The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Mtg 02-13-2013 Item 2BCHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ;�15 Meeting Date: 2/13/13 TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA- 09 -01) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11) to reflect land use, circulation and policy changes for approximately 1,281 acres of land located south of Main Street/Rock Mountain Road, east of Heritage Road, west of the Salt Creek canyon and north of the Otay River Valley within the Otay Ranch Planned Community. Applicant: Otay Land Company. SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director DUCTION The project proposes amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GP) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) to implement the terms of the Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Otay Land Company (OLC) for Villages 8 West and 9. In addition, the City added the relocation of the Regional Technology Park from Village 8 East to the University site and the removal of the "Deferral Area" established within the 2005 GPU. Some "clean -up" edits to the GDP have also been included with the application to address administrative errors. The specific amendments are presented in greater detail in the "Proposed Amendments" and "Analysis" sections below and the specific wording is included in Enclosures 1 and 2. IM- 0 MM Sine the adoption of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan in 1993, the City of Chula Visa has maintained a vision of locating a university within the Otay Ranch. This vision is also refl cted in the General Plan. While the properties have been designated "University" with a secondary residential land use should the University not become a reality, they have been held in private, rather than public, ownership. In 2001, progress in assembling the land necessary to locate the University was made with the acquisition of approximately 140 acres of developable lani I for university purposes. It was understood that additional acreage was required to realize the lani I mass envisioned for the University by the GP and GDP. In 2007, the City began negotiating wit i the landowners on a land plan that would be beneficial to the City and carry out the goals of the GP and GDP with the conveyance of land necessary for the future development of a University and a Regional Technology Park while also providing certain benefits to the landowners. [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 2, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 On April 15, 2008 the City of Chula Vista entered into a Land Offer Agreement (LOA) with OLC that would allow the City of Chula Vista to accept Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (IODs) for 50 acres of developable University/Regional Technology Park land if certain entitlements are apf roved within the required timeframes. As part of the agreement the City also received an IOD for an additional 160 acres of mitigation land and one million dollars for University recruitment anc planning purposes was received upon execution of the Land Offer Agreement. A second one million dollars for the same purpose will be received if such entitlements are approved by the In August 2009 OLC's application (including the GP and GDP Amendments, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans for Villages 8 West and 9, Environmental Impact Reports and tentative maps for both villages) was deemed complete. It was envisioned in the LOA that all of the approvals wo ild be heard at one hearing, but due to the size and complexity of the project an amendment to the LOA is being proposed (to be considered by City Council prior to any City Council action on his project) which allows for the consideration of the General Plan and General Development Plan Amendments as the first step, to be followed by consideration of the SPA Plans, project specific EIR's and tentative maps (TM). Substantial progress on the SPA's, EIR's and TM's for Villages 8 West and 9 has also taken place and a final hearing on these applications is expected to occur in the spring. AL REVIEW In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Ot y Ranch General Development Plan. -09 -01 is discussed in detail in a companion agenda statement and must be addressed and upon prior to Planning Commission consideration of the General Plan and General Plan Amendments. MMENDATION I the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a resolution amending the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan. DISCUSSION Location, Existing Site Characteristics, and Ownership The Project site is comprised of approximately 1,281 acres and is generally located south of Min Street/Rock Mountain Road, east of Heritage Road, north of the Otay River Valley and wet of Salt Creek canyon (see Attachment 1, Locator Map). The project site is within the Otay Valley parcel of the Otay Ranch planning area. The area is currently in a vacant, natural state and includes portions of Villages 4, 7, and the Eastern Urban Center (EUC), and all of Village 8, Village 9 and Planning Area 10 (which includes the University site and a proposed 85 -acre [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 3, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 Re lional Technology Park (RTP)). The project site involves three land owners including OLC (p (rtions of Villages 4, 7 and the EUC and all of Village 8 West and 9), JPB Development (V llage 8 East and a portion of Planning Area 10- the University/RTP site) and the City of Ch la Vista (portion of Planning Area 10 -the University/RTP site). 2. Project Description The project proposes amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan that would complement and support the future location of a University and RTP in relation to Villages 8 West and 9. The amendments would allow up to 6,(50 units and 1.8 million square feet of non - residential (commercial and office). In addition, the project would relocate the Regional Technology Park from Village 8 East to the University site and resize it from 200 to 85 acres. The proposal would also resolve the "Deferral Area" established within the 2005 General Plan Update (GPU). Some "clean -up" edits to the Otay Ranch GDP have also been included with the application to address some administrative discrepancies within the text, tables and graphics. The specific amendments are presented in gr Zini! er detail in the "Proposed Amendments" and `'Analysis" sections below and the specific w is included in Enclosures 1 and 2. proposed amendments were designed to complement and facilitate the development of a versity and RTP in conjunction with the development of Villages 8 West and 9, and in which City's ownership of land for the University and its related uses is an essential element. The roval of the Proposed Amendments is the first step in carrying out the development templated by the subject amendments. The next step in the process would require the roval of the SPA'S, EIR's and TM's for Villages 8 West and 9. Therefore, the Proposed endments have an effective term of no longer than two (2) years from its adoption and shall )matically expire, unless the SPA and related documents for Villages 8 West and 9 are roved by the City and all applicable statutes of limitations to challenge the SPA documents e expired with no litigation having been filed. If the Proposed Amendments expire, the feral Plan, Zoning, Development Agreement and other land use regulations, applicable to the ject prior to the approval of the Proposed Amendments shall automatically take effect. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS following is a brief summary of the proposed amendments to the City of Chula Vista rat Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP. For specific language refer to Enclosures 1 and 2 which fin a strikeout /underline of all proposed GP and GDP Amendments. / Otav Ranch GDP Reconfiguration of village boundaries as follows: • Reconfigure Village 8 to include portions of Villages 4 and 7 that are under OLC's ownership; • Separate Village 8 into Village 8 West and Village 8 East based upon ownership (OLC and JPB); [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 4, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 • Reconfigure Village 9 to include a portion of the EUC based upon ownership; and • Reconfigure the University to include an 85 -acre RTP. 2. Amend Land Use Designations as follows: • Amend GP and GDP land use designations for Villages 8 West and 9 to allow up to 6,050 dwelling units and 1.8 million square feet of non - residential space in order to accommodate the housing and services needed by the community and to support the University and RTP; and • Locate an 85 -acre RTP within Planning Area 10 (University and Regional Technology Park), and adjust the University acreage accordingly. • Reflect previously adopted 2001 GP and GDP land use designations in Village 8 East (where the proposed RTP is being relocated from). 3. I Revisions to the Circulation Plan- East that include: • Eliminating the La Media Road southerly extension crossing the Otay River Valley; • Reclassifying a portion of La Media Road from the southern portion of Village 8 West extending south to the Active Recreation Area from a six lane arterial to "Other Roads "; • Changing the name of Rock Mountain Road to Main Street from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway; • Reclassifying Main Street, easterly of SR -125, from a Town Center Arterial to a Six - Lane Gateway Street; • Reclassifying the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet from a Six -Lane Town Center Arterial to a Four Lane Town Center Arterial within Village 8 West; • Reclassifying and realigning the segment of La Media road from the Town Center Arterials at the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet southeasterly to SR -125 as a Four - Lane Major; • Clarify that the mid - arterial SR -125 bridge crossing between Village 8 East and 9 is "pedestrian- only "; and • Provide that Urban Level of Service (LOS D) is acceptable for Town Center Arterials. 4. Clean -up revisions to the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP policies and maps affecting the Project Area that include: • A general "clean -up" of diagrams, text and tables to reflect GP and Otay Ranch GDP Amendments since 2005. [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] YSIS Page 5, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 following analysis addresses the major issues associated with this project. Minor dments, "clean -up" items and the specific remedies for each are presented in the enclosed out /underline GP and GDPA documents. 1. Reconfiguration of Village Boundaries Since the adoption of the GDP, ownership of many of the large parcels of land has changed. In many cases these ownerships no longer align with original village boundaries, causing many of the regulatory documents to cover "ownerships" rather than villages. Reconfiguring village boundaries based on ownership would allow these new villages to be developed in a more predictable manner as envisioned by the GP and GDP.As such, this project proposes to reconfigure the boundaries of Village 8 to include portions of Villages 4 and 7 based on ownership and then separate the Village 8 landmass into Village 8 West and East. Similarly, this pr 'ect also proposes to add the southern portion of the EUC (22.2 acres owned by OLC that are located north of Main Street/Hunte Parkway) to the rest of Village 9. Attachment 2 depicts the existing village boundaries as well as the village boundaries as proposed. reconfiguration of village boundaries also requires the redistribution of units within the ted villages. The proposed GP and Otay Ranch GDP amendments would redistribute the based on percentage of ownership and land uses. Attachment 3 details these amendments. 2. General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments In December of 2005, the City Council adopted a comprehensive GPU, amended the Otay Ranch GDP and certified the GPU Environmental Impact Report. As part of the GPU, amendments to the land uses and policies for portions of Villages 4 and 7, and the entirety of Villages 8, 9 and the University Campus (Planning Area 10) were deferred by the City ( "deferral area "). As depicted in Attachment 3, the Existing GP Land Use Diagram identified this area with a crosshatch and a footnote noting that the City Council had deferred final action on provisions that included portions of Village 4 and 7 as well as all of Villages 8, 9 and 10. Since proposed lar d uses were analyzed and considered as part of the 2005 GPU, this report analyzes the current lar d use proposals against those of the 2005 GPU. Approval of the proposed project would resolve and remove the "deferral area" by adopting new Gil and GDP Land Use Designations for most of the area, and retaining the land use designations on Village 8 East that were applicable prior to the GPU. The land uses proposed for OLCs property are largely those that were analyzed in the 2005 GPU. In order to carry out the goals of the GP and Otay Ranch GDP with respect to the development contemplated by the Proposed Amendments the land necessary for the future development of a Ur iversity and RTP would need to be conveyed to the City in accordance with the terms of the LOA. following discussion will analyze the amendments to the GP and Otay Ranch GDP within project area from west to east. [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 nendments to Land Use Desi Vi�lage 8 West Page 6, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 The GP and GDP Land Use Designations in Village 8 West are generally proposed to be arnended from the 2005 GPU analyzed designations of Town Center (TC), Parks (P) and Residential Low - Medium (RLM) to TC, P, Residential Medium (RM), Residential Medium High ( H) and RLM as depicted in Attachments 4 and 5. Village 8 West is proposed to become denser with a mixed -use Town Center that permits between 18 and 45 units to the acre, Surrounded by medium and medium -high density neighborhoods that permit between 6 to 1 I and 11 18 units to the acre respectively in part to accommodate the housing and service needs created by the location of the University and RTP. Lower density single family (3 -6 units /acre) ne ghborhoods are proposed as Village 8 West approaches the Otay River Valley. Table 1 identifies the proposed changes in Village 8 West from the 2005 GPU land uses to the current TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF LAND USES - 2005 GPU vs. PROPOSAL - VILLAGE 8 WEST RLM 132.3 539 67.0 331 -65.3 -208 RM 0.0 0 26.2 290 +26.2 +290 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................. RMH 0.0 0 29.5 530 +29.5 ............................... +530 .....__. TC 60.5 1,017 40.7 899 _ -19.8 -118 ............................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................ PRK 20.5 0 27.9 0 +7.4 0 P ` 41.3 0 57.0 I'll 0 +15.7 0 ........ ......... ...... OS 49.7 0 ........ 23.5 ........ ...__ 0 __. -26.2 ........ .............. 0 OSP 15.6 0 15.6 0 0.0 0 ............................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................... Other 0.0 0 32.5 0 +32.5 0 +494 TOTAL 319.9 1 1,556 319.9 2,050 0.0 1. Estimates land use figures based on OLC Proposed Land Uses/ Gross estimates land use acres and units of OLC property 2. Includes schools, university, public facilities, and community purpose facility (CPF) acres As detailed above, the proposed project would increase the unit count for Village 8 West by approximately 494 units (from 1,556 to 2,050 units). These increases would increase units counts in the RM and RMH land use designations. This proposal decreases low density units in the M designation as well as decrease the overall number of units within the Town Center designation. In addition to the residential units, Village 8 West proposes up to 300,000 square- feet of non - residential (250,000 square feet of retail and 50,000 square feet of office uses) primarily within its Town Center. While the 2005 GPU did not separate the non - residential sq are footages between Village 8 West and 9, it did analyze approximately 1.25 million square feet on non - residential uses. Since the proposals for Village 8 West and Village 9 include 1.8 million square feet of non - residential, this proposal would be a cumulative increase of 550,000 sq iare feet of non - residential (commercial and office). [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 7, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 Th s proposal is supported by a large number of General Plan Objectives as well as a number of G11P Goals and Policies. These objectives, policies and goals are analyzed in detail in the Land Us section of the accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), but a few of he more pertinent objectives and goals are identified below: • GP Objective LUT 5 — Designate opportunities for mixed -use areas with higher density housing that is near shopping, jobs and transit in appropriate locations throughout the City. • GP Objective LUT 17 — Plan and coordinate development to be compatible and supportive of planned transit. • GP Objective LUT 61 — Create balanced communities that can provide a high quality of life for residents. • GP Objective LUT 72 —Develop comprehensive, well - integrated, and balanced land uses within villages and town centers, compatible with the surroundings. • GP Objective LUT 81 — Develop a higher density, mixed use, transit - oriented town center positioned at the intersection of Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) and La Media Road, surrounded by lower density (intensity) residential use and a large community park, and preserve Rock Mountain as an important landform and visual resource. • GP Objective LUT 88 — Encourage the dedication of land, and other voluntary actions that facilitate creation of a university campus. • GP Policy LUT88.1- Allow residential and commercial development at densities and intensities that are at the higher ranges specified in individual land use designation, as identified in the General Plan for projects that facilitate establishment of a university through dedication of land and easements and other mechanisms or actions, such as the construction of necessary improvements, or the inclusion of other project features that assist in the creation of the university. • GDP Goal — Promote villages and town center land uses which offer a sense of place to residents and promotes social interaction. • GDP Policy — Include a variety of uses and housing types within each village to meet the needs of residents. 8 East 2005 GPU proposed locating a 200 -acre RTP in Village 8 East, however, since Village 8 t was part of the "deferral area" its land use designations were not amended as part of the 5 GPU. As a result, its prior 2001 GP and GDP Land Use Designations remained. In general 2001 land use designations approved within Village 8 East include a mixed use residential [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 Page 8, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 coi e surrounded by low - medium residential as depicted in Attachment 6. The GDP amendments wi 1 allot a total of 928 units to Village 8 East which is comprised of 635 low - medium villages un is and 293 medium high residential units within and around the mixed use core as depicted in A achment 6. Minor land use policies were also amended to address the new land use rel tionships between Villages 8 West and 8 East which are included in Enclosures 1 and 2. C GP and GDP Land Use Designations in Village 9 are generally proposed to be amended m Residential Low - Medium (RLM), Residential Medium (RM), Town Center (TC), Eastern )an Center (EUC), and Public /Quasi Public (PQ) to RLM, RM, Mixed Use Residential UR), TC, EUC and PQ as depicted in Attachments 4 and 5. Village 9 is proposed to become iser particularly within the EUC (28 -60 units /acre) and MUR (10 -45 units /acre) land use tricts in part to accommodate the housing and service needs created by the location of the iversity and RTP. Vi lage 9 proposes to locate the highest density /intensity portion of the EUC designated lands alc ng Main Street. Immediately south of the EUC would be the University Town Center that will include densities of 18 -45 units /acre in a mixed use format. South of the University Town Center wi 1 be MUR designated lands that will include densities of 10 -45 units /acre with the potential for mixed -use should the market support it. RM (6 -11) and RLM (3 -6) designated lands will be located south of the MUR areas to reduce the densities as the project approaches the Otay River Valley to the south. Table 3 identifies the proposed changes in Village 9 from the 2005 GPU lar d uses to the current proposal. TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF LAND USES - 2005 GPU vs. PROPOSAL- VILLAGE 9 RLM 16.3 101 28.1 ....._.... 105 +11.8 ....__ +4 ......................... . ............. ............. RM ........ ........_ .... 40.0 ....._.. 437 15.2 161 -24.8 -276 ............................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................-.................. ...................................................................................................................................-................................ MUR 0.0 0 49.2 792 +49.2 +792 TC� 88.9 2,756 44.3 1,030 -44.6 -1,726 .................................................................................................................-..................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... EUC 22.2 320 48.3 1,912 +26.1 ..._........................... +1,592 RK 29.8 0 27.5 0 -2.3 0 ......P..... PQ2 113.8. 0.......... 74.8 ..................0 ...... .. -39.0 .... ..... . 0 OS 8.1 0 5.6 0 -2.5 0 ............................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................... OSP 4.0 0 4.0 0 0.0 0 Other 0.0 0 26.1 0 +26.1 0 TOTAL 408.1 3,614 408.1 4,000 0.0 +386 1. Estimates land use figures based on OLC Proposed Land Uses/ Gross estimates land use acres and units of OLC property 2. Includes schools, university, public facilities, and CPF acres detailed above, the proposed project proposes to increase the unit count for Village 9 by )roximately 386 units (from 3,614 to 4,000 units). This proposal would significantly decrease number of units within the town center while increasing the number of units within the EUC [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 MUR land use designations. oses up to 1.5 million squar e Page 9, Item Meeting Date: 1/23/13 In addition to the residential units identified above, Village 9 feet of non - residential (1.2 million square feet of office and 300,000 square feet of retail). While the 2005 GPU did not separate the non - residential square fo tages between Villages 8 West and 9, it did analyze approximately 1.25 million square feet of non-residential uses. Since the proposals for Village 8 West and Village 9 include 1.8 million sq are feet of non - residential, this proposal would be a cumulative increase of 550,000 square fe t of non - residential square footage. As part of the LOA between the City and OLC, Village 9 will also provide 50 net acres of land for the future University. This land is designated PQ and is located in the very eastern portion of Vi lage 9. Vi lage 9 is envisioned to provide many of the services, office space and housing for the future University, and will also be served by the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit, with a planned transit station to be located within Village 9 adjacent to the University. Village 8 West, this proposal is supported by a large number of GP Objectives as well as a fiber of GDP Goals and Policies. These objectives, policies and goals are analyzed in detail in Land Use section of the accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), a few of the more pertinent objectives and goals are identified below: • GP Objective LUT 5 — Designate opportunities for mixed -use areas with higher density housing that is near shopping, jobs and transit in appropriate locations throughout the City. • GP Objective LUT 17 — Plan and coordinate development to be compatible and supportive of planned transit. • GP Objective LUT 61— Create balanced communities that can provide a high quality of life for residents. • GP Objective LUT 72 —Develop comprehensive, well - integrated, and balanced land uses within villages and town centers, compatible with the surroundings. • GP Objective LUT 88 — Encourage the dedication of land, and other voluntary actions that facilitate creation of a university campus. • GP Policy LUT88.1- Allow residential and commercial development at densities and intensities that are at the higher ranges specified in individual land use designation, as identified in the General Plan for projects that facilitate establishment of a university through dedication of land and easements and other mechanisms or actions, such as the construction of necessary improvements, or the inclusion of other project features that assist in the creation of the university. • GP Objective LUT 95 — Establish a pedestrian- oriented, mixed use Town Center that serves as the interface, or common meeting ground, of the university, regional technology [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] 6 Page 10, Item Meeting Date: 1/23/13 park, and surrounding residential development and serves the university campus at the size and location shown on the General Plan as well as the regional technology park workforce. • GDP Goal — Promote villages and town center land uses which offer a sense of place to residents and promotes social interaction. • GDP Policy — Include a variety of uses and housing types within each village to meet the needs of residents. ing Area 10 — The University and Regional Technology Park The 2005 GPU proposed an approximately 200 -acre RTP land use designation on the eastern portion of Village 8 (discussed above as Village 8 East) as well as an approximately 440 -acre University designation as shown in Attachment 3 (Existing GP Land Use Designations). The University Campus consisted of 350 acres on the western parcel and an additional 90 acres adjacent to Lower Otay Lake. Th s proposal: 1) resizes the RTP to 85 acres and locates the RTP within the University site; 2) red esignates approximately 40 acres of land that was designated University in the GPU as Mixed Us Residential; and, 3) redesignates approximately 68 acres of land that was proposed to be designated residential in the GPU as University. This shift of land uses as proposed would result in approximately 383 acres of University. As part of the analysis of employment lands for the GPU, it was determined that an additional 150-200 acres of employment lands would be necessary to provide a sufficient number of high paying jobs for Chula Vista. Therefore, the GPU proposed to locate a RTP on approximately 200 acres of land in the eastern portion of Village 8. The RTP would be relocated on to the University site and its acreage would be reduced to 85 acres. To analyze this reduction in RTP lands, the City contracted with AECOM to re- analyze the need for employment lands and determine if 85 acres of RTP would be sufficient. AECOM concluded that a change in the location and size of the RTP could have strategic benefits. Locating the RTP within the University site would gain users access to the university faculty, facilities and equipment which would be of high importance in attracting future tenants. Additionally, the past model of building a technology park for a single user on a large parcel of land has changed with the "focus often being to provide incubator space and construct multi- tenant space to accommodate research and development entrepreneurs with smaller start up firms ". In fact, the report noted that floor -area- rat os of up to 1.0 were currently being used for planning purposes on other parks within our re ion and that the 0.5 assumption for Chula Vista's RTP was well below that. AECOM opined that due to this changing market with increased intensities, an 85 acre RTP could provide the same employment estimate as was estimated during the GPU, assuming that the development was a higher intensity with an increased floor- area - ratio. This proposal would also amend the allowable FAR for the RTP from its current range of 0.25 -.0.75 to a new range of 0.25 -2.0. In ddition to the land use designation amendments for the University and RTP areas described ab ve, the proposal also includes a number of new policies directed at ensuring that the [G A -09 -01 & PCM- 09 -111 Page 11, Item Meeting Date: 1/23/13 Un versity and RTP develop an organized planning relationship between themselves and the neighboring villages. The specific language for these policies is included in Enclosures 1 and 2. 3. Amendments to the Circulation Plan - East 'he Project proposes a number of amendments to the City's Circulation Plan as depicted in chment 7. Specific language can be found in Enclosures 1 and 2, but an analysis of the most i2nificant amendments is included below. ii ination of La Media Road Crossing the River Val proposed project includes the elimination of the southerly crossing of La Media Road over Otay River Valley. Discussions regarding the need for this segment of La Media Road started 'ing the analysis for the 2005 GPU and resulted in the adoption of Policy LUT 14.8 that reads: "Analyze the need for, timing and ultimate construction of the future La Media Road Crossing of the Otay Valley as part of the pending updates of plans within the surrounding area, such as the City of San Diego's Otay Mesa Community Plan Update. Factors to be considered in the analysis include existing and forecast traffic volumes and LOS on the circulation system, and Johnson Canyon Open Space Preserve. " elimination of this segment was analyzed in a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by -ott Law & Greenspan (LLG) in December 2011. The TIA analyzed 9 scenarios that ided a variety of permutations of the Circulation Element including a scenario that kept La is Road and a scenario that removed the portion of La Media Road that crosses the Otay r Valley. The TIA concluded that the portion of La Media Road that crosses the Otay River unnecessary and its removal from the Circulation Plan would not cause implications Re oval of the La Media Road crossing of the river valley necessitates that a portion of that rig it-of-way be redesignated to serve as access to Active Recreation Area (Planning Area 20). La Media Road from the southern portion of Village 8 West to the Active Recreation area (Pl nning Area 20) will be redesignated from a Six Lane Arterial to "Other Roads" as depicted in A achment 7. ide that Urban Level of Service (LOS D) is acceptable for Town Center .zing that traditional LOS methodologies may have a negative impact on pedestrian and it mobility, the 2005 GPU created the Urban Core Circulation Element. The GP states: "The overall goal of the Urban Core Circulation Element is to support the development of great places and neighborhoods by providing transportation choices and supporting those choices with attractive, safe, convenient, and functional infrastructure for all modes of travel. The Urban Core Circulation Element provides opportunities to make policies and standards sufficiently flexible to support Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in select corridors and town centers while maintaining the commitment of new development [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 to W Vi Page 12, Item Meeting Date: 1/23/13 to mitigate impacts of new travel demand, and to improve the transit, pedestrian and bicycle environment. The Urban Core Circulation Element recognizes that in certain corridors and centers served by transit, it is acceptable to reduce the vehicle level of service standards that are applied to suburban areas of the City under certain circumstances ". project proposes to allow Urban Level of Service (LOS D) for Town Center Arterials similar ,e LOS allowed for certain classifications of roadway within the Urban Core. The Village 8 t town center will be an urban center with densities of 18 -45 units to the acre that is ;strian oriented and served by transit. The unique separated pair of one -way streets )urages pedestrian circulation and fosters a vibrant commercial mixed -use environment. ;e provisions would allow for LOS D to be acceptable on Town Center Arterials due to their n, pedestrian friendly, multi -modal design much like similar roadways in western Chula 4. Clean -up Revisions to Otay Ranch GDP specifically detailed in Enclosure 2, this project also includes clean up revisions to the GDP. ;se revisions include administrative updates to mapping, text and tables to bring the uments up to date (i.e. calculation errors, mapping errors, etc.). CISION -MAKER CONFLICTS: has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no qty holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this action. f is not independently aware, nor has staff been informed by any Planning Commission fiber, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in matter. IMPACT The applicant was required to prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) for the proposed project that analyzed two distinct scenarios. A "project level" scenario was prepared to analyze the project's individual fiscal impact at buildout. A second, "cumulative" scenario was also prepared to analyze the project's fiscal impact in conjunction with other LOAs (i.e. OLC + JPB) at FIA "project" FIA for the OLC GP and Otay Ranch GDP Amendments (Villages 8 West and 9 nbined) estimates that at buildout the City's total expenditures would be approximately 590,900, while the total revenues would be approximately $7,249,200, resulting in an annual ;itive fiscal impact to the City of approximately $658,300. [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 13, Item Meeting Date: 1/23/13 The "cumulative" FIA for the OLC GP and Otay Ranch GDP Amendments in addition to the 2010 JPB LOA estimates that at buildout the City's total expenditures for these areas (Villages 3, 8 'West, 8 East, 9 and 10) would be approximately $12,092,900, while the total revenues would be approximately $12,282,800, resulting in an annual positive fiscal impact to the City of approximately $189,900. processing costs for the GP and ORGDP Amendments as well as all supporting documents funded by a developer deposit account. ents: 1. Locator Map 2. Existing and Proposed Village Boundaries 3. Existing and Proposed GP Land Use Diagram 4. Existing and Proposed Otay Ranch GDP Land Use Designations 5. Village 8 East GDP Development Table and Land Use Designations 6. GP Circulation Plan -East Amendments 7. Planning Commission Resolution 8. Draft City Council GPA /GDPA Resolution sures: 1. General Plan Amendment, Village 8 West and Village 9 dated September 2012 2. General Development Plan Amendment GDPA) Village 8 West and Village 9 dated September 2012 by.- Scott Donaghe, Principal Planner, Development Services Department %I le: EXISTING VILLAGE BOUNDARIES PROPOSED VILLAGE BOUNDARIES Vil Village 4 11 Village Village 8 East 8 West Eastern Urban Center Village 9 Un ATTACHMENT 2 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USES WITHIN PROJECT AREA LEGEND ftsi HAL LUVCMEDIDM ': RkSl�llTIAL MEMLN ® RE5i(fNTIAl M[NUA hiGH :3Z�T. SPECU0. PLANNING AREA W(mV'RaslceuTlAL °fL;,; t01M1 CENTER _. E..AMRN URSM CENTER IINNER,41iY ® NENKlN/d IF.CHH(A.NCV pnHlt IR1H1 INDUSTRIAI. ":.. LIMITED AmTRK OPEN SPACE, PARKS i PUBLIC I OUASWUBLIC DPF.N Vxllt - PANKS A RU PJEUGAQU KI IA RLO iVE.N SPACE ATTACHMENT 3 EXISTING OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM t t Project Area Land Use Change Area village 11 village ii • Leaend Rat PWam Iff Legend Dome UrIMn C~ � w 3.. Tam C to ►S • •• � Tarn fang • Mind U. • RnnitlanRN lar NMWm RHINaem MMnml W idWiN MNi— Eastern P.Mk / QwoPwa Planning • -mp Urban Planning • 41111111 PaaseenWwn Area 10/ a1 'ho.,d T► momp ►art Center Area 10 /+Iaia ow spm 0►en SVPU hearve j Univenity • 11 PWklQMI+.mk : University , • �$ Village 7 " `� �• �• Village l r a jj�� • village2 �Vlllage4 0 # #• ,,NNtflage 4 Village • •� •� \# ' * ✓ Village 8 A • Yilla West = -•; East ��n�z� ('" •• l " j • # • Village 3 ( • Village 4 t .....,,,.. �„�� _.. _...... .......NORTH PROPOSED OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM to Project Area Land Use Change Area village 11 • Leaend Rat PWam � w 3.. Tam C to : Y • Mind U. Eastern }/4 W idWiN MNi— Urban �� Planning • -mp Center Area 10/ a1 'ho.,d T► momp ►art ". j Univenity • 11 PWklQMI+.mk oms►aarw..Mn Village l # f}�'�j • ,,NNtflage 4 Village •� •� J% Village 3 { Village 4 4� Village a # East #•w p�yvdielfw ` ��• G� t ATTACHMENT 4 TABLE 2 ORGDP VILLAGE * EAST LAND USE TABLE Village Eight (East) Use Dwelling Units Acreage Approx. Pop. SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF+ Sch. C'ml. Open Art. Total LMV 635 635 4.3 148.5 148.5 2,115 MU 5.9** 2.9 8.9 17.7 MH 293 293 14.5 20.2 10.0 30.2 756 OTHER 15.1 9.5 24.6 VILLAGE 8 EAST SUBTOTAL 635 293 928 5.5 168.7 5.9 2.9 10.0 8.9 15.1 9.5 221.0 2,871 FIGURE 1- VILLAGE 8 EAST ORGDP LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ATTACHMENT 5 re 5 1. Eliminate La Media Road southerly extension crossing the Otay River Valley. 2. Reclassify a portion of La Media Road from the southern portion of Village 8 extending south to the Active Recreation area from a Six -Lane Arterial to "Other Roads". 3. Change name of Rock Mountain Road to Main Street from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway. 4. Reclassify Main Street from a Town Center Arterial easterly of SR -125 to a Six -Lane Gateway 5. Reclassify Main Street/ La Media Road from a Six -Lane Town Center Arterial to a Four -Lane Town Center Arterial within Village 8 West. 6. Reclassify and realign the segment of La Media Road from the Town Center Arterials at the Main Street/ La Media Road Couplet southeasterly to SR -125 as a Four -Lane Major. 7. Clarify that the mid - arterial SR -125 bridge crossing between Village 8 and 9 is pedestrian- only" S treet J•. pw kx� *�s lxt et Sep 19... T. K *# # roctor �oaa ' � Pik �k��. *•.« 5trs.s It- U) Legend w ma S�teet Freeway k Expressway (7 or 8 lane) 333 6 lane Prime _ 6 Lane Major ern 51,eet 4 Lane Major * ** Class I Collector °. _-_,• 2 _ 1111 Gateway Street (6 Lane) 3 G Gateway Street (214 Lane) Town CenterArtenal - other Roads • SR125Interchange 4t ATTACHMENT 6 ATTACHMENT 7 RESOLUTION NO. GPA- 09 -01, PCM -09 -11 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REFLECT LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND POLICY CHANGES FOR APPROXIMATELY 1,281 ACRES WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT, MAPS AND TABLES WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has long had a goal of developing a higher education in the City; and, WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has solidified this goal by designating land for a Unive sity in the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City has been working for several years to acquire all of the land necessary to dev lop a University; and, WHEREAS, in 2008 and 2010, the City entered into Land Offer Agreements that provide for the property necessary to create the University; and, WHEREAS, the project proposes amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan that would complement and support the future location of a University and Regional Technology Park; and, WHEREAS, the amendments will also resolve the "Deferral Area" established within the 2005 City of Chula Vista General Plan Update and address a number of administrative corrections; and, WHEREAS, the subject General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments (GDPA) as presented in the Project are necessary to accommodate the land uses anticipated in the 2008 Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Otay Land Company and amendment thereto (referred to herein as the LOA First Amendment); and, WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA as presented in the Project were designed to complement and facilitate the development of a University and Regional Technology Park in conjunction with the development of Villages 8 West and 9, and in which the City's ownership of land for a University and its related uses is an essential element; and, WHEREAS, the approval of the proposed amendments is the first step in carrying out the )ment contemplated by these Amendments. The next step in the process would require the i1 of the SPA's, EIR's and TM's for Villages 8 West and 9; and, WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista's current General Plan was last comprehensively i in December 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was approved on October 23,1993 and most recently updated on April 3, 2012; and, WHEREAS, an application to consider amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department in August 2009 by the Otay Land Company (the "Applicant "); and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments involve portions of the Land Use and Transportation; Economic Development; Public Facilities and Services Elements, including associated text, maps and tables; and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendments are contained in a document entitled al Plan Amendment Villages 8 West and 9 ", dated September 2012; and WHEREAS, the proposed Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments are contained in a document entitled "General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) Otay Ranch, Villa e 8 West and 9 ", dated September 2012; and, WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is diagrammatically presented in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly iown as Villages 4, 8, 9 and 10, and for the purpose of general description consists of 1,281 acres ithio the Otay Ranch Planned Community ( "Project Site "); and WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for comp iance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that there is substc, ntial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Chula Vista, that the project may have significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Repo (SEIR- 09 -02; SCH #2004081066) has been prepared. Certification of the SEIR (SEIR- 09 -01) for th s Project will be considered by the City Council as a separate item; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and the mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the a terior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., Janu 23, 2013 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on January 23, 2013 as set forth in the record of its proceedings and incorporated herein by this reference and having 2 made in Findings, as set forth in the City Council Resolution GPA- 09 -01, PCM -09 -11 also ,d herein by this reference recommends that the City Council approve the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt the attached City Council Resolution approving the Project in accordance with the Findings as set forth in the subject City Council Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Planning Commission Resolution be itted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VIST , CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of February, 2013, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES: Ab) IN 1: ABSTAIN: ATT ST: iana Vargas, Secretary by Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Assis ant City Manager h:� PC �.doc Michael Spethman, Chairperson Approved as to form by Glen R. Googins City Attorney ranch \university_md_south_or villages\ olc\ gp - gdpa \agenda_submittals \gpa -09 -01 &pcm -09 -11 draft 3 ATTACHMENT 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2013- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO TFLECT LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND POLICY CHANGES OR APPROXIMATELY 1,281 ACRES WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH 'LANNED COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT, MAPS TABLES I RECITALS Project Site 'WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Resolution contain all lands within the boundaries of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated into this Resolution by this reference, and includes approximately 1,281 acres of land generally located south of Main Street/ ock Mountain Road, east of Heritage Road, west of Salt Creek Canyon and north of the Otay Ri er Valley within the Otay Ranch Planned Community; and, Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals 'WHEREAS, on August 21, 2009, the City of Chula Vista deemed the Otay Land Company's (the "Applicant ") application complete and initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) d Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA), requesting approval of amendrients to the City's General Plan (the "GPA ") and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (the "Pr ject "); and, -IEREAS, the proposed GPA for the Project involve portions of the Land Use and Eon; Economic Development; Public Facilities and Services; and Environmental including associated text, maps and tables; and, HEREAS, the proposed GDPA involves portions of Part II of the existing GDP, includi g associated text, maps and tables; and, WHEREAS, the proposed GPA are contained in a document entitled "General Plan Amendment, Otay Ranch Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012" as represented in Exhibit B attached hereto; and, ".REAS, the proposed GDPA are contained in a document entitled "General it Plan Amendment (GDPA), Village 8 West and Village 9 September, 2012" as in Exhibit C attached hereto; and, Prior Discretionary Approvals Resolution 2013 - Page 2 of 5 the City of Chula Vista's current General Plan was last comprehensively in December 2005; and, 'WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was was approved on October 23, 1993, and most recently updated on April 3, 2012; and, WHEREAS, as part of the 2005 General Plan Update land use actions on the Project Area were deferred; and, WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA as presented are necessary to accommodate the land uses icip ted in the 2008 Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Otay Land mpa iy, and amendment thereto (referred to herein as the LOA First Amendment); and, WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA were designed to complement and facilitate development of a Ur iversity and Regional Technology Park in conjunction with the development of Villages 8 West aid 9, and in which the City's ownership of land for a University and its related uses is an essential element; and, 'HEREAS, the approval of the proposed amendments is the first step in carrying out the lent contemplated by these Amendments. The next step in the process would require the of the SPA's, EIR's and TMs for Villages 8 West and 9. Planning Commission Record of Application REAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the Planning held a duly noticed public hearing on the GPA and GDPA on February 13, 2013, and I that the City Council adopt the Resolutions approving the GPA and GDPA; and, WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this Project held on February 13, 2013, and the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record.subsequent to these proceedings; and E. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the GPA and GDPA and no ices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of genera circulation in the City, at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2013, on the subject GPA and GDPA; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds and determines as Resolution 2013 - Page 3 of 5 II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Chula Vista, that the project may have a significant effect the environment; therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR- 09 -02; SCH #2 004081066) has been prepared. Certification of the SEIR (SEIR- 09 -02) for this project will be cons Idered by the City Council as a separate item. he City Council of the City of Chula Vista reviewed, analyzed, considered, approved and a Final SEIR, made certain Findings of Fact, adopted a Statement of Overriding ations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the GPA and GDPA, to CEQA, by Resolution No. 2013- III. (GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY Fhe City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Plan, as amended, is y consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendments thereof by this IV. (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Development Plan, as amended, is internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendments thereof by this Resolution. V. ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN In light of the findings above, the General Plan and General Development Plan Amendment provisions are hereby approved and adopted in the form as presented in Exhibits B and C attached hereto and on file in the City Clerk's Office. VI. SUNSET PROVISION This General Plan and General Development Plan approval shall be effective for a term of no longer than two (2) years from its adoption (the "Term ") and shall automatically expire, unless Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Entitlements are approved by the City and all applicable statutes of limitati ns to challenge the SPA Entitlements have expired with no third party litigation having been fi ed. In the event of such third party litigation, the GPA and GDPA entitlements shall not expire pursuant to this Paragraph 3.7 of the LOA First Amendment, and the terms and conditions of Paragr h 3.3(e) of said agreement shall govern. If the GPA and GDPA Entitlements expired as provided herein, the General Plan, General Development Plan, Zoning, Development Agreement and od er land uses regulations, applicable to the Property prior to the approval of the GPA and GDPA Entitlements (the "Existing Entitlements ") shall thereupon take effect. City may, but is not 2013- Page 4 of 5 , to take any appropriate actions, in its sole discretion, it may deem necessary, if any, to the Existing Entitlements. M Approved as to form by Gary H lbert, P.E., AICP Glen R. Googins Assist t City Manager City Attorney PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 26th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: YES: Councilmembers: AYS: Councilmembers: SENT: Councilmembers: TAIN: Councilmembers: Cheryl Cox, Mayor ATTEST: Donna Norris, City Clerk STAT OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA I, Dom a Norris, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu ion No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meetin 1 of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 26th day of February, 2013. 2013- this 19th day of February, 2013. Donna Norris, City Clerk Page 5 of 5 h: \planni g \otay _ranch \university_and_south_or_ villages\ olc\ gp - gdpa \agenda_submittals \gpa -09 -01 & pcm- 0 -9 -11 draft cc r Iso.doc