi/t]/x9 6/2909 Nixi ~-p~'•pan Wvl•IOnaIAJNibn•n TCnMC Stutll•a nqulratl by Lit~ n•vk w
V
n
0
Task Summary ~ ~ RtlIeJ Vp Progress ..I Proied Summary
sGPA Arcnxodur¢ an0 Planning
Last saoeJ tlale'. °/2]N9 Progress I - ] Rolle) Up Tesx i i Spill ~ : ~ EAamal MNesbre
eFiln:F\20or1x0]o]~GWIP-o3W~q inlu\$tl,eJule\Galewa~ 1
Mlles\rne n RdIHUp Mlledona ~(` External Tasks `~". CeaJllre d~j
Tns Prefnuwy PmierJ SrJ¢vlule le Lase) on renepl 01 Tenant Lnlena, Aumwlxallon W P~OCeeJ as sMwn antl Ne timely laviaw, cooMlnalim, antl pmc•ssi~g Oy IM Gwreq National Gry, BuilJisg TereMS. CwJraMr aM Prgetl Lansullanis. Pape 1 d x
The Gateway, National City, Callfornla Preliminary Project Schedule
Printed on: 4!22/09
Sudberry Properties EXHIBIT H
ID Task Name - Dur. Slatl FMSM1 °~ W 2, 2°X9 W 3, 2009 Glr °, 2W9 01_sl 2°10 W 2. 2G10 qr 3, 2010
Feo Mar B r Ma Jun Jul Au Se Od Nov Dec Jan FeL Mar _Me~ Jun Jul A
)6 Prepare RevisiOnslAtlditions to T¢Chnical SWdies requiretl by Cily Revi¢VI :. 1wk ]r20/09 ]/24ro9 ]IB 11Pnpan RewaMnNAIOIIIana to TPCMICaI SWtlbv npWntl by Clly pavNw
]) Environmental Review Process fa MND 1e wws srz/ds 9i1a/GS 3 ~ mlro tat wl.w Pnc vls
)e Submit Environmental Assessment Form 0wxs slvos vivos also n tr~ryrenm A.vavam.m Farm
n1
)9 FIf51 CIly R¢VIeW Of EXVIfOnmenlal App11C2GOn 30 aeaye 5/lvX9 fi/1t/X9 -Firs C11I'Iiarbw of Enrlronm•nlal ApPlk•'Im
R
XO Prepare RevislOfls w TeChnlca SlWles 3 wka fi/12tt19 ]/2/09 pW fla Ialona to TacMlol blueleb
aII P a
B1 Second Cily Review Uf EnvlronmeNa Application 2wks )/a°9 ]/t]/09 yy
]I }MCily RevMw of EnvirenmeslW ApDI1E+llon
a3 Plepaf¢ RBVI¢gne 10 T¢CIIOICdI $IUd165 1 wk i )/21/09 ]/2]/09 ]131 P pw Revltlms to TecMkal (rueka
I
_
°3 Third Cily Review of Envronmental Appicaton zwxs )2X/09 arta09 ]Ra LTpIECIIy R•vkw of Envlron lal App9cellon
n
i
X° Final Edit and Prepare Document (or Publw Review Disulbwion 1wx a/t1/°9 X/1]I09 i.na Prap•r•Daa m•nl for pu6lk Revkw O
an Pw1EW
I rvlebullon
_
I Xs Proleel and MND PUbIIC Review (30 Calendar Days) 30 eaars em/fis a1ao9 un Profa[mM Mxo pWlkR.akw la9eal.aear ayq
°fi Planning Commission Process (National Cily 8 G11ula Vista) s wka 92v09 1w2aro9 va tan tan
~e] Prepare Draft Agenda Slalement 1 wx an/os &2909 va Prolly Oran Aa a sra•mwl
e6 Planning Commission Hearing-(isl Reading) ' zwxs 92ao9 1aw0s sae ,PmnNngea !sewn R•adn9 Its RO ekel
9 )
r 2 l (3rW
ta
PI~k
I Raamnel.
9° CXy
CttyB Chua VSta)
OP
s 1°Bwks 1a26/O9 1/18/10
v 1&26 LX LounE
llP OC tHfi
1
9 Reatling)
GIryC
J((s zwxs 1az
aroa i
a0s iaze
cE4rm111ta
Rmmrq)
l
92 ga MNO Cerli(ICaIWn)
I
2wxs
t1/z]/09
12/10/09 RND Catlilktlbnl
HQ] 'CX Caundl 2ne fln•tlNp•
I
93 N
D
O desks 12/11/°9 t/tat0 U/H
re ya
d
P
¢ 1wk lbtl/O9 1ZI1]/09 xGOF
1L11
0
ss 30tl
p
p¢a
p
I
Od y
3o sea s 1vn/os vlam 0aY aPPnl pa
J
wn doE
9B ApPeal PeflOd over Owx. ' v1B]TO vlat0 iHp*APPaN parlae over
9] Cd TfanS ProC¢SSIRJ I 652 wka I °/15/09 ]2110 U1 5 al Trans Pram In A2]
~ NGtice IG Proceed (NTP) o wka an vpa 0/1909 ut s -A. xaica lP Prows Ixrvl
ee Prepare PEER/Encroachmanl Permit uwxs °n Bros '.. )nwos o tsl ~Prepan vEERlEncmacNmm Parmrc
__
10° $UIImII DfafI PEER Xwks ]/1&09 I ]I1N09 ]HB SabmlIDOX PEER
1°1 CalTrans Draft PEER °wka ]/1]/09 BI1 W09 Iltll CNTrana Drax PEER
1XZ Respond fo Comments 2wxs a10/09 a2)/O9 at° Raspontl to Comm•Na
1°3 DaTrana PEER R¢VIeW '. desks &28/09 9129/09 L28 i C IT PEEfl fla ices
10° OaTrallS IXSU¢6 EOCIDXChm¢nl P¢fmll °wxs 9/2°I09 9/20/09 9IN C R • Isauev E croacM1mnnl PamYl
- ~
-
ins Prepare Draft (90%) PSBE Package 1° wxs a2ao9 va1D _~P p n Dnx (90%) P56E Pacxa9e
a3B _ _
___
106 CXITrana Drafl (gD%)P$$E 6wxe 1/t1H° 2/19/10 11H ~alTrana OraX 190%I P36E
i
__
ID) Plepaz¢Flna (100%)PSBE PdCkag¢ Bwka 2/22/1D 6/1&10 3/331 ~P pan FlnN De O%I pa6E Pa
1°B ( )
CalTrans Final 100% PSBE Review 6wk5 °/19/10 5/1B/10 at9~ ...LLaITn
'*" m FW1It00M
t
"ibs Prepare Bis ReatlY PSBE Package Bwks 931nD ]2anD sat t ,__-~waDau
nX Bitl Ready P58E Package Xwks ]2azio i/ialo ] 33*elaR
m SITEWORK DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION veawxs 1v1o/o9 8llanz tatX sREwoRX Oeslax Axo coxsTRUCTwx
100 BUILDING DESIGN ANO CONSTRUCTION i`-ul wka 1am/G9 ', n/a1z tvto m01xG DeslGx AxD¢oxs.RUCnox
V
i
n
u
Task , Sun mery Roll tlUP Pmgn P led Summary
SGPAA Mreclur•ane Planning ~ _
I asl s tl tlale: °/22/09 Progress I -. J Rdletl Up Tasx i Slbll Ealerrel Milestone
eFlle:F:r1W]\3U]U]-GWrP-03Wroj No\adreoule\Garewa~ py
Mlaslore ~ Rdleo Up Mlesloru ~( Ealerrwl Tasks „. ~ uy DeaMlro
iNS Preliminary Proled 5cneeule Is oasee on reciaq of Teranl Criteria, AuNaizalbr w Proceetl as slwwn ano IM1e Omely review, cmrtlinalion. erN pr¢essirg Oy Na Owreq National Clry. BuNJirg TereMS. CoMraGw arW Proietl Lmsullanls. Papa 2 W 3
EXHIBIT "I"
FEE SCHEDULE
1st Plan Review 20 2920 4 780 1 234 6 876 5 840
2nd Plan Review 10 1460 2 390 4 285 5 840
3rd Plan Review 5 730 1 195 2 292 5 840
Write Re ort 16 2336
Edit Report 2 390 1 234
Notice of Decision 4 584 1 195 1 234
Presentation 4 584 1 195
DRB meetin (2 4 584 4 780
Total 63 $ 9,198 15 2925 3 702 12 1453 15 2520 0 0
Review 1st SC 4 780
Review 2nd SC 2 390 4 868
Review Final SC 1 195 2 434
Traffic 1st SC 1 195 6 1008
Traffic 2nd SC 0 0 4 672
Traffic 3rd SC 0 0 1 168
Water Quali 1 195 4 672
Sewer 1 195 4 672
Draina e 1 195 4 672
Geotech 4 672
Noise 2 390
Air Quali 2 390
RTC 4 780 4 868
Total 19 3705 27 4536 10 2170
Write re ort 25 3650
Write Reso/ord 15 2190
Edit re ort 2 390 2 468 4 868
Plannin Comm. 4 584 4 780 4 936 4 868
Ci Council 4 584 4 780 4 936 4 868
Presentation 4 584 2 390 1 390
Total 52 7592 12 2340 11 2730 12 2604
Design Review Total $ 16,798
MND Total 10411
Rezone Total 15266
Building permits 42000
Grading permit 16000
Meetings (100 hrs) 19500
Grand Total $ 119,975
9-30