HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg 02-13-2013 Item 2B Staff ReportCHUL 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.
ITTED 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
Am ndments" and "Analysis" sections below and the specific wording is included in Enclosures
1 af d2.
GROUND
Sin e the adoption of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan in 1993, the City of Chula
Vis a has maintained a vision of locating a university within the Otay Ranch. This vision is also
reflected 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
loc to the University was made with the acquisition of approximately 140 acres of developable
lanc for university purposes. It was understood that additional acreage was required to realize the
land mass envisioned for the University by the GP and GDP. In 2007, the City began negotiating
witf 11 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
Uni ersity and a Regional Technology Park while also providing certain benefits to the
[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
0 C 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
approved 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
and 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
would 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
Plai Amendments as the first step, to be followed by consideration of the SPA Plans, project
spe ific EIR's and tentative maps (TM). Substantial progress on the SPA's, EIR's and TM's for
Vil ages 8 West and 9 has also taken place and a final hearing on these applications is expected
to c ccur in the spring.
ONMENTAL 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
Otay 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
lopment Plan Amendments.
MMENDATION
That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending
that the City Council approve a resolution amending the City of Chula Vista General Plan and
the Otay Ranch General Development Plan.
DISICUSSION
. Location, Existing Site Characteristics, and Ownership
The Project site is comprised of approximately 1,281 acres and is generally located south of
Main Street/Rock Mountain Road, east of Heritage Road, north of the Otay River Valley and
west 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,
Vill I ige 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
lal Technology Park (RTP)). The project site involves three land owners including OLC
ins of Villages 4, 7 and the EUC and all of Village 8 West and 9), JPB Development
;e 8 East and a portion of Planning Area 10- the University/RTP site) and the City of
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
6,00 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"
est blished 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
dis repancies within the text, tables and graphics. The specific amendments are presented in
gr e ater detail in the "Proposed Amendments" and "Analysis" sections below and the specific
w rdin 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.
AMENDMENTS
following is a brief summary of the proposed amendments to the City of Chula Vista
;ral Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP. For specific language refer to Enclosures 1 and 2 which
tin a strikeout /underline of all proposed GP and GDP Amendments.
II
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);
[qPA -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. 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.
[G A -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 5, Item
Meeting Date: 2/13/13
ALYSIS
Th.- following analysis addresses the major issues associated with this project. Minor
amendments, "clean -up" items and the specific remedies for each are presented in the enclosed
strikeout/underline GP and GDPA documents.
I. Reconfiguration of Village Boundaries
Si ce 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
ow iership 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
loc ted 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 ecember of 2005, the City Council adopted a comprehensive GPU, amended the Otay Ranch
G P 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
cro shatch and a footnote noting that the City Council had deferred final action on provisions
tha included portions of Village 4 and 7 as well as all of Villages 8, 9 and 10. Since proposed
Ian uses were analyzed and considered as part of the 2005 GPU, this report analyzes the current
Ian use proposals against those of the 2005 GPU.
Approval of the proposed project would resolve and remove the "deferral area" by adopting new
GP 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
Un versity and RTP would need to be conveyed to the City in accordance with the terms of the
LOA.
Th following discussion will analyze the amendments to the GP and Otay Ranch GDP within
the roject area from west to east.
[CPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ]
As
to
mi
sq
Use Desi
8 West
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date: 2/13/13
e GP and GDP Land Use Designations in Village 8 West are generally proposed to be
ended from the 2005 GPU analyzed designations of Town Center (TC), Parks (P) and
sidential Low - Medium (RLM) to TC, P, Residential Medium (RM), Residential Medium High
VIH) and RLM as depicted in Attachments 4 and 5. Village 8 West is proposed to become
iser with a mixed -use Town Center that permits between 18 and 45 units to the acre,
rounded by medium and medium -high density neighborhoods that permit between 6 to 11 and
• 18 units to the acre respectively in part to accommodate the housing and service needs
ated by the location of the University and RTP. Lower density single family (3 -6 units /acre)
ghborhoods are proposed as Village 8 West approaches the Otay River Valley. Table 1
ntifies the proposed changes in Village 8 West from the 2005 GPU land uses to the current
vosal.
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
PQ
_ 0
57.0
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
TOTAL
319.9
1,556
319.9 J
2,050 t
0.0 1
+494
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
detailed above, the proposed project would increase the unit count for Village 8 West by
roximately 494 units (from 1,556 to 2,050 units). These increases would increase units counts
he RM and RMH land use designations. This proposal decreases low density units in the
d designation as well as decrease the overall number of units within the Town Center
gnation. In addition to the residential units, Village 8 West proposes up to 300,000 square -
of non - residential (250,000 square feet of retail and 50,000 square feet of office uses)
iarily within its Town Center. While the 2005 GPU did not separate the non - residential
ire footages between Village 8 West and 9, it did analyze approximately 1.25 million square
on non - residential uses. Since the proposals for Village 8 West and Village 9 include 1.8
ion square feet of non - residential, this proposal would be a cumulative increase of 550,000
ire feet of non - residential (commercial and office).
[GPA -09 -01 & PCM- 09 -11] Page 7, Item
Meeting Date: 2/13/13
This proposal is supported by a large number of General Plan Objectives as well as a number of
GDP Goals and Policies. These objectives, policies and goals are analyzed in detail in the Land
Use section of the accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), but 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 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.
Villaze 8 East
The 2005 GPU proposed locating a 200 -acre RTP in Village 8 East, however, since Village 8
East was part of the "deferral area" its land use designations were not amended as part of the
2005 GPU. As a result, its prior 2001 GP and GDP Land Use Designations remained. In general
the 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
core 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
At 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.
Village 9
The GP and GDP Land Use Designations in Village 9 are generally proposed to be amended
from Residential Low - Medium (RLM), Residential Medium (RM), Town Center (TC), Eastern
Urban Center (EUC), and Public /Quasi Public (PQ) to RLM, RM, Mixed Use Residential
(M R), TC, EUC and PQ as depicted in Attachments 4 and 5. Village 9 is proposed to become
det ser particularly within the EUC (28 -60 units /acre) and MUR (10 -45 units /acre) land use
dis ricts in part to accommodate the housing and service needs created by the location of the
Un versity and RTP.
Village 9 proposes to locate the highest density /intensity portion of the EUC designated lands
alo ig Main Street. Immediately south of the EUC would be the University Town Center that will
inc ude densities of 18 -45 units /acre in a mixed use format. South of the University Town Center
will 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
Va ley to the south. Table 3 identifies the proposed changes in Village 9 from the 2005 GPU
lan uses to the current proposal.
As
the
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF LAND USES - 2005 GPU vs. PROPOSAL- VILLAGE 9
RLM 163'
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
... PRK 29 8
0 27.5
0
-2.3
0
.
.............. ...........
0 74.8
..................
0
..... ...............................
39.0
................
0
OS 81
0 5.6
0 _
_ __. -2.5
0
OSP4.0
0...... 4.0 ........................_0
......
... o_ ................
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
iled above, the proposed project proposes to increase the unit count for Village 9 by
nately 386 units (from 3,614 to 4,000 units). This proposal would significantly decrease
ber of units within the town center while increasing the number of units within the EUC
[qPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 9, Item
Meeting Date: 1/23/13
MUR land use designations. In addition to the residential units identified above, Village 9
poses up to 1.5 million square feet of non - residential (1.2 million square feet of office and
000 square feet of retail). While the 2005 GPU did not separate the non - residential square
iges between Villages 8 West and 9, it did analyze approximately 1.25 million square feet of
residential uses. Since the proposals for Village 8 West and Village 9 include 1.8 million
re feet of non - residential, this proposal would be a cumulative increase of 550,000 square
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
foi 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
U iversity, 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.
:e Village 8 West, this proposal is supported by a large number of GP Objectives as well as a
nber 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
N
IA-09-01 & PCM -09 -11 ]
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.
Area 10 — The University and Regional Technology Park
2005 GPU proposed an approximately 200 -acre RTP land use designation on the eastern
:ion of Village 8 (discussed above as Village 8 East) as well as an approximately 440 -acre
versity designation as shown in Attachment 3 (Existing GP Land Use Designations). The
versity Campus consisted of 350 acres on the western parcel and an additional 90 acres
scent to Lower Otay Lake.
This proposal: 1) resizes the RTP to 85 acres and locates the RTP within the University site; 2)
red signates approximately 40 acres of land that was designated University in the GPU as Mixed
Use 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 pproximately 383 acres of University.
As part of the analysis of employment lands for the GPU, it was determined that an additional
15(-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
acr s of land in the eastern portion of Village 8. The RTP would be relocated on to the
Un versity 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
det rmine if 85 acres of RTP would be sufficient. AECOM concluded that a change in the
loc :ion 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
dev lopment entrepreneurs with smaller start up firms ". In fact, the report noted that floor-area-
ratios of up to 1.0 were currently being used for planning purposes on other parks within our
region 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
alto able FAR for the RTP from its current range of 0.25 -.0.75 to a new range of 0.25 -2.0.
In a dition to the land use designation amendments for the University and RTP areas described
abo e, the proposal also includes a number of new policies directed at ensuring that the
[GIPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 11, Item
Meeting Date: 1/23/13
U iversity and RTP develop an organized planning relationship between themselves and the
ne ghboring villages. The specific language for these policies is included in Enclosures 1 and 2.
3. Amendments to the Circulation Plan - East
The Project proposes a number of amendments to the City's Circulation Plan as depicted in
Aflachment 7. Specific language can be found in Enclosures l and 2, but an analysis of the most
significant amendments is included below.
the Otav River
The proposed project includes the elimination of the southerly crossing of La Media Road over
the Otay River Valley. Discussions regarding the need for this segment of La Media Road started
during 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
colt 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
.ia Road and a scenario that removed the portion of La Medin Rond that rrnecae fk3 nfo.,
Riv r Valley. The TIA concluded that the portion of La Media Road that crosses the Otay River
wa unnecessary and its removal from the Circulation Plan would not cause implications
Rer ioval of the La Media Road crossing of the river valley necessitates that a portion of that
rig t -of -way be redesignated to serve as access to Active Recreation Area (Planning Area 20).
La I Aedia Road from the southern portion of Village 8 West to the Active Recreation area
(PI nning Area 20) will be redesignated from a Six Lane Arterial to "Other Roads" as depicted in
Att chment 7.
D is acceptable for Town
izing 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
PA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ]
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 ".
The project proposes to allow Urban Level of Service (LOS D) for Town Center Arterials similar
to the LOS allowed for certain classifications of roadway within the Urban Core. The Village 8
West town center will be an urban center with densities of 18 -45 units to the acre that is
pedestrian oriented and served by transit. The unique separated pair of one -way streets
encourages pedestrian circulation and fosters a vibrant commercial mixed -use environment.
These provisions would allow for LOS D to be acceptable on Town Center Arterials due to their
urban, pedestrian friendly, multi -modal design much like similar roadways in western Chula
Vista.
4. Clean -up Revisions to Otay Ranch GDP
As specifically detailed in Enclosure 2, this project also includes clean up revisions to the GDP.
Th e revisions include administrative updates to mapping, text and tables to bring the
do uments up to date (i.e. calculation errors, mapping errors, etc.).
DECISION -MAKER CONFLICTS:
has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no
rty 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
e ber, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in
is matter.
IMPACT
Th applicant was required to prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) for the proposed project
thai analyzed two distinct scenarios. A "project level" scenario was prepared to analyze the
pro ect's individual fiscal impact at buildout. A second, "cumulative" scenario was also prepared
to nalyze the project's fiscal impact in conjunction with other LOAs (i.e. OLC + JPB) at
bui lout.
ect FIA
Th "project" FIA for the OLC GP and Otay Ranch GDP Amendments (Villages 8 West and 9
combined) estimates that at buildout the City's total expenditures would be approximately
$6,390,900, while the total revenues would be approximately $7,249,200, resulting in an annual
pos tive fiscal impact to the City of approximately $658,300.
[CPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ]
ive FIA
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.
sures:
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
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