Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
1900 Main Street, 5th Floor | Irvine, CA 92614-7321
Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354
www.allenmatkins.com
Jonathan E. Shardlow
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 949.851.5422 File Number: 374894.00032/4855-1055-0294.2
Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND
E-MAIL – [email protected]
March 15, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City
Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Appeal of Planning Commissio n Resolution Nos. DR21-0007/VAR21- 0001 [Design Review Permit and Variance Approval for Heritage Industrial Center]
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This firm represents the Rockefeller Group (“Rockefeller”), the applicant for the above- referenced Design Review Permit and Variance for the Heritage Industrial Center project (“Project”) located on 11.6 acres of vacant property within the Otay Ranch Village 3 and a Portion of Village 4 (Village 3) Plan Area (“Site”).
1 The Project proposes the construction of three (3)
warehouse and industrial buildings for office and storage/warehouse/e-commerce uses totaling approximately 220,000 square feet (“SF”) and identified as follows: Building A (104,900 SF and 132 parking spaces); Building B (55,700 SF and 92 parking spaces); and, Building C (40,600 SF and 63 parking spaces). The Project is fully consistent with the City zoning and development regulations governing the Site and, as designed and conditioned, will mitigate and/or eliminate all potential environmental and community impacts identified by the City and bring a wealth of new, high-paying jobs for residents of the community.
On February 9, 2022, the City Planning Commission unanimously approved the entitlements for the Project and adopted Resolution Nos. DR21-0007 and VAR21-0001 (“Resolutions”). The sole objections and opposition to the Project was raised by Teamsters Local 542 (“Teamsters”), which opposed the Project on the speculative grounds that the three warehouse buildings might be leased to Amazon which could potentially utilize the buildings as a last mile distribution facility and that if this were to occur the Project could potentially generate adverse environmental and other impacts that were not adequately analyzed by the City in accordance with the California
1 The Project Site is owned by HomeFed Village III Master, LLC.
Written Communications
Item 7.1 - Shardlow/Allen Matkins
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 15, 2022
Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”). The Planning Commission considered, but ultimately rejected, the Teamsters’ objections and the Teamsters filed the instant appeal of the Project entitlements to the City Council.
As outlined below, the City Council should reject the Teamsters’ appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project entitlements and adoption of the Resolutions as: (i) the potential environmental impacts of the Project were more than adequately addressed in the 2014 Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Otay Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment (“SPA Amendment”) (the “FEIR”); (ii) the speculative lease of the Project to Amazon for use as a last mile distribution facility does not affect or undermine the adequacy of the City’s CEQA analysis under the FEIR; and (iii) the Teamsters’ preoccupation with Amazon as a potential tenant illustrates that their true concern with the Project is the loss of future union jobs and not the potential environmental impacts to the community. The Teamsters’ appeal must, accordingly, be denied.
We respectfully request that this letter and the accompanying attachments be included as part of the administrative record for this matter.
The Project’s Environmental Impacts Were Adequately Analyzed in the FEIR in Accordance with CEQA
The Teamsters’ appeal asserts that the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project should be overturned on the basis that the potential environmental impacts of the Project – as a presumed Amazon last mile distribution facility – were not and could not have been adequately analyzed in the 2014 FEIR approved for the SPA Amendment because it is allegedly outdated and did not address the impacts of modern industrial facilities and operations. Not so.
First, the Project is not and has not been leased to Amazon or any other similar e-commerce tenant for use as a last mile distribution facility. CEQA does not require the analysis of hypothetical impacts of a speculative future project; rather, the City’s sole obligation as the lead agency for the Project under CEQA is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the specific project being proposed by Rockefeller.
Tenant-specific review of a project is not required under CEQA. As stated by the court in Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 430 at 444: ‘So long as the project is [analyzed], CEQA has no concern about who uses it. If CEQA compliance required the identification of the project end user, a new EIR would need to be considered every time property was sold or a different tenant moved into a building, regardless of the use to which the property was to be put. In addition to the problems listed above, such a requirement also violates the standard of efficiency required by CEQA…”’
Written Communications
Item 7.1 - Shardlow/Allen Matkins
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 15, 2022
The Project includes three (3) “shell” industrial buildings of varying sizes that could be leased to a variety of different industrial/commercial tenants and utilized for a multitude of different warehousing, manufacturing and commercial/office purposes. The Site has long been zoned and designated as industrial by the City and was analyzed in the project-level EIR certified in 2006 as well as the 2014 FEIR for industrial purposes, such as those anticipated for the Project. Therefore, no additional detailed environmental review was required in order to comply with CEQA.
The Teamsters’ appeal provides no specific details or information to contradict or undermine the findings of City staff and the Planning Commission that the Project’s potential environmental impacts were adequately analyzed in these prior environmental documents. The appeal instead contains blanket assertions and unsubstantiated conclusory statements that the Project – again, as a presumed Amazon last mile distribution facility – will bring with it a host of adverse community and environmental impacts. The Teamsters’ position is based on a false premise regarding future tenants (e.g., Amazon) and uses of the proposed warehouse buildings (last mile distribution facility) and therefore does not – and cannot – constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact associated with the Project. 2 Significantly, the building sizes and
configurations are not even designed for the size and types of buildings Amazon would desire.
Amazon typically leases buildings in excess of over 500,000 square feet and to our knowledge has never leased any building less than 130,000 square feet. In addition, all three buildings are designed with rear loading truck doors as opposed to the cross-dock configuration normally utilized by Amazon.
Moreover, notwithstanding the environmental analysis of the Project addressed in the FEIR, Rockefeller prepared an updated Site-specific noise study and detailed analysis confirming the Project’s consistency and compliance with the Otay Ranch Village 3 SPA Plan and Amendment and associated regulations governing development on the Site, including the updated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) methodology for evaluating traffic impacts. The Project was specifically designed to minimize and reduce potential traffic, noise and other impacts to surrounding land uses and be harmonious from a landscaping, architectural and aesthetic perspective with the greater community.
2 Even if the Project were eventually leased to a tenant like Amazon and used for logistics and distribution purposes, the determination that the Project’s impacts were adequately addressed in the FEIR would not change. The FEIR and prior CEQA documents going back as far as 2006 have analyzed the potential impacts of various industrial and warehousi ng uses at the Site, including logistics and distribution. There is no “Amazon provision” under CEQA that requires heightened environmental review when Amazon is a potential tenant of a speculative industrial project.
Written Communications
Item 7.1 - Shardlow/Allen Matkins
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 15, 2022
There is, in short, no basis for granting the Teamsters’ appeal and reversing the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
The Teamsters’ True Concern is Not the Project’s Potential Environmental Impacts But Rather the Loss of Future Union Jobs
The Teamsters’ appeal is ostensibly based on the potential environmental impacts of the Project that were purportedly not addressed in the FEIR and Project-specific technical studies and information. However, as the Teamsters’ fail to provide any specific details or information regarding these alleged shortcomings and inadequate analysis, the true purpose of the appeal is revealed – the loss of future union jobs for the Project.
It is well documented that Amazon has been resistant and opposed to efforts to unionize by Amazon workers and employees. The Teamsters are a labor union that purports to represent the interests of “over 6,000 warehouse, logistics, delivery, trucking and other workers in San Diego County.” (February 8, 2022, Teamster’s letter, p. 2.) The potential occupancy of the Project by a tenant such as Amazon that does not utilize union labor would deprive Teamsters’ members of potential employment opportunities. This may be true; however, the preservation and protection of union labor is not an “environmental impact” recognized under CEQA that requires a detailed (or any) analysis. Nor for that matter is the potential loss of union jobs a legitimate basis for vacating the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project. The Teamsters’ appeal must, accordingly, be rejected.
Conclusion
We appreciate the City Council’s consideration of this letter and comments outlined above.
There is, in short, no legal or logical basis for granting the Teamsters’ appeal or overturning the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project entitlements and Resolutions. On behalf of Rockefeller, we look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with the City on fulfilling the vision of the Project for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the City of Chula Vista and surrounding community.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter in further detail
Very truly yours,
Jonathan E. Shardlow
JES:mmm
Written Communications
Item 7.1 - Shardlow/Allen Matkins
From: Jonathon David < JonathonDavid187@outlook. com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 12: 49 PM
To: CityClerk < CityClerk@chulavistaca. gov>
Subject: Chula Vista City Council Meeting Item 7. 1 Public Comment I would like to bring to the attention to the council, mayor, staff and public that most of the comments in support or opposition we are hearing are based on a Union agreement. The rude and aggressive teamsters union have made it abundantly clear that they are upset they do not have a union agreement for this project. They are masking it as environmental outcry and using organizations help. The company liuna approves of this project because they already have a union agreement and will not share the work with the other unions. The issues and concerns of one union bitter against another union should not outweigh the positive aspects of this project. No project is perfect, lets not be opposed to positive change.
J D.
Warning:
External
Email
WrittenCommunications
Item 7.1 - David