HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1999/02/03
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, February 3, 1999
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALL/ MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair Willett, Commissioners Hall, Ray, Thomas, Tarantino, and
O'Neill
Staff Present:
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner
Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
Rich Whipple, Assistant Planner
Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Read into the record by Chair Willett
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
January 13, 1999
MSC (Ray/O'Neill) (6-0-0-0) to approve minutes for January 13, 1999 as submitted. Motion carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
No public input.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 99-06; Request to construct a gasoline fueling facility at
Costco Warehouse
Staff is recommending that public hearing be opened and continued to a date certain of
February 24, 1999.
Public Hearing Opened 7:08.
No public input.
MSC (Ray/O'Neill) (6-0-0-0) to continue public hearing to February 24, 1999.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2-
February 3, 1999
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCM 95-01B; amending the Otay Ranch SPA One Public
Facilities Financing Plan to expedite Olympic Parkway
Construction.
Staff is recommending that public hearing be opened and continued to a date certain of
February 24, 1999.
Public Hearing Opened 7:12.
No public input.
MSC (Ray/Thomas) (6-0-0-0) to continue public hearing to February 24, 1999. Motion
carried.
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC-99-25; Consideration of a 132 unit affordable senior
housing complex located on the east side of Medical Center
Drive between East Naples and Medical Center Court, and
involving a 69% density bonus increase and special property
development standards - Chelsea I nvestment Corporation.
Background: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner reported that this is a request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a 132 unit affordable senior housing project on 4.14 acres located on the east
side of Medical Center Drive between Medical Center Ct. and Naples Ct. within the Sunbow
II planned community.
Surrounding land uses include existing apartments to the north, Medical Center Dr., new single
family dwellings to the west, a proposed Veterans home to the east, and the medical center
parking area to the south.
The project is divided into 3 villages; Village One is located in the center and is connected with
Village Three to the north, via a second floor walk-way between the two village; Villages Two
and Three are designed around a courtyard.
The request includes a reduction in parking and open space requirements, as well a 69%
density bonus. The required parking for multi-family is 208 spaces. Based on a parking
standard survey staff conducted for senior housing projects in other jurisdictions, as well as the
availability of public transportation, staff agreed to a reduction of 146 spaces (132 tenant spaces
plus 14 guest spaces).
On January 24, 1999, the Design Review Committee conditionally approved the project and
under a separat2 motion recommended that the City Council grant the applicant the flexibility
to reduce parking space requirements further than what staff was recommending in order to
accommodate pedestrian links between Village I and III and to the community garden in the
center of the project.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3-
February 3, 1999
These pedestrian links have been added and has resulted in the loss of four parking spaces to
the south and three in the center, thus the total number of parking spaces is now 139. Staff
support this reduction and believes it creates a better cohesive project.
The applicant is proposing approximately 350 sf per dwelling unit of open space, 50 sf below
what is required in the code. The projects features 45,941 sf (350 sf p/du) of common usable
open space including a recreational building, shuffle board, outdoor cooking and passive open
space. Staff supports the reduction in square feet p/du, believing there are sufficient amenities
provided to justify the reduction.
The applicant is requesting a 69% density bonus from 78 to 132 units (54 additional units).
The units will be restricted for occupancy by low income seniors and rents are determined by
HUD.
One letter of opposition was received requesting that the parking and open space not be
reduced.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Neg Dec for 15-99-13 and
adopt Reso. PCC99-25 recommending City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for
the proposed affordable senior housing project subject to conditions contained in the
resolution.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioners Thomas and Ray expressed concern with the request to further reduce the
number of parking spaces, that adequate disabled parking be provided, and the reduction
in open space area per dwelling unit.
Jeff Steichen responded that based on similar projects, one vehicle per unit is being
projected, there will be seven disabled parking spaces, further reducing the number of
regular parking spaces.
Public Hearing Opened 7:20.
Bill Hedenkamp, Architect, representing Chelsea Investment stated that this is a unique
project because it is strictly low income and is for senior citizens. Other communities where
he has done similar projects typically have parking ratios of .6 to .7 per unit, substantially
below the 1 per unit that is being proposed. At the inception of this project, the parking ratio
was .6, which staff did not support and subsequently, the project was redesigned to 1 parking
space per dwelling unit plus 10% guest parking. Other similar projects reveal that at full
occupancy, the parking lots at night are 40 to 50% full, primarily because seniors no longer
drive and they prefer to use public transportation or are driven by family.
Plannin/\ Commission Minutes
-4-
February 3, 1999
The 350 sf open space area is strictly active, usable open space consisting of a community
gardening area, rose garden area, and active play area and quiet use areas with trellises and
built-in b-b-q areas. What is missing is the private balconies for each unit. This is a feature that
Seniors prefer not to have because of security reasons.
Chair Willett stated he visited a couple of senior complexes and he too agrees that parking is
not a problem and that balconies are unwelcome.
Public Hearing Closed 7:30.
Commissioner O'Neill stated he was confident that because of the constitute of the tenants he
did not anticipate there being problems with underparking and was please to hear that the
applicant is not going to stenciling a unit number in a parking space whether its used or not,
because the unassigned spaces may be used by guests.
Commissioner Hall stated that his personal experience too, has been that parking is not a
problem because a vast majority of seniors do not have vehicles. In addition, he believes a
very positive aspect of the project is that it is located next to Sharp Community Hospital which
makes it very accessible to seniors, therefore, he supports the project as proposed.
Commission Tarantino stated that due to the small unit sizes, he believed that on those special
occasions when families normally gather together, it would most likely be that the extended
family would pick up the senior member to take with them to another location or family
member's home, therefore, he does not have a concern with underparking and fully supports
the project as proposed.
MSC (Thomas/Ray) (5-1-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-99-25
recommending tl1at the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed
affordable housing project with the condition that a total of seven guest parking spaces be
provided and not be reduced in order to comply with the 2% ADA requirement for disabled
parking. Motion carried with Commissioner Hall voting against.
Commissioner Hall wished to express that he fully supports the project as proposed, however,
he does not concur with the motion as stated.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-97-11; Request to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) One for Phase Seven (Purple Phase) of the Village One
Core and Village One West including the Planned Community District
Regulations; Village Design Plan; Parks, Recreation Open Space and
Trails Master Plan; Public Facilities Finance Plan; Affordable Housing
Plan; and the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan.
Background: Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner reported that this is a two-fold request to amend
the existing SPA One Plan, amend the plan for Phase Seven in the Village Core and come up
with the SPA Plan for Village One West. When the SPA One was approved, it was referred to
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5-
February 3, 1999
as the area West of Paseo Ranchero and has multiple owners. The Commission requested that
there be comprehensive planning of this area when it was ready to develop. The amendments
being considered are consistent with General Plan Amendments that were approved by the
Commission in October 1998 and City Council approved in November. Included with those
approvals was EIR 97-03 and this project is consistent with that EIR.
The proposed plan expands the development areas in Village One to areas that contain habitat
in the area west of Paseo Ranchero and Village One West. In October there was a switch of
land use where the Otay Ranch Company gave up development rights in Villages 13 and 15
to be able to take additional development area in SPA One West and Village One.
Rich Whipple, Assistant Planner, reported that the Otay Ranch Company proposes to amend
the SPA One Plan to allocate all of the multi-family units authorized in the GDP for Village
One. The GDP was recently amended to provide flexibility in the number of multi-family
dwelling units provided sufficient multi-family densities were approved to support the light rail
transit line. Otay Ranch Company originally applied for 1,422 units in the core, but have
amended their application to request 1,512 dwelling units, an increase of 90 units in Phase
Seven of the Plan.
Nei~hborhood R-15 - Is a proposed multi-family project of up to 464 units with a 4.5 acre CPF
site most likely designated for a church. A paseo with emergency access will connect R-15
with the Village Core.
Neighborhood R-16 - Is proposed to be the second alley product design in SPA One and the
SPA Conditions of Approval authorize a SPA amendment if you are adding an alley product
design.
Nei~hborhood R-17 - Expands the development area of Village One along Poggi Canyon as
provided for in the recent GDP amendment and the proposal changes the land use from multi-
family to single-family.
Neiehborhood R-18 - Proposes a single-family neighborhood, at a slightly higher density of 7.2
du/p/ac.
Neighborhood R-19 - Remains as a multi-family site and as a target site for the affordable
housing location for this Village and Telegraph Canyon Estates.
Neighborhood R-47/CPF-l/C-l - This is the heart of the Core and proposes a mixed-use center
to provide for the day-to-day needs of the Village residents and includes a commercial ground
floor along the frontage of East Palomar Street, in addition to second and third story uses, one
of which is a medical office building with a first floor pharmacy.
Neighborhood R-48 - Proposes a single family development located outside of the 1/4 mile
radius of the transit station.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6-
February 3, 1999
The changes to Phase Seven deal with two conditions; expansion of development areas
allowed by the recent GOP amendment as well as reorienting the "Main Street" design for
Village One. The applicant is proposing East Palomar Street being the "Main Street" design for
this Village. The commercial is proposed to be a true mixed use with two to three stories of
residential units located above ground floor commercial.
Staff believes that under the previous plan, "Main Street" did not go to a particular destination,
and there would be difficulty drawing residents down the street, while under the current plan,
a significant amount of pedestrian activity will occur along East Palomar Street.
The SPA Plan indicates one guarded entrance for Village One on the south side of East Palomar
Street. Staff was concerned over the continued use of restricting access to these neighborhoods
and took the issue to the Executive Committee. After review, it was decided to support the
applicant's proposal for guarded entrances in Phase Seven to be consistent with the existing
guarded entrances north of East Palomar.
Staff believes the SPA One amendments for Phase Seven, proposed by the applicant are
consistent with the Otay Ranch GOP policies and recommends approval of the amendments.
Rick Rosaler reported that the SPA One West area encompasses the area west of Paseo
Ranchero, south of Telegraph Canyon and north of Olympic Parkway. East Palomar Street is
proposed to be extended through from Sunbow to the Village One Core.
The GOP amendments that were approved in November 1998 allow for the expansion in to
this area of approximately 237 acres and currently there is an issue with density between the
applicant and staff. This area is suppose to be a transition area between the Sun bow project
to the west and Village Core to the east. It includes a 5 acre park adjacent to the Sunbow
school site and an additional third park for SPA One.
At this time, the school district is not sure whether the third school site is going to be necessary,
however, planning and reserving the site for the school will proceed.
Staff is concern with the transfer of a large number of units, increase in density, compatibility
to Sunbow anu compliance with the General Plan landform grading policy in Village One
West.
The applicant submitted a Tentative Map which proposes 818 lots which does not include
Neighborhoods R-54A &8 which have 37 units for a total of 8SS in Village One West. They
decreased the unit count from 855 to 818 on the Tentative Map in an attempt to address staff's
concerns on the landform grading policy associate with slopes adjacent to Telegraph Canyon
Road, Paseo Rancher and Olympic Parkway. The current proposed tentative map does address
the landform grading policy to staff's satisfaction and there will need to be further reduction in
lots along Olympic Parkway and an additional 1 0 lots would need to be eliminated to conform
to the policies. Therefore, staff supports 808 units on the Ranch's portion of Village One West.
With the addition of 37 units in Neighborhood R-54A&B, staff supports total unit count for
Village One West of 845 instead of 855 and staff's recommendation will require a transfer of
42 lots from Village One.
Planning Commission Minutes
-7 -
February 3, 1999
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Ray asked for clarification on the net increase of dwelling units specifically in
Village One.
Rick Rosaler stated that 90 units are being added into Village One than what was originally
authorized and transferred 45 units into Village One West. In the original GDP the multi-family
density was fixed at 1566 to have the 18 du/p/ac.; the multi-family density that is being
proposed now is 1512, a difference of 54 units.
Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification on the change in parking ratios, and also inquired
if the five parks that are listed are private.
Rick Rosaler responded that in the Village Planned Community District Regulations there was
a parking ratio of 2.5 for 3 bedroom units and it was felt that when the Gateway project, a 420
unit multi-family project also done by Chelsea, was looked at, because of the transit-oriented
nature of the Village, that amount of parking was not needed and 2.25 is being recommended
for a 3 bedroom units.
In addition, Park P12,P5,P4 and P3 are all private parks located behind the private entrances.
Public Hearing Opened 8:15
Kim Kilkenny, The Otay Ranch Company, 350 W. Ash Street, San Diego, introduced Kent
Aden, Exec. Vice President, and Raney Hunter, Project Manager, and expressed appreciation
to staff for their efforts over the past several months in preparing the General Plan Amendment
and this plan.
Mr. Kilkenny stated that in light of the Commission and City Council recent tour of eastern
Chula Vista, which included the Ranch, he will waive going into a discussion on that
development, other than to say that they are very pleased and proud with the progress made
thus far and the vision that was articulated nine years ago, is coming to fruition.
Mr. Kilkenny stated that the main issue he wanted to convey is that The Otay Ranch Company
endorses staff's recommendation, even in the one area that staff's report indicates there was a
modest disagreement over ten units. The Ranch agrees with the number that staff has
indicated; 845 units in Village One West, however, they ask that as they go through the
Tentative Map, they be allowed the discretion to indicate where those ten units would be lost.
Chair Willett asked for clarification on the term "net usable acres" with regard to school and
park sites.
Mr. Kilkenny responded affirmatively that contained in the Public Facilities Finance Plan, the
contract with the District, and the Tentative Map conditions, the term "net usable acres" will
be used. The school district will get 10 acres plus, which will be delivered in Village One.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 8-
February 3, 1999
Public Hearing Closed 8:35
MSC (Thomas/Ray) (6-0-0-0) to adopt Resolution PCM 97-11 recommending the City Council
approve the amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and Resolution PCM 98-02
recommending City Council approve the amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations and to reduce the number of units to 845 in Village One
West. Motion carried.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Bob leiter, Director of Planning and Building, reviewed the upcoming schedule of meetings
calendared for February; they are:
" a regular meeting on February 10
. a joint GMOC workshop on February 17 with a presentation by Kent Olson from CTV on the
status of SR-125, a presentation on the Olympic Parkway project, and a representative from
MTDB will discuss light rail transit planning; and
" a regular meeti'lg on the February 24.
In addition, Mr. leiter polled the Commission as to their availability to attend the joint GMOClCity
Council/Planning Commission annual workshop scheduled for either Monday, March 22nd or Monday,
March 29th.
Mr. leiter also reported that the Economic Development Commission has requested to have a joint
workshop with the Planning Commission and City Council to talk about the industrial land use policies
that were discussed by the Commission a little over a year ago. The date has not been set, but will
probably take place sometime in March or April.
lastly, Mr. leiter, stated that we have not yet received the registration information on the Planners
Institute in Monterrey on March 24-26, 1999, however, it would be good to start planning for it and
solicited input from the Commission as to who would be interested in attending.
Commissioners Hall, Ray, Thomas and O'Neill expressed interest in attending.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
Commissioner Tarantino wished to express his appreciation to Councilmember Davis for any
input she may have had in having the padlock removed from the refrigerator in the lounge.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:45 p.m. to the Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 10,
1999.
Diana Vargas,
REVISED AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, February 3, 1999
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 13, 1999
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's
agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-99-06 - Request to construct a gasoline fueling facility at Costco
Warehouse at 1144 Broadway - Costco Wholesale.
Staff is recommending that public hearing be opened and continued to a date certain of
February 24,1999.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-95-0IB - Amending the Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facilities
Financing Plan to expedite Olympic Parkway Construction.
Staff is recommending that public hearing be opened and continued to a date certain of
February 24,1999.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-99-25 - Consideration of a 132 unit affordable senior housing
complex located on the east side of Medical Center Drive between
East Naples and Medical Center Court, and involving a 69% density
bonus increase and special property development standards - Chelsea
Investment Corporation.
Planning Commission
- 2 -
February 3,1999
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-97-11 - Request to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) One for Phase Seven (Purple Phase) of the Village One
Core and Village One West including the Planned Community
District Regulations; Village Design Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open
Space and Trails Master Plan; Public Facilities Finance Plan;
Affordable Housing Plan; and the Phase 2 Resource Management
Plan.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
I. Review of calendar schedule for February and poll the Commission as to their availability
for the Joint City Council/GMOC/Planning Commission Annual Workshop on March 22,
or 29, 1999.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT to the Planning Commission meeting of Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 7:00
p.m. in Council Chambers.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who may require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in
a City meeting, activity, or service to request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in
advance for meetings and five days in advance for scheduled services and activities. Please
contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices
for the Deaf (TOO) (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is available for the hearing
impaired.
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, February 3,1999
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
January 13, 1999
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's
agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
I. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-99-06 - Request to construct a gasoline fueling facility at Costco
Warehouse at 1144 Broadway - Costco Wholesale.
Staff is recommending that public hearing be opened and continued to a date certain of
February 24, 19991.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-99-25 - Consideration of a 132 unit affordable senior housing
complex located on the east side of Medical Center Drive between
East Naples and Medical Center Court, and involving a 69% density
bonus increase and special property development standards - Chelsea
Investment Corporation.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-97-ll - Request to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) One for Phase Seven (Purple Phase) of the Village One
Core and Village One West including the Planned Community
District Regulations; Village Design Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open
Space and Trails Master Plan; Public Facilities Finance Plan;
Affordable Housing Plan; and the Phase 2 Resource Management
Plan.
Planning Commission
- 2 -
February 3,1999
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
I. Review of calendar schedule for February and poll the Commission as to their availability
for the Joint City Council/GMOC/Planning Commission Annual Workshop on March 22,
or 29, 1999.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT to the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at
7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting,
activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings,
and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific
information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-5647.
California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
H:\HOME\PI.ANNING\DlANA\PCAGENDA.DOC
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, January 13, 1999
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALLI MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair Willett; Commissioners Hall, Ray, Thomas, Tarantino and O'Neill
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning and Building
Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney
Staff Present:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Read into the record by Chair Willett
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1.
ACTION ITEM:
Confirmation of election of new Chair and Vice Chair.
MSC (O'Neill/Hail) confirming the appointment of John Willett as Chair and Bob Thomas as
Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Motion carried.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01B; Amending the Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facilities
Financing Plan to expedite Olympic Parkway Construction.
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning & Building, stated that staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission schedule a Special Meeting on February 3, 1999 and that this item be continued
to that meeting.
MSC (O'Neill/Hail) to continue PCM 95-01B to the February 3, 1999 Special Planning
Commission meeting. Motion carried.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 98-05; Consideration of amendment to Chapter 19.60 to add
provisions for a City-wide kiosk sign program.
Background: B0b Leiter gave a brief introduction stating that the City Council directed staff
to work with the development community to organize a kiosk sign program directing customers
to new housing projects in eastern Chula Vista. Over the last several month, staff has worked
with a coalition of major developers in the City to develop a framework for the program.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2-
Wednesday, January 13, 1999
Jeff Steichen reported that on December 15, 1998, the City Council conceptually approved a
proposed kiosk sign program, giving staff direction to proceed with the proposed amendment
to the Municipal Code and further steps to initiate the establishment of a kiosk sign program.
The purpose of the kiosk sign program is:
1. To eliminate the proliferation of numerous large illegal signs
2. To allow for construction of off-site directional kiosks signs containing specific number
of panels in order to provide adequate signage to various residential communities.
3. To provide a uniform design, aesthetically pleasing to the community, and
4. To control the location of off-premise signage.
The kiosk structure will have a maximum height of 12 ft., a maximum width of 7 ft., with a
maximum of eight individual sign panels measuring approximately 6 ft. horizontally by 6
inches in height to be used to identify either the individual subdivisions or the planned
communities within the City. No other type of signage, whether it be advertizing or
commercial development, can take place on the kiosk sign.
There will be approximately 35 locations that will be considered for placement of the signs
subject to review by the Planning and Engineering Departments to ensure there are no hazards
to pedestrians, traffic or visual impacts. They will primarily be located within the public right-
of-way, but may also be placed within private property or open space, and there is a restriction
in the ordinance which states that they must be at least 300 ft. apart.
Presently, there are a few provisions in the code which allow for off-site subdivision signage,
however, those that do exist are restrictive in height and area allowance, which has resulted
in a proliferation of illegal signage primarily along major thoroughfares east of 1-805. No
approval will be ~iven for directional signs on any kiosk structure if the applicant has any other
illegal off-site signs anywhere within the City.
The ordinance includes minimal eligibility restriction on who can display signage on the kiosk
structure. Users shall be limited to master planned communities and residential subdivisions
exceeding 20 lots.
It should be noted that any developer that chooses to utilize the proposed code provisions will
not be able to utilize the existing provisions of the Code regarding off-site signage.
The intent of the program is for the City to contract with a sign company who will then become
the administrator of the program subject to overview by City staff when necessary.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA 98-05
recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend Section 19.60.480 of the
Municipal Code in order to provide the option of establishing an off-site subdivision directional
kiosk sign program.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3-
Wednesday, January 13, 1999
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Tarantino asked if any consideration had been given to utilizing anti-
graffiti material and if graffiti removal costs had been factored into the cost of the signs.
Mr. Steichen responded that the proposed sign plan contains provisions that require the
structure and panels to have an anti-graffiti material appl ied.
Chair Willett stated that one of the methods used to remove graffiti is to use
pressurized water, and expressed concern with the damage that procedure could inflict
on wooden signs.
Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification on what happens to developers who do
not wish to participate in the kiosk sign program.
Jeff Steichen responded that after the program has been in place for some time, if a
developer chooses not to participate in the program, it will then become an
enforcement issue with the existing illegal signs.
Bob Leiter clarified that the existing provision in the code for off-site directional
signage, although restrictive, is still available to a small developer, in lieu of the kiosk
sign program, however, you cannot do both.
Commissioner Ray stated that given that each sign has a maximum of eight panels for
development names, how would other developments be accommodated and who
would make that determination.
Bob Leiter responded that there would probably be alternate signs every half mile with
one group of developers first, then the alternate sign with another set of developers.
The developer coalition agreed that for the master planned communities, the signs
would only be used to identify the master planned communities, not the individual
merchant builder projects within those communities.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that once this program is in place, then all other illegal
signs should go away, however, his concern is that the majority of illegal poster board
signs go up on weekends, and having an enforcement officer during the week will not
effectively address the problem that arises on weekends.
Bob Leiter responded that any existing permanent illegal signs will be required to be
removed immediately through our Code Enforcement Manager, and the intent would
be to include wording in the sign program that clearly states that there would be
repercussions in their ability to use the kiosk program, but if need be, we could have
Code Enforcement Officers out on Saturdays to remove them and use the Code
Enforcement Program to enforce it.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4-
Wednesday, January 13, 1999
Mr. Leiter further stated that with the hiring of the new Code Enforcement Officer,
perhaps this would be a good topic for an update on the Code Enforcement Program
for a future workshop, sometime in March or April.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 7:45.
No public input.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:45
MSC (Ray/O'Neill) (6-0-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA 98-05
recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend Section 19.60 of the
Municipal Code in order to provide the option of establishing an off-site subdivision
directional kiosk sign program and that developments such as Otay Ranch be designated by
Village, and within the Village, by development. Motion carried.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
1. Bob Leiter introduced Jim Sandoval, newly appointed Assistant Director of Planning.
2. Mr. Leiter reviewed the meeting schedule, noting that the Planning Commission meeting of
january 27,1999 has been cancelled, the joint Council/Planning Commission tour will be on
Saturday, january 16, and a Special Planning Commission meeting on February 3, 1999.
In addition, the League of California Cities will be having a Planning Commissioners
Orientation Workshop for new commissioners, and the Planners Institute is scheduled for
March 24-26, 1999 in Monterrey. Current funding in the budget would cover the cost for
three commissioners to attend.
Due to scheduling conflicts, none of the Commissioners would be able to attend the League
workshop on january 22, however, they are interested in the Planners Institute in March.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
" Commissioner Thomas asked what type of street improvement requirements are placed on new
developments.
Bob Leiter responded that they are required to make improvement on the street frontage,
however, if a traffic study has identified other needs, they may also be required to do off-site
improvements to adjacent streets to their development.
" Commission Hall inquired if there were any plans to install meters on the freeway on-ramps
in the South bay.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5-
Wednesday, January 13, 1999
Bob Leiter stated that this question was also posed to the City Engineer at a recent GMOC traffic
presentation and he stated that currently Caltrans is not planning ramp meters on any of the
freeway on-ramps in Chula Vista. They are currently doing an interchange improvement and
Caltrans is not requiring that it be designed for future ramping.
" Commissioner Ray asked where the GMOC boundary begin and end vs. Caltrans, where
stacking occurs on a freeway on-ramp, and at what point does it get counted agains traffic flow
within the City.
Bob Leiter responded that the standard specifically excludes freeway interchanges and this is
an issue that GMOC will need to deal with as part of clarifying the threshold standards of traffic.
It has not been an issue in the past, but it may become an issue in the near future.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:00 p.m. to the Special Planning Commission meeting of February 3,
1999, at 7:00 p.m.
C \ =-~..~
~~''''''I...
Diana Vargas, Secretary to PI n ing Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item L
Meeting Date 2/3/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC 99-06; Request to construct
a gasoline fueling facility at Costco Warehouse at 1144 Broadway- Costco
Wholesale
At the Planning Commission meeting of December 16, 1999, the Commission continued to the
meeting of January 27, 1999 in order to address the following concerns: 1) feasibility of relocating
the proposed fueling facility to the rear of the Costco warehouse, 2) adequacy of stacking analysis
discussed in the traffic study, including a request to provide a table showing breakdown of
anticipated gallons/week broken down by days, peak hours, etc., 3) adequacy of available parking.
The meeting of January 27, 1999 was cancelled and rescheduled for the meeting of February 3,
1999. The applicant has now requested this item be continued to the meeting of February 24,
1999 in order for the applicant to meet with staff to discuss their recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the public hearing be opened on February 3, 1999 and continued to the meeting of February
24, 1999.
H:\HDME\PLANNING\JEFF\PCRPT\COSTCO.CON
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
~
Item _
Meeting Date 2/3/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCC 99-25; Consideration of a 132 unit affordable
senior housing complex located on the east side of Medical Center Drive
between East Naples and Medical Center Court, and involving a 69%
density bonus increase and special property development standards -
Chelsea Investment Corporation.
The applicant, Chelsea Investments Corporation, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use
Permit for the construction of a 132 unit affordable senior housing project on 4.14 acres located
on the east side of Medical Center Drive between Medical Center Ct. and Naples Ct. within the
Sunbow II planned community. The project also involves special property development standards,
and a 69 % density bonus increase (as authorized by State Government Code Section 65915).
Based on the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would
be no significant environmental effects and, therefore, recommends that the Negative Declaration
issued on IS 99-03 be adopted.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for IS 99-13 and adopt
Resolution PCC 99-25 recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit
for the proposed affordable senior housing project based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained in the attached Draft City Council Resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
On Monday, January 25, 1999, the Design Review Committee considered the project and voted
5-0 to approve DRC 99-29 to conditionally approve the proposed project. Under a separate
motion, the DRC made a recommendation to City Council that the applicant be given the
flexibility to reduce parking space requirements further than recommended by staff in order to
accommodate pedestrian links between Village I and II and to the community garden in the center
of the project.
prr QQ-?~ Vil1" !';P'TP'n" (!';llnhmlJ)
p"gP ?
BACKGROUND:
On May 13, 1997 the Ayres Development Company, Sunbow II Master Developer, entered into
an agreement with the City to provide ten percent of the total units built (97) for low and moderate
income households (5% low (49) and 5% moderate (48)). While the Moderate income units are
typically satisfied with market rate units throughout the planned community, the low income units
are designated sites for apartments or condominiums. The Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) plan identifies two potential sites to house the low income housing units, Parcel 7 and
Parcel 6 (see Attachment 4). Both are designated RM, Residential Multifamily and are targeted
for II-18 du/ac.
To satisfy the above mentioned low income housing requirements the applicant is proposing to use
Parcel 6 to build a senior apartment complex with 132 dwelling units, thirty five (35) more than
are required by the agreement referenced above.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The project site is located on the east side of Medical Center Drive between Medical Center Ct.
and Naples Ct. within the Sunbow II Planned Community (see Locator). The 4.14 acre, elongated
site is vacant (except for a vacant office trailer and associated parking facility located at the north
end of the property) and relatively level except for a slope condition along the east property line.
The site is surrounded by streets on west, south and north and to the east by the future State
Veterans Home located approximately 60 ft. above. After grading, the site will be at the same
level as Medical Center Drive and Naples Ct., and about 15 ft. lower than Medical Center Ct.
Based on the proposed finish grade, access to the site is limited to Medical Center Drive and
Naples Ct.
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
GEN.PLAN ZONING
SUNBOW II
SPA
CURRENT
LAND USE
Site:
PQ *
PC
RM
(candidate church site)
(candidate affordable housing site)
Vacant
North:
RM(6-11)
R3P12
nla
Apartments
(across Naples
Court).
prr QQ-?'i Vi110 SPTPno (Snnn"..,)
PogP ':\
South:
PQ
PC
CV Medical Center
Parking
(across Medical
Center Court).
East:
PQ
PC
nla
Veterans Home
West:
RLM
PC
RS
SFD's
(across Medical
Center Drive).
* Note: The property is designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram as "PQ" (Public Quasi-Public);" however,
this designation has been determined to be a graphic error on the Diagram. The correct land use designation is "RM"
(Residential Medium; 6-11 DulAc). Prior to the comprehensive update of the City's General Plan in 1989, the land
use designation was Residential (4-12 DulAc). Subsequent to the amended General Plan on February 20, 1990, the
Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan was approved with the site designated for multiple family units, consistent
with the correct General Plan land use designation. This designation will be graphically corrected upon the next
printing of the General Plan Land Use Diagram.
3. Proiect Description
The applicant is proposing an affordable senior housing project with a total of 132 apartment units
(I 12 one-bedroom and 20 two-bedroom), common recreation facilities and amenities; ample open
space and parking for 146 vehicles (132 designated and 14 guest parking spaces). The proposal
also involves certain deviations from the Sunbow II Planned Community Regulations and Chula
Vista Municipal Code property development standards and density bonus increase. The following
paragraphs describe in more detail the proposed property development standards deviations and
density bonus increase requested:
Parking:
Section 19.62.050 of the Municipal Code and the Sunbow II Planned Community District
Regulations require 1.5 spaces for each one-bedroom, and 2 spaces for each two-bedroom units.
However, for senior housing projects, the City Council may consider and approve exceptions for
certain development standards, including off-street parking. The applicant is requesting a
reduction in parking requirements from one space for each one-bedroom and 2 spaces for each
two bedroom to one space per one or two-bedroom units and 14 guest parking spaces. Fourteen
percent of the total number of parking spaces provided is proposed to be compact size (71/2 X
15).
The following table illustrates the proposed and required parking in more detail:
prr QQ-7~ Vi1h S..r..m (Snnhnw)
P.g.. 4
Required Parkiug:
112 one bedroom units (1.5/unit)
20 two bedroom units (2/unit)
Guest parking
Total =
168
40
Ine!
208
Parking Provided
Residential units ( one per unit)
Guest parking
Total =
132
--H
146
(-62 parking spaces)
Open Space
The Chula Vista Municipal Code requires 400 square feet of open space per dwelling unit
for multi- family projects. The open space may be provided in common usable open space
areas, private patios, balconies, or common recreational facilities. While the Municipal
Code, Chapter 19.28, does not specifically require the provision of private patios for
individual units, the adopted City Design Manual, Multi-family Design Guidelines Section,
calls for 60 sq. ft. of private open space for one-bedroom and all units above the first
floor, and 80 sq. ft. for two- bedroom, ground floor units.
To satisfy the open space requirements described above, the proposed project features
45,941 sq. ft. (350 sq. ft. per unit) of common usable open space, including a recreational
building, shuffle board, outdoor cooking and passive open space. No private patios are
proposed for individual dwelling units. Based on the amenities provided, the applicant is
requesting a reduction in open space from 400 to 350 sq. ft. per dwelling unit.
Density Bonus
The applicant is requesting a 69 % density bonus to increase the project density from 78
to 132 (54 additional units) affordable senior housing units. The 132 units will be
restricted for occupancy by low income seniors, with 80% of the units for low income
seniors at 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) and 20% units for very low
income seniors at 50 percent of the AMI. The rents for one-bedroom units will range from
$444 to $539/month and for two-bedroom units from $530 to $644/month. The restricted
rents are determined by HUD for the current fiscal year. Rent restrictions will be
maintained for a period of no less than 52 years, which exceeds the 30-year term
required by State law, and will bind all subsequent owners, so that the commitment
remains in force regardless of ownership.
Pf'f' QQ-?'i Vilh "f'rf'n" ~""nh()w)
p"gf' 'i
4. Analysis
Land Use Compatibility
As noted above, the site is surrounded by streets on three sides and by the Veterans Home
project, which is presently under construction. The site will be served by public transportation
along Medical Center Drive and is within walking distance from the Chula Vista Medical Center,
future commercial center and parks within the Sunbow II Planned Community. Thus, in staff's
opinion, the site is appropriate for senior housing and highly compatible with the surrounding land
uses.
Parking
With regard to the proposed reduction in the number of parking spaces to one space per unit plus
16 guest parking spaces, staff contacted several jurisdiction in the San Diego County and
concluded that the one space per unit parking ratio is widely used by other jurisdictions for senior
citizen projects. Based on this, and the fact that public transportation, as well as a neighborhood
commercial center, park and the Chula Vista Medical Center will be available to serve the project
residents, staff supports the reduction in parking spaces as requested by the applicant.
At the Design Review Committee meeting of January 25, 1999, the Committee discussed the
project and recommended a further reduction in parking space requirements in order to allow
pedestrian linkages between Village I and II and to the community garden in the center of the
project. Staff supports a further reduction as necessary to accomplish such linkages as long as it
does not result in a further reduction in amount of tenant parking spaces available.
Open Space
Although the open space provided amounts to about 350 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, which is 50 sq,
ft. less per dwelling unit, the senior citizen apartment complex has been designed with central
open space facilities and amenities to enhance the recreational and social interaction opportunities
typically associated with senior apartment projects. The applicant has indicated that seniors can
create their own private patios within the oversized second story corridors and ground floor
walkway by placing their chairs and tables along the edges of these corridors. Based on this, and
the fact that the apartment complex will offer a unique senior citizen apartment living style, staff
endorses the reduction in common usable open space as requested by the applicant.
prr QQ-?~ VilIo ,<prpno r'<nnn"w)
PogP f,
Density Bonus
As specified in State Government Code Section 65915(B), the City shall grant a minimum 25
percent density bonus increase over the otherwise maximum residential density and at least one
additional concession or incentive to a developer of housing agreeing or proposing to construct
at least: 1)20 percent of the total units for low income households; 2) 10 percent of the total units
for very low income households; or 3) 50 percent of the total units for seniors. In addition, the
City must grant at least one additional incentive or concession as defined in Section 65195(h) or
make a written finding that the additional incentive or concession is not required to provide the
affordable housing. Such incentives include one of the following: I)reduction or modification of
Development Standards, Zoning Codes or Architectural Design Requirements, 2)Permit Mixed
use Zoning within Housing Development or 3) Allow Other Regulatory Incentives or Concessions,
This project is 100% for seniors and includes modifications to the Sunbow II Planned Community
District Regulations and the following financial assistance from the City:
The proposed Senior Apartment project will assist in meeting two top priorities set out in the
City's Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. These priorities are: 1)
Continue to implement the City's Affordable Housing Program so that more newly constructed
rental and for sale units are made available to low and moderate income households, with priority
given to very low and low income families; and 2) Provide supportive housing assistance to
special needs populations such as the elderly.
Compliance with the Sunbow II General Development Plan/SPA
Although the proposed project involves certain deviations from the Sunbow II Planned Community
District Regulations and Chula Vista Municipal Code, the proposed senior housing project is in
substantial compliance with the Sunbow II SPA which allows special property development
standards for senior housing projects with approval of a CUP.
With regard to the proposed increase in density (density bonus), the project will exceed the
number of dwelling units and density permitted in the SPA. However, according to the City
Attorney, the underlying zone or in this case the SPA does not have to be modified to
accommodate the additional density. Thus, the project will remain in compliance with the Sunbow
II GDP and SPA.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends approval of the project subject to the
conditions listed in the attached Draft City Council Resolution.
PI'I' QQ-?"i Vilh "prpm (""nhmxr)
Pogp 7
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Draft City Council Resolutions
3. Locator and Figures
4. Portion of Sunhow II SPA Site Utilization Plan
5. Negative Declaration prepared for IS 99-13
6. Ownership Disclosure
RIHOMEIPLANNINGIJEFFIPCRPn VlUASER
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO PCC 99-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 132 UNIT
AFFORDABLE SENIOR APARTMENT COMPLEX AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE AND MEDICAL CENTER COURT
WITHIN THE SUNBOW II PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND ALLOW A 69%
DENSITY BONUS INCREASE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65915, CHELSEA INVESTMENT CORPORATION.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit and a request
for a 69% (54 dwelling units) density bonus increase and other financial incentives was
submitted to the Planning and Building, and Community Development Departments of the
City of Chula Vista on November 19, 1998 by Chelsea Investment Corporation
("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, said applications request approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a
132 unit affordable senior apartment complex at the northeast corner of Medical Center
Drive and Medical Center Court within the Sunbow II Planned Community, and a sixty-
nine percent (69%) density bonus increase pursuant to the California Govemment Code
Section 65915, Chapter 4.3., Density Bonuses and Other Incentives; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the
proposed project will have no negative impact and prepared a Negative Declaration for IS
99-13 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing
on said Conditional Use Permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and
its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of
the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertized, namely
February 3,1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and
testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to this applications; and,
WHEREAS, ITom the facts presented, the Planning Commission hereby determines
that granting the requested density bonus is consistent with the Housing Element of the
City of Chula Vista General Plan and the CaIifomia Government Code, and that the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice support the requested
density bonus.
Rp!;;.()lnti()n prr QQ_?-"
P.gP 7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached draft
City Council Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit PCC 99-25 in accordance with
the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft City Council
Resolution, and grant the requested 69% density bonus increase (54 additional units).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to
the City Council and the Applicant.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this erd day of February, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
John Willett, Chairperson
Diana Vargas, Secretary
H :\SHAREDlPLANNIN GIVILASER. PCR
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC 99-25, FOR A 132 UNIT
AFFORDABLE SENIOR APARTMENT COMPLEX AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE AND MEDICAL CENTER COURT
WITHIN THE SUNBOW II PLANNED COMMUNITY AND PC (PLANNED
COMMUNITY) ZONE.
1. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagranunatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein, consists of a 4.14.
acre elongated and relatively level site located at the northeast corner of Medical
Center Drive and Medical Center Court ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on November 19, 1998, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use
Permit (PCC 99-25) with respect to the Project Site was filed by Chelsea Investment
Corporation ("Developer"); and
WHEREAS, Developer requests permission to construct a 132 unit affordable senior
apartment complex including associated parking and open space/recreational amenities
. The proposal includes a request to reduce the require number of parking spaces from
two hundred eight (208) to one hundred forty-six (146) and the open space requirement
from four hundred (400) to three hundred and fifty square feet per unit; and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
Whereas the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of 1) A
General Development Plan, Sunbow II General Development Plan (GDP) previously
approved by City Council Resolution 15427 ("GDP"); 2) Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan, Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan previously adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 15524 ("SPA"); 3) Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing
Plan ("PFFP"), Sunbow II Design Guidelines all previously approved by City Council
on February 20, 1990 By resolution No.155254 4) Sunbow II Air Quality
Improvement Plan and Sunbow II Water Conservation Plan Phase IA adopted by City
Council Resolution ; 5) Sunbow II Planned Community District
Regulations adopted By City Council Ordinance No. 2346; 6) Master Tentative Map,
Chula Vista Tract 90-07 approved by City Council Resolution No. 15640 and extended
one year by Resolution 17177; and,
Resolution No.
Page No.2
D. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Environmental
Review Coordinator has determined that the Project requires the preparation of an
Initial Study, such study (IS 99-13) was prepared, and based on such study a Negative
Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review.
E. Planning Commission Record on CUP Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project
on February 3, 1999 and voted _ to adopt Resolution No. PCC 99-25
recommending that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration IS-99-13, approve
Conditional Use Permit PCC 99-25 based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein; and grant a 69% density increase (54 units above the maximum
permitted density) pursuant to California Government Code Section 65195B, Density
Bonuses and Other Incentives; and
F. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before
the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on February 16, to receive the
recommendation of the RCC, Planning Commission and Design Review Committee,
and to hear public testimony with regard to the same.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and
resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission
at their public hearing on this Project held on February 3, 1999 and the minutes and resolution
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
III. CERTIFICA nON OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the Negative Declaration on IS 99-13 has been
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
State EIR guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Negative Declaration on IS 99-13 reflects the independent
judgement of the City of Chula Vista City Council.
V. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
Resolution No.
Page No.3
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the
City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as hereinbelow set
forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis, in addition to all other evidence in the
record, that permits the stated findings to be made.
A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
the community.
The proposed project is desirable at this location in that the site provides immediate
access to public transportation and is within walking distance of the Sharp Chula Vista
Medical Center. A neighborhood commercial center is proposed for a location just
south of the site. There are no other senior rental housing developments within the
newly developed areas of eastern Chula Vista. In addition, the project will satisfy
Sunbow II's low income housing requirement.
B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed Project is compatible with surrounding residential and institutional land
uses and adequate infrastructure is in place. The project is oriented toward Medical
Center Drive in order to allow easy ingress/egress to the site, and convenient access
to public transportation.
C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the code for such use.
The applicant has requested a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from
two hundred eight (208) to one hundred forty six (146) (Chula Vista Municipal Code
Section 19.62.050_ ) and open space acreage requirement from 400 to 350 sq. Ft. per
dwelling unit (Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.28.090).
Based on previously approved senior housing project parking requirements in the City
of Chula Vista and other neighboring jurisdiction, as well as the Project Site's close
proximity to public transportation, health care facilities and future neighborhood parks
and commercial center within the Sunbow Planned Community, the proposed parking
ratio of one space per dwelling unit plus 14 additional parking spaces for guests is
consistent with established standards for this type of residential projects.
The proposed senior housing apartment complex features common recreational
facilities designed for the intended residents and open lawn areas for outdoor activities.
Based on the proposed amenities and the intended residents, the proposed open space
is adequate.
Resolution No.
Page No.4
D. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The Project is in substantial conformance with the Housing Element of the City of
Chula Vista General Plan, which supports a wide variety of residential products
including senior housing and requires a minimum of 10% of the total number of
dwelling units in subdivisions with more than 50 dwelling units be affordable. The
Project will also satisfy the affordable housing requirement prescribed in the Sunbow
II affordable Housing Program and Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY APPROVE THE
PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BELOW:
VI. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-99-25 subject to the following
conditions whereby the Applicant Shall:
A. Ensure that the proposal complies with the use outlined in the application and material
submitted therewith except as modified below:
I. Comply with all conditions of DRC 99-29 as outlined 1ll letter dated
..............
2. Comply with all requirements of the Engineering Department including the
following:
a. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay all applicable
sewer connection, development impact, and traffic signal fees.
b. Construct two driveway approaches per City of Chula Vista standards
as shown on the proposed site plan. Prior to said construction,
applicant shall obtain a construction permit from the Public Works
Department.
c. Obtain a grading permit.
d. Vehicular turning movement shall be restricted to right turn in and
right turn out only at new driveways along Medical Center Drive due
to an existing raised concrete median.
e. Prior to occupancy, applicant shall submit and receive approval for a
lot consolidation for this project.
Resolution No.
Page No.5
3.
Comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department including the
following:
a. Hanuner head turn-around shall be 90' x 25' x 25'
b. Fire Alarm systems are required for all buildings
c. Class I Standpipe system required in three story building.
d. Fire hydrant required at each driveway entrance.
B. Any change to the operational profile or expansion of the use shall require approval
by the City Council and may result in additional conditions of approval and/or
mitigation measures.
C. Construct the Project as submitted to and approved by the City Council, except as
modified herein and/or as required by the Municipal Code, and as detailed in the
project description.
D. Comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations, permits, City ordinances,
standards, and policies except as otherwise provided in this Resolution.
E. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon approval and adoption of
Resolution granting approval of the requested density bonus.
F. This sp~cial use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended
within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260
of the Municipal Code.
G. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed
after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to
health, safety, or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to
the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with
regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may
not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue sources
which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected
to economically recover.
VII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
Applicant shall execute and have notarized the attached Agreement (Attachment "A"), indicating the
Applicant has read, understands and agrees to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will
implement same.
VIII. INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS
Resolution No.
Page No.6
Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City,
its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees
(collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval
and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or
action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein,
and (c) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby. Applicant/operator shall
acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing the Agreement of this Conditional Use
Permit where indicated. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition
of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all
Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns.
IX. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination and
file the same with the City Clerk.
X. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this
resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force
and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
H :\SHAREDlPLANNINGI VILASER.CRI
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING A DENSITY BONUS TO CHELSEA
INVESTMENT CORPORATION SUNBOW SERVICES COMPANY,
LLC TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 132 UNIT AFFORDABLE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR LOW INCOME SENIORS
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MEDICAL
CENTER DRIVE AND MEDICAL CENTER COURT.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for
the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 4.14 acres of land
located at the northeast corner of Medical Center Drive and Medical Center Court ("Project
Site").
B. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, an application for an affordable housing project and a request for a sixty-nine
percent (69%) density bonus and other additional incentives/concessions was filed with the
Chula Vista Community Development Department on December 16,1998 by Chelsea
Investment Corporation (CIC) Sun bow Services Company LLC ("Applicant"); and
C. Project Description
WHEREAS, said application requested a sixty nine percent (69%) density bonus and
reductions in parking and open space requirements to allow the construction of 132 rental
units for very low and low income seniors ("Project"); and
D. Environmental Detennination
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has detennined that the Project requires the preparation of an Initial Study, such
study (IS 99-13) was prepared, and based on such study a Negative Declaration was
prepared and circulated for public review; and
E. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on February 3, 1999 at which
time the Planning Commission voted _ to _ adopting Resolution No. PCC 99-25B
recommending that the City Council grant the requested increase in density of sixty nine
percent (69%) and reductions in parking and open space requirements to allow the
construction of a maximum of one hundred thirty-two (132) dwelling units for the
residential project located at the north east corner of Medical Center Drive and Medical
Center Court in the City of Chula; and
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has
determined that the Project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that
the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice support the
Project, and implements portions of State related density bonus and that the granting of said
density bonus and reductions in parking and open space requirements does not adversely
affect the order, amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses; and
F. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista considered the recommendation
of the Planning Commission regarding the density bonus and additional
incentives/concessions for the Project on , 1999.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and
ordain as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their
meeting on this project held on February 3, 1999 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom,
are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
III. CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds that the Project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General
Plan and that the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice
support the Project, and implements portions of State related density bonus and that the granting of
said density bonus and reductions in parking and open space requirements does not adversely affect
the order, amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses.
IV. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination
and file the same with the City Clerk.
V. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
The City Council hereby grants the requested increase in density of sixty nine percent (69%) to allow the
construction of a maximum of one hundred thirty-two (132) dwelling units for the residential project located
at the north east corner of Medical Center Drive and Medical Center Court in the City ofChula.
The City Council further approves the following incentives to the Applicant in order to balance the financial
feasibility of the affordable housing project with the usual amenities found in a development of this type
consistent with the Conditional Use Permit, PCC 99-25, for the Project:
Resolution No. Page 3
I. The City ;mplemented alternative parking standards of one parking space for each dwelling
unit, with ten percent (10%) guest parking provided on and off site for this project, and ten
percent (10%) of the total parking spaces provided at compact size; and,
2. The City allowed a reduction in open space requirements from 400 square feet per unit to
350 square feet per unit.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
[(LH) HISHAREDIPLANNINGICC-DENBO.WPD (January 28, ]999 (11 J lam)]
~
ATTACHMENT 3
,
..------' \
,
\
,
,
, ; . . ------ ~"
f ! I '\ ' ' j , ," "', i i, 'fO=: i
I ' " ' , f f ~ "",'.( f.\ .
rtflJ II \,' ~~jE:/ ~ ~ '~\\~: .)t3~j.
::"! N )":// i /V ,i ,f ,,,'Jml -
,e-., </ /)'.,..V 'V /7' ~ ' -:10 "-'f1J(
o /^ v' )','Y/', ^~ Of.jj0'-i / :/~~j
,,>-"(./~' V,-,.V A''Y'r;-':'-!J/ / ,-rr~^
.' ,^, ../ I- ' v ^',)' f>y">- ~I I//'--.. ...-! ,-y
,/ ' , / N' V.J / ,.." ,
/~ >.:-'. ,,' !>Y'N, v{,j' / '"
_', '/:~,. ^~. <:-;...--::-' i"'jY / ~
" ,^, / " / ,',;' ,:y!'-....:;::'../ /..... v,
A'"'--- J V A'Y /'-... " ."'-.,:
\ ',/,I::Y' i/" . V I ';:-J::; ,f'....... /1 "
.-Y.A v j' ^' I, ,21 (I
~/ /f""l'I/ i jf
" ' . " ^ .' I II "'~,,:- J \ i I
.... y ,,' \ j i / ';s 57 ~,
') ~. I / ~ -.;::::.;
/..^----......./" ' \'~I 6-{\ l,j 1 .-
~.z.y!':::...-J'-\ I U.--Y-./1- ~
, ,,'\. .;-'.......-'S'~i'n ..
J . ..,.....-.,--,? \ \ --,'~
~ .,\\' . ,~~~
_______ /'.'" ." \ ~ ~ \--'I~ \ " / \r-
" " ~.XI.---"C _"../"....-"\
-0--0/ ,":,\\\ \~? ~ ~~\1 ;;
~:,(...~~./\\\\~. .......-2' ,--,\',~~
v \ ' \../' ,('-.j'- ,...-,-, ,"
~\,':-"":"I~\\;/\
: ,\ ' ' \ " ,-'-/ 0
". I .. ' ........, - . "
:. ,I' -~' , ~/
" ,\:. \ \ -. \ \ ,\ /// "
j I ,., \ i \ '\ \ \ ,.'''';'---11' j/
! : " ' I 'o. .,' ..' \ \ \ 'Q, .~ ' //
,.,'11,,1111\' ; 1.-'=1' ~~~
\ \'p~~' ;:---'/ r '-'\.
\ I ~.~ \ \. ..y-:.....\;..J ',-yT!/ i i ; ~. 'I ; \ "'~,
\ I"':;::" .~...!.,~di ~I '. ~-'
,,~;\'il.--...c' )..'-C'", '
,'. ,.~,.I'" __,I"~ /- ,.~I I \ /
.,., .,,/" - ,I ' , /
. --..!.:" I' ,--'~' '
, - ~"--,, f ,,~~' ' "
,:\\,\\\,-,;~rl!1 \ '~/~ ,"
"'~~iiii .....---.c~' 'III',' '1"\ \ / /,. "
,,,>' ,," ' , . ' ~
, , ~' " ~,- ' , '
'. - . K-' i~ :--".\' \ y'
,c\\'-,"~ u"", ,- , ' '
.' '\\'~~"~ \ .
\~i~ /~--'\ \ '
" 0. r II , ,.: ! Ii ! ~. \ '.' \
.' ~~'Jrf-l--i I " ~ ,.---.\ \ c.,----\ ~
,II! JJj/~~i) ~
_____ 'i ; I! / ! /I I: \1 \
f / i i! I i
I ~ ")
! ,
"
!
!
,I
,.
----
PROJECT \
lOCATION \
\~
\
,
\
\
\
\
\--------
\
,
~\\
, .
\ '.
. '
, \
/
\,
\
..i~~;
, "
ATTACHMENT 4
BHA. I~C.
M.W. ~,TEELE GRQlF. INC.
BASM~CIY AN'DARNELL lNG,
TIERR~ PlANNING & DESIGN
GILLE"PIE DELORENZO ASSOCIATES
~~
. - ----=-
=-- -
EXHIBIT 1
negative declaration
PROJECT K~\fE: Vi1la Serena Senior Apartments
ATTACHMENT 5
PROJECT LOCATION:
Medical Center Dr. at Naples Ct., Chula Vista, CA.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
640-070-40 & 641-110-58
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Chelsea Investment Corp.
215 S. Hwy. 101, Suite 200
Solana Beach, CA. 92075
CASE NO: IS-99-13
DATE:
December 17, 1998
A. Proiect Setting
The 4,14 acre project site is located within the Sunbow Planned Community. The Sunbow
Planned Community consists of 602 acres located east of I-80S south of Telegraph Canyo n
Road and north of the Otay Landfill. The following land uses presently surround the
project site: North: multi-family residential uses (across East Naples Ct,); West( across
Medical Center Drive): single family residences; East: future Veterans Retirement Horne
and the Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center property.
The site has been previously graded and is fully disturbed by human activity, The
project site therefore does not represent viable habitat land for any sensitive plant or
animal species nor as a vital cultural resource area.
B. Proiect Description
The project consists of the construction of 132 senior citizen apartment units located in
three separate clusters throughout the rectangular shaped 4,14 acre site. The project
proposes 112 single bedroom units and 20 two bedroom units, The project also proposes
the construction of a 3,200 sq. ft. community building, The apartment units will be
housed in two and three story buildings, The two-story apartment buildings will be
located along Medical Center Drive, the community building will be in the center portion
of the site and the three-story building will be located behind the community building to
the east. Two driveways off of Medical Center Drive and a total of 145 uncovered
parldng spaces (per code) for tenants and their guests are proposed, Landscaping will be
provided in accordance with the City's adopted Landscape Manual standards.
Project construction will also include the installation of street, sewer, drainage,
water and other public utility improvements, The dwelling units would comply with
applicable building code requirements, The one bedroom units are proposed to have an
~~rt-
-.-
r........~~
city 01 chula vista planning department 01Y OF
.....u,,.""""'_.......e.1 ...0.11_.... ...~.1..... r1-Il II A '''CiA
area of 560 square feet and the two bedroom units will have an area of 700 square feet.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The project proposes to provide affordable housing for seniors, utilizing the density bonus
provisions permitted by State Guidelines, The project as submitted would thus comply
with the policies of the Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan which promote
the utilization of development incentives to ensure local and regional affordable housing,
The project would also be in compliance with the development standards established for
the Sunbow Planned Community Plan and the Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan, The
project as proposed will require approval of a conditional use permit.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached
Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a
significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
will not be required, This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The following have been determined to have no impact or less than significant project
impacts, A discussion of these follows,
1, Public Services Impacts
Fire
The fire department will require the following improvements to the proposed
project:
1. Hammer head turnaround to be 90' X 25' X 25'
2, Fire alarm system required in all buildings
3. Class 1 standpipe system required in proposed three-story building
4, A fire hydrant shall be required at each driveway entrance,
Police
The police department indicates that they will be able to provide adequate service
to the proposed land use,
2
Schools
The Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High
School confirm that all of Sunbow is included in Community Facilities District
(CFD) No, 4. Participation in this CFD fully mitigates al project impacts on school
facilities,
2, Utility and Service Systems
Soils
A geotechnical study of the Sunbow Planned Community site was conducted by
Geocon (1986) and was updated 1987. The study concluded that no significant
geotechnical or soil constraints exist that could not be addressed by standard
planning, design, and construction practices, The closest known fault is the
potentially active La Nacion Fault which traverses the Sunbow Community Plan
Site in a northeast to southwest line. Because the La Nacion Fault is classified as
a potentially active fault, the risk of damaging ground shaking from a relatively
large event on this fault is considered to be extremely low during the lifetime of
the proposed structures, The applicant shall be required to prepare a soils report
as a standard condition of approval by the Engineering Division at the design
stage,
Drainage
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with these standards, The proposed project will comply
with this Threshold Policy, The City Engineering Division will evaluate on-site
and off-site drainage facilities at the design stage to ensure compliance,
Sewer
The project as proposed is not expected to create a need for any new utilities or
service systems, The Engineering Division indicates that existing sewer facilities
appear adequate to serve the proposed project. No adverse impacts to sewers are
noted,
3, Biolo~ical Resources
The project site has been previously disturbed by grading and earth moving
operations, The project site is therefore not considered to represent habitat for any
threatened or endangered plant or animal species, The area surrounding the
3
project site is also highly urbanized in nature. This project is not expected to
adversely impact any sensitive, endangered or threatened species of plant or
animal.
4, Land Use
The project proposes a density of approximately 31,8 units per acre for the 4,14
acre site, The original multi-family designation allowed for the development of 7 8
multi-family units on a 2,12 acre portion and a church site for the remaining 2 acre
portion, Combining the two sites and applying the State Density Bonus formula
enabled the applicant to propose the 132 dwelling units for low-income seniors in
perpetuity, The project will be required to comply with the conditions of approval
as part of the conditional use permit process, The nature of the propo sed use and
the opportunity to review the project design will lessen any potential land use
impacts to less than significant.
5. Traffic
The Engineering Division calculates the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) to be 528.
The project site is served by Medical Center Drive, a four-lane Class I Collector
which connects to Telegraph Canyon Road, a six-lane Prime Arterial. Both of
these roadways would remain at a Level of Service (L.D,S,) PC" with project
approval, Therefore there would be no noted adverse impacts to traffic from the
proposed project.
6, Air Duality
Short-tenn construction emissions (dust), and long-tenn emissions from residents'
vehicles would occur. Neither would be significant, construction is short tenn and
standard required measures to control dust would be implemented (watering the
soil); and vehicle emissions would be minor, given the nature of the project and
the projected Average Daily Traffic factor of 528, The project is also conveniently
located within proximity to transit facilities, and to service facilities, thus providing
opportunities for reduction in use of the automobile,
7, Aesthetics/Li~ht & Glare
The two and three story apartment buildings and parking lot would create new
light. There are no residences contiguous with the project site, Multi-family
residences are located across East Naples St. to the north and single family
residences are located across Medical Center Drive to the west, The applicant will
{Mc\home\planninglkcith\negdccromans)
p""
be required to submit a lighting plan as a standard condition of th e conditional use
pennit and design review process. The proposed three story apartment units will
have an approximate height of 35 feet. These units however will be placed
adjacent to a hill that extends upwards approximately 60 feet and separates the
project site from properties to the east, Building design, height, materials,
landscaping and proposed parking areas and lighting will be reviewed for
compliance with applicable City standards and compatibility with future
surrounding development. No adverse impact is noted,
E. Mitigation Necessary to A void Significant Effects
No mitigation will be required,
F. Consultation
1, Individuals and Or~anizatjons
City of Chula Vista: Jeff Steichen, Planning Division
Doug Reid, Planning Division
Benjamin Guerrero, Planning Division
Majed AI-Ghafry, Engineering
Samir Nuhaily, Engineering
Duane Bazzel, Planning Division
Garry Williams, Planning Division
Brad Remp, Building Division
Ed Thomas, Fire Department
Richard Preuss, Crime Prevention
Joe Gamble, Planning Division/Parks & Recreation Sec,
Peggy McCarberg, Acting Deputy City Attorney
Chula Vista City School District: Dr, Lowell Billings
Sweetwater Union High School District: Katy Wright
Applicant's Agent: William Hedenkamp
2, Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and E1R (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Sunbow GDP, SPA Plan
Sunbow GDP Final E1R-88-I
(M.\h~\pjanl1ing\ko:ith\negdec.romans)
Page5
3, Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any
comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the
public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista, Further information regarding
the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910,
EN 6 (Rev.
(M \home\pJanning\ko:ithmegdcc_romans)
6
Page6
5.
Case No. IS-99-13
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1.
Name of Proponent:
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
3.
Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
4.
Name of Proposal:
Date of Checklist:
1.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e,g" impacts to soils or farmlands, or
impacts from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a
low-income or minority community)?
Chelsea Investment Corp,
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
215 So, Hwy, 101, Suite 200
Solana Beach, California 92075
(619) 259-2624
Villa Serena Senior Apartments
December 15, 1998
Potentlal!y
Significant
Impact
PolenliaHy
Signiricant
Unless
Miligilted
Less Lhan
Significanl
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
181
No
Impact
o
181
181
181
Page No.1
Polcnlii:dly
Signlficanl
Jmpact
l'ol.cIIliiJ!ly
Signifl(:ant
Unless
Mitigaled
Less lhan
Significanl
Jmpact
No
Impact
Comments: The proposed construction of 132 senior citizen apartment units will be in
conformity with the multi-family designation by the General Development Plan and SPA Plan
for the Sun bow development project and the City's adopted Housing Element, The project
consists of new development which proposes to provide affordable housing for low and
moderate income seniors, The project as proposed is subject to the granting of a density bonus
per California State provisions, No impacts to agricultural operations or established
communities are noted,
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or 0 0 0 181
local population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 181
directly or indirectly (e,g" through
projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially 0 0 0 181
affordable housing?
Comments; The proposed project will not induce population growth or displace housing. The
project proposes the use of the site for apartment use by senior citizens. The proposal
represents an affordable housing project in a fully urbanized area which will help alleviate the
demand for affordable housing on a regional basis, No adverse impacts to housing or
population are noted,
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 181
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface 0 0 0 181
relief features?
Page No.2
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mud slides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
Comments: A geotechnical study of the Sun bow site was conducted by Geocon (1986) and
was updated in 1987, The study adequately addressed the geophysical issues, Based on the data
provided, there appear to be no significant geotechnical constrainsts that could not be properly
addressed by standard planning, design and construction practices. The closest known fault
is the potentially active La Nacion Fault which traverses the Sun bow site in a north-east to
southwest line, Because the La Nacion Fault is classified as a potentially active fault, the risk
of damaging ground shaking from a relatively large event on this fault is considered to be
extremely low during the lifetime of the proposed structures, The site is not currently within
a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone, The site will be subject to periodic seismic shaking from
earthquakes on remote faults, but the seismic risk is not greater for this site than for any other
average building site in the western portion of San Diego County that is located on firm
ground and not situated on a fault. A small insignificant landslide was mapped in the west-
centeral portion of the Sun bow site on a north facing canyon slope, However, underneath the
nearly flat project site underlies dense, bedrock units which are not prone to landsliding,
Potential geological! seismic impacts are deemed to have no adverse impact on the project as
proposed, No mitigation will be required other than that required by Final E.LR,-88-L
d) The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features?
Polcnlitllly
Pol~r:ui::lly Significant Less lhan
Slgniilc:anl Unless Signi[icanl No
Impacl Miligaled !mpact Impacl
0 0 0 181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
The preparation of a soils report shall be a standard requirement by the Engineering Division
and the recommendations shall be complied with prior to the commencement of any
construction activity including proposed structures, concrete slabs, driveways or sidewalks,
No mitigation shall be required,
Page No.3
Poler:~Ii:lly
SignifJc:ant
!1JI{)iicl
IJolr.nlijjjiy
Significanl
Unlc:s:s
Mitigaled
Less than
Signifir.ant
Impact
No
Impad
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 181 0
panerns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 181
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 181
alteration of surface water quality (e,g"
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in 0 0 0 181
any water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 181
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
Q Change in the quantity of ground waters, 0 0 0 181
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 181
water otherwise available for public water
supplies?
Page No.4
Poledlally
Signiilcanl
Irnpad
l'olcnll(JJiy
Significanl
Unless
MiLigalcd
Less thaI!
Signjfjcanl
Impacl
'0
Impacl
Comments: The Engineering Division indicates that the site is not located within a flood plain, The
Engineering Division indicates that there is an existing B.2 curb inlet north of Medical Center Court
which connects to a 18" ACP, The drainage facility will need to be evaluated at the design stage for
grading, drainage and connections. The project will not be required to develop and implement a storm
water pollution plan (SWPP), but will be required to comply with Chapter 14,20 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, relating to management practices associated with construction activity, No adverse
impacts to water or drainage are noted. No mitigation will be required,
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or cause any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary
or non-stationary sources of air emissions
or the deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) calculated to be generated by the proposed
senior citizen apartment project is estimated to be 528, Due to the relative low number of trips
no significant impacts to air quality are cited, Short-term construction emissions (dust), and
long-term emissions from residents' vehicles would occur. Neither would be significant, as
construction is short term and standard required measures to control dust would be
implemented (watering the soil); and vehicle emissions would be minor since the project
invovles seniors who would not be relying significantly on privately owned vehicles,
Additionally the project site is located conveniently to transit facilities, and to service facilities,
thus providing opportunities for reduction in use of private vehicles, No mitigation will be
required,
o
o
~
o
VI.
TRANSPORTATION !CIRCULA TION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic
congestion?
o
o
~
o
Page No.5
IlolcnliilJly
Jiol!:r.llaJiy Significant Less lhan
Slgr.lflc:anl Unlcss Significant No
Irr:pact MiligiJled Impact Impact
b) Hazards to safety from design features 0 0 0 181
(e,g" sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g"
farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- 0 0 0 181
site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181
alternative transportation (e,g, bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181
Management Program? (An equivalent of
2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or
200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips,)
Comments: Based on the proposed use the total ADT for the project is calculated to be 528,
The traffic generated would not adversely impact the surrounding primary access roads
including Medical Center Drive a four-lane Class I Collector and Telegraph Canyon Road, a
six-lane Prime Arterial, Both of these would remain with a Level of Service (LO.5) "C", No
adverse impacts to traffic or circulation are noted for this project, No mitigation will be
required,
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e,g" heritage 0 0 0 181
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities 0 0 0 181
(e,g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc,)?
Page No.6
Polentlally
J'Ol::LLIc.lly SignificiJul Lcsslllilll
SigniiJcanl Unless Significanl No
Impact Miligaled Impact Impact
d) Wetland habitat (e,g" marsh, riparian and 0 0 D 181
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 D D 181
fj Affect regional habitat preservation 0 D D 181
planning efforts?
Comments: The project site and surrounding developed area are located in a fully urbanized
community and contain no native habitat, The site has been paved and portions of it are being
used as a parking area and temporary construction office units, No animal or plant species
listed as rare, threatened or endangered by local, State or Federal resource conservation and
regulatory agencies are known to be present on this fully disturbed parceL No adverse impacts
to biological resources are noted, No mitigation will be required,
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 D D 181
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 D D 181
and inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral 0 D D 181
resource protection, will this project
impact this protection?
Comments: No evidence has been provided that indicates that the project will use non.
renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. No adverse impacts to non-
renewable resources are noted,
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
o
D
D
181
o
D
D
181
Page No.7
Polcnlially
Polenlii:dly Signiflcilnt Lcsslhan
Signiflcanl Unlcs~ Significant No
Impacl Miligaled Impact Impacl
c) The creation of any health hazard or D D D 181
potential health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of D D D 181
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with D D D 181
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The residential land use project as proposed would not pose a health hazard to
humans, No hazardous materials or substances will be stored on site, Therefore, there cannot
be a risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset
condition, No mitigation will be required,
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? D D D 181
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? D 0 0 181
Comments: Temporary construction noise would occur at the site, however, the short term
nature of the noise, and the fact that the proposed use is residential in nature render the
potential noise factor to less than significant, No significant adverse noise impacts are noted,
No mitigation is required.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal
have an effect upon, or result in a need for new
or altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? D D 0 181
b) Police protection? D D D 181
c) Schools? D D D 181
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including D D 0 181
roads?
e) Other governmental services? D 0 0 181
Page No.8
Pol!::nlJaJiy
Signifl:::anl
Jrr:piwl
Ilol(:nlliJJi)
Significant
lJ n h~ss
MiLigalcd
Less Lhall
Significi1nl
Impact
No
Impact
Comments: Both school districts indicate that the proposed Sunbow senior citizen residential
project is included in Community Facilities Disrict (CFD) No, 4, Participation in this CFD
fully mitigates all project impacts on school facilities, The project would not have an effect
upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services, Fire and Police Department
indicate that they would be able to provide adequate service to this proposed project, The
Police Department indicates that the response times for both Priority 1 & 2 calls are slightly
above the recommended response thresholds,
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the
following Threshold Standards,
D
Q
o
[gI
a) Fire/ELMS
o
o
o
[gI
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to
respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes
or less in 75% of the cases, The City of Chula Vista Fire Department indicates that
the nearest fire station is 2 miles away and that this threshold standard will be met,
The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments: The Fire Department states that the following will be required as standard
conditions: a Class 1 standpipe system, fire alarm system in all buildings, firre hydrants in each
driveway, and the proposed hammerhead turn-around shall have the following dimensions 90'
x 25' x 25',
b) Police
D
o
[gI
o
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority
1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority
1 calls of 4,5 minutes or less, Police units must respond to 62,10% of Priority 2 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls
of 7 minutes or less, The Police Department response time for both Priority 1 and
Priority 2 calls within the vicinity of the proposed project do not currently comply
with this Threshold Standard,
Page No.9
]Iolr:nlii:lly
Significanl
Impact
PolcnliiJI i~
Significant
tJnlcsf;
Miligaled
Less lhan
SignificlIlIl
Impact
,,,
Impact
Comments: The police Department indicates that adequate service can be provided to the
project site. Crime prevention personnel are available to assist the Project Manager with
recommendations and input regarding this project, The average response times for both
Priority 1 and 2 calls are slightly above the recommended service response thresholds, No
mitigation will be required,
c) Traffic
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D"
may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections,
Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS, No
intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard,
This Threshold Standard does not apply to the proposed project.
Comments: No adverse impacts to traffic/circulation are noted from the project as
proposed, See Section VI (Transportation/Circulation) above,
d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 181
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,000 population. This
Threshold Standard will apply to the proposed project,
Comments: No adverse impacts to parks or recreational opportunities are noted, The
applicant will be required to pay the required park fees and this will satisfy any Park and
RecreationThreshold Standard requirements,
e) Drainage
o
o
181
o
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide
necessary improvements consistent with City Engineering Standards, The
proposed project does comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments: The Engineering Division indicates that existing on-site and off.site drainage
facilities will be reviewed prior to construction, Additional minor installations of inlets along
the street right-of-way may be necessary in order to complete street dedication and
improvements along Medical Center Drive,
Page No. 10
Polcnl1ally
I'Dlt!;ti;:lly SigniricanL Less Lhan
Significanl Unless SignificanL No
Impact Miligillcd ImpacL Impact
e) Sewer 0 ~ 0
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide
necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards, The project will comply with this Threshold
Standard,
Comments: The proposed project is not expected to create a need for any new utilities or
service systems. A 10" vcp flows northerly to Telegraph Canyon Road and connects to an 18"
line, The Engineering Department indicates that existing sewer facilities appear adequate to
serve the proposed project, No adverse impacts to sewers are noted.
f) Water
o
o
o
~
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction, The proposed
project does comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments: No adverse impacts to water quality are noted from project approval.
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 ~
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 ~
c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 ~
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 ~ 0
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 ~ 0
Page No. II
fj Solid waste disposal?
!'oler;lIi1lly
SlgnifJciJnl
IlJiDi1cl
o
PolcrltiiJlly
SignificiJlll
Unless
Mitigated
o
Less than
Significant
Impact
o
No
Impact
181
Comments: This project will not result in a need for new systems, nor result in alterations
in any utilities,
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would tbe proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to
the public or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect?
d) Create added light or glare sources that
could increase the level of sky glow in an
area or cause this project to fail to comply
with Section 19,66,100 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
181
o
181
181
181
o
181
Comments: The project will be subject to the review and recommendations of the Design
Review Committee, Building design, height, materials, landscaping and proposed parking will
be reviewed for compliance with applicable standards and compatibility with future
surrounding development and land uses and its visual impact along Medical Center Drive, No
mitigation will be required,
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would tbe
proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of
or the destruction or a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure or object?
o
o
o
o
o
o
181
181
Page No. 12
e) Is the area identified on the City's General
Plan EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments: The project site is graded and is found in a fully disturbed condition. The
adjacent properties are fully disturbed as welL No adverse impacts to cultural resources are
noted,
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: No paleontological resources have been identified on or near the project, which
is located in a fully developed urban setting,
c) Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact
area)
Polclllliill}
Polcnlli:dly Significanl LcssLhill1
Sipljficanl Unless Significanl ~o
ImpiJel MiliglJlcd Impad Jmpacl
0 0 0 r8I
o
o
o
r8I
o
o
o
r8I
o
o
o
r8I
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 r8I
regional parks or other recreational
facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 r8I
c) Interfere with recreation parks & 0 0 0 r8I
recreation plans or programs?
Comments: No adverse impacts to Parks or Recreational Plans are noted,
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative
Declaration for mandatory findings of
significance. If an EIR is needed, this section
should be completed,
Page No. 13
Po!.enli"Jly
Sigmficant
Impi"::::t
j)OLCI1!.ldlly
SJgnificiJnl
Unle~~
Miligaled
Less lhilll
31gnificunl
Impacl
~o
Impacl
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments: The project site is in a fully developed urban setting. The project site has been
completely disturbed by human activity, No impacts to wildlife population, habitat or
cultural/historical resources are noted,
o
o
o
181
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals?
Comments: The project does not have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals
to the disadvantage of long-term goals, The project is consistent with both the General
Development Plan and SPA Plan for the Sun bow Plan,
o
o
o
181
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects,)
Comments: The project does not have any Impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable,
o
o
o
181
Page No. 14
d) Does the project have environmental effect
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the
project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly,
Potential I}
jlol::~,llaJly Significant Less lhil/1
Signifl:::ant Unless Significant No
Irr:pacl Miligilled Jrnpar.l Impact
0 0 0 181
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
No mitigation measures will be required for this project.
XX. ENVIRONMENTAL F ACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages,
D Land Use and
Planning
D Population and
Housing
D T ransportation/ Circulation
D Public Services
D Biological Resources
D Utilities and Service
Systems
D Aesthetics
D Geophysical
D Energy and Mineral
Resources
D Water
D Hazards
D Cultural Resources
D Air Quality
D Noise
D Recreation
D Mandatoty Findings of Significance
Page No. 15
XXI. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DE CLARA TION will be prepared,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DE CLARA TION will be prepared,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IM:PACT REPORT is required,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,
if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated," An ENVIRONMENTAL IM:PACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record
of this determination,
f1-:~~~/
Enviro~ental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
j 2/;sh~
, /
Date
~
o
o
o
o
Page No. 16
"........-.. ....._---~_._.-----._-_..._._-,_... "- -'._... _.. .-
Sent By: CHELSEA INV. j
619259 1136;
APPENDIX B
1 9 No V ~..
5:42PM;Job 256;page 2/5
ATTACHMENT 6
'1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE srA't'EMENT
You II(lc requirc:4 10 file a Slalcmenl of Disclosurc of cznain awncf5hip or financial inlerest5, paymeRl.S, or gmpaign
eon,r.,...io,"", o~ all mane~ which will re<juire discrelional)' aCli,," un Ibe pan of Ihe City Council, Planll,n!: Commls.sioD, and
all olher official boI1ics, The folllJ\l/ing informal ion mus. be disclD5c:d:
1.
2,
3,
Ust <be Dames "f all persons bavio.g a financial inleresl in Ihe property ""bieh is Ihe ~ubjc;a of Ihe applicatiOIl Dr Ihe
COlllraCl, e.g.. CIMIeT. applidllu, co~lraClor, subcon<raclor, material supplier,
~/PI(!.,SA/i" fiWti""~1JTrf
~PAItWr ~I26IJ
U-'f K.1"'~ L,fl-( 1':> C6m #;:;"H
IA/E1:;711617 t!..64-~
~V'U~ U..r-
J., t"ffd-~A
€.<~1It1t
t.
"
JC any person' identified pursuant 10 (1) aboVe is a ..,rporalior> Dr panllership.listlhe ".m"" of all individuals owning
more tun 10'% of the ibarc;s in Ihe COll'Oralion or owning allY par1nershlp inleresl in me pannership.
.I. )(f; rid- tI1 t!-N6-
-:; . -::::r ~E:SSc:.fln1/ i)
G.H-M~<;' 5?Hffl If)
If a~y person. idelltlfied pun;uaDt to (1) a_ is r>on-profit organi23tlon or a tr\lSt, Ust the names ot any person
SCMllg as direclOr of the non-profit organizalion or 3$ trUStee or beneficiary or trllSlOr of tbe trW\I,
l2-uSS~J-l... j;,J.e~ 1TI1c.wn:~ vJlJ-~
~", "/HD'f1IP.s.~,.)
R..lc..J~~.)) rnDJ
4,
Have: you bad more tban S250 WOMh of businr:ss 113nsaclcd wllh "ny member of the Cil}' start. Board!;, Commissions,
Commiuccs, and Council wilhin tbe pas, "",elv" months? Y"'_ No..!:.. If yes, please indical" pc::rson(s): -
5,
Please Idelllil'y each and every pen;or>, iIIeluding any ..genIS, employe;e:s, consultants, or iDdepclldent CXlDlraelon; who
you bave assigned 10 represent you before 'he Cily in this Dlaller.
~ll P 111 11 re~M"1
151 t"V rIWCJ.J ~ f
~~ I3I..U M
':'1 C.K... .&L- T€"
6,
Haw you and/or yollr olfi=rs or agenu., ill the aggreple, contributed IIIOTe tban Sl,IJOO to a Coundlmelllber ID tbe
o::urrcnt or p~iIIg election pc::riod? YC5_ No~ If yes. Slate: ""bid> Collnc:ilmcmher(s):
Dale:
/lJII/t1t
r I
. . . (NO'TE:
Anadt IIddIUIIDaI "pm, ) . . .
... if? .( ~;:J
, . ~
Signature of CXlDlrac:torla~nt
.-!::JI ~LIPJn (f. IJ CbJiAJ k,Ar"1'-
Print or 1)'pC name of CXlnltac:tor/appllcanl
. ,~ud<fin""''' .Any-.....l.fimI, -_.;.;p.i--'" __........_w-.fr-...J ....WdIi.... <~ ----,.........
dw T'" -'Y' -.-..0'. .u, _ '""""'Y. ..., ......~. 1tiIIPi.. "'...... "",*.J ............ "'..., ..... ".,.." '" --- ....., lIS. ......
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: -.3
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM 97-11; Request to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One for Phase Seven (Purple Phase) of the Village One
Core and Village One West including the Planned Community District
Regulations; Village Design Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Master Plan; Public Facilities Finance Plan; Affordable Housing Plan; and
the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan,
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan for the Village One
Core - Phase Seven (Purple Phase), and the area of Village One west of Pas eo Ranchero (Village
One West), The SPA One amendment implements the recently approved Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (GDP) Amendments for Village One and Village One West. The Village One
Core area is 95 acres, expands the development area in Phase Seven (Purple Phase) consistent with
the GDP amendment and modifies the design of the "Main Street" concept. The Village One West
amendment adds approximately 296.5 total developable acres and corresponding increase in the
number of units in the area west of Pas eo Ranchero,
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PCM 97-11 recommending the City Council
approve the amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and Resolution No, PCM 98-02
recommending City Council approve the amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) will meet on February 1, 1999 to discuss the
proposed amendments to the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan, Staff will report on the RCC
recommendations at the Planning Commission meeting,
BACKGROUND:
1. Site Characteristics
The Village Core area of Village One is still characterized by rolling hills with scenic canyons and
undulating edge conditions, The Village One Core area was dry farmed in the past while cattle
grazing occurred in the Village One West area, The Village One area north of East Palomar
Street is currently under development with the construction of single-family homes and Heritage
Park, The Village Core amendment is in Phase Seven (Purple Phase) south of East Palomar Street,
The Village One West area has several canyons that contain native habitat. As part of the recent
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
GDP amendments, the wildlife agencies have authorized the "taking" of this habitat in exchange
for habitat in the Proctor Valley Parcel and the San Y sidro Parcel.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
General Plan
The General Plan designations for the Village One Core are Village Core (VC) and Low Medium
Village (LMV), The Village One West area is designated Low Medium (LM), The Otay Ranch
GDP for Village One designates the core area as Mixed Use (MU) with surrounding Medium
High density (18 DUs/acre). The MU designation contains the commercial, community purpose
facility, park and elementary school uses, The GDP designation for the Village One West area
was recently amended to expand the Low Medium development area to approximately 200 acres
with a density of up to 4,0 DUs/acre.
Rancho del Rey SPA Three is located to the north of Village One, The Rancho del Rey Middle
School and Voyager Park are located directly to the north. Village Five of the Otay Ranch is
located to the east and has similar General Plan and GDP designations as Village One, Village
Two is located to the south and has similar designations except that Village Two is not a transit
village, so the maximum multi-family density is 14,5 DUs/acre, The Sunbow master planned
community is located to the west of Village One West. The area adjacent to Village One West is
designated for single-family homes on 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots.
Zoning
The Otay Ranch, within the City, is zoned Planned Community (PC) as is Sunbow and Rancho
del Rey, Land development regulations are contained in the Planned Community District
Regulations within each master planned community SPA plan. The area adjacent to the Otay
Ranch SPA One Plan is planned for single-family homes in Sunbow and a middle school and park
in Rancho del Rey. No development regulations have been proposed for Village Two in the Otay
Ranch since a SPA plan has yet to be prepared,
Current Land Use
The Village Core of Village One is currently vacant and undeveloped south of East Palomar
Street, although there is some storage of construction equipment on this portion of the village,
Village One West is vacant and unimproved, although cattle grazing has occurred recently, The
Sunbow property, adjacent to Village One West, is also vacant and unimproved. To the north,
Rancho del Rey Middle School is open and Voyager Park is scheduled to open in the near fu ture,
Village Two to the south is still used for agricultural purposes.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
3. Proposed Plan
The SPA One Plan amendment proposes land use changes in the Village One Core - Phase Seven
(Purple Phase), and the addition of the Village One West area into the SPA Plan, The SPA One
Plan amendments reflect the Otay Ranch GDP amendments adopted by the City Council on
November 10, 1998. The SPA One land use plan for the Village One - Phase Seven (Purple
Phase) is modified to reflect the MSCP agreement between the applicant and the resource
agencies. The revised land use plan includes an expanded development area with single-family
units to the south, In addition, the Village Core "Main Street" theme is implemented along East
Palomar Street with diagonal parking fronting the commercial/mixed use area across from the 11-
acre Heritage Park,
In addition, the amendment proposes transferring units from Village One proper to Village One
West. When the SPA One Plan was approved in June of 1996, the project applicant, Village
Development (now know as The Otay Ranch Company), did not utilize all of the single-family
units authorized by the GDP for Villages One and Five. Not all of the units were allocated
because the applicant chose to plan a variety of single-family lot sizes.
The Otay Ranch Company SPA One Plan application proposed 2,878 units in Village One
exclusive of Village One West. Of this amount, 1,422 are multi-family and 1,456 are single-
family, 188 units less than authorized by the GDP. In their current proposal, Otay Ranch
Company requests that these unallocated units be distributed in the two multi-family
neighborhoods in Phase Seven (Purple Phase), and the balance transferred to the Village One West
area.
A. Village One Core - Phase Seven (Purple Phase)
Discussion:
The Otay Ranch Company proposes to amend the SPA One Plan appl ication to allocate all of the
multi-family units authorized by the GDP for Village One, The SPA One Plan (approved in June
of 1996) allocated all of the GDP required 1,566 multi-family units in the Village One Core, This
number of multi-family units was based on the Medium High designation in the GDP designation
of 18 dwelling units per acre. The GDP was recently amended to provide flexibility in the number
of multi-family units provided sufficient multi-family densities were approved to support the light
rail transit line, Otay Ranch Company originally applied for 1,422 units in the core but have
amended their application to request 1,512 dwelling units, an increase of 90 units in Phase Seven
of the Plan.
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
Phase Seven of SPA One is located south of East Palomar Street and contains Neighborhoods R-
15, R-16, R-17, R-18, R-19, R-47 and R-48, The amendment proposes the following areas and
densities:
Neighborhood Land Use Area DUs Density
R-15/CPF-2 MF/CPF 16,3 ac/4,5 ac 464 28.6 DUs/ac
R-16 MF 14.5 ac 115 7,9 DUs/ac
R-l7 SF 17.1 ac 99 5,8 DUs/ac
R-18 SF 10,3 ac 74 7,2 DUs/ac
R-19 MF 6,8 ac 204 30,0 DUs/ac
R-47/CPF-l/C-l MF/CPF/C 4,4 ac/l.5 ac/8.1 ac 174 39.5 DUs/ac
R-48 SF 16,5 ac 97 5,9 DUs/ac
100,1 ac 1,512
Neighborhood R-15/CPF-2
This 16.3-acre site is planned for a multi-family project of up to 408 dwelling units, The plan
proposes a floating 4,5-acre CPF site, most likely for a church, The floating designation allows
for a combination church/affordable housing project. If only a church is proposed, staff would
encourage it to locate on the southeast corner of Santa Andrea and Eas t Palomar Street, A paseo
with emergency access will extend along the south side of the neighborhood connecting
Neighborhood R-14 with the Village Core. Private access through R-15 is proposed from Santa
Alicia.
Nei~hborhood R-16
This neighborhood is proposed as a multi-family site at a low density of 7,9 dwelling units per
acre in order to facilitate single-family homes served by an alley similar to Neighborhood R-14,
The SPA One conditions of approval require any SPA amendments to propose an alley product.
Alley products have a strong pedestrian orientation because no garages front on the street,
Neighborhood R-l7
This neighborhood expands the development area of Village One along Poggi Canyon as provided
for in the recent GDP amendment. The proposal changes the land use from multi-family to single-
family, The neighborhood is further from the transit station and outside the l/4-mile radiu s to the
station. This change is consistent with the amendments approved last year for McMillin,
Neighborhood R-18
Neighborhood R-18 is also proposed as a single-family neighborhood but at a slightly higher
density of 7.2 dwelling units per acre,
,. .,.--,--_... --.---...-- .. ._---~_.._._--
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
Nei~hborhood R-19
This neighborhood remains as a multi-family site and as a target site for the affordable housing
location for this Village and Telegraph Canyon Estates, The proposed density of 25 dwelling units
per acre will support the transit station. The future project will be oriented toward East Palomar
Street and Santa Helena,
Nei~hborhood R-47/CPF-I/C-I
This neighborhood is the mixed use center of the Village Core, The commercial ground floor
frontage along East Palomar Street will provide for the day-to-day needs of the village residents,
A multi-story medical office building with a first floor pharmacy is under consideration for the
corner of East Palomar Street and Santa Andrea,
Nei~hborhood R-48
This single family neighborhood is proposed at a similar density to R-17 at 5,9 DUs/acre. The
neighborhood is outside the 1/4-mile service radius of the transit station,
Analysis:
The proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan by the Otay Ranch Company focus
on Phase Seven (Purple Phase) of Village One and Village One West. The changes to Phase Seven
(Purple Phase) deal with changes to the original "Main Street" concept and the expansion of
development areas allowed by the recent GDP amendments, The approved SPA One Plan
provided a "Main Street" running south from East Palomar Street to the south edge of the village,
While a CPF site was planned at the end of the street, there was not a destinat ion for residents of
the village, The applicant was concerned that residents would not use the commercial activities
since there was nothing to draw them down the street. The applicant proposed to re-orient the
"Main Street" to East Palomar Street. The proposal is to orient the commercial uses to East
Palomar Street frontage and provide diagonal parking on East Palomar Street with additional
parking in the back, The commercial is proposed to be a true mixed use with two to three stories
of residential units located above the ground floor commercial.
Staff believes that, under the previous plan, "Main Street" did not go to a particular destination,
and there would be difficulty drawing residents down the street, while under the current plan, a
significant amount of pedestrian activity will occur along East Palomar Street, There are two lanes
for traffic so the diagonal parking will not create problems with traffic backing on East Palomar
Street. MTDB staff believes there is sufficient density in R-47 to support the transit line. In
addition, the applicant is now proposing additional units in R-15 and R-19 to exceed the threshold
for transit oriented development.
The other major change in Phase Seven (Purple Phase) is the expansion of the development area
authorized by the recent GDP amendment that allowed the "taking" of the habitat along the north
side of Poggi Canyon. The expansion of the development area allow s for the provision of single-
family homes on the south side of the Village Core, The densities are stepped down from the cor e
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
in accordance with GDP policies, The single family areas are outside the 1/4 mile service radius
for the transit station, In accordance with the SPA One conditions of approval, an additional area
of alley product is proposed for R -16,
The multi-family neighborhoods in R-15, R-19 and R-47 will all have public street access, A
guarded entrance is proposed on the draft Tentative Map for the single-family homes in Phase
Seven (Purple Phase) similar to the single-family neighborhoods on the north side of East Palomar
Street. Additional internal access will be provided through R-15 to the other guarded entrance on
the south side of East Palomar Street.
Issues:
Guarded Entrances:
The SPA Plan indicates one guarded entrance for Village One on the south side of East Palomar
Street. City staff was concerned over the continued use of restricting access to these
neighborhoods and took the issue to the Executive Committee, After reviewing the issue the
Executive Committee decided to support the applicant's proposal for guarded entrances in Phase
Seven to be consistent with the north side of East Palomar Street. All the other SPA One level
issues have been resolved to staff's satisfaction for Phase Seven (Purple Phase), Several details
of the project need to be resolved at the tentative map level, which staff is continuing to discuss
with the applicant.
Conclusion for Phase Seven:
Staff believes the SPA One amendments for Phase Seven, proposed by the applicant are consistent
with the Otay Ranch GDP policies and recommends approval of the amendments,
B. Village One West
Discussion:
The SPA One amendment proposes to add the development area to Village One West, as well as
increase the allowable number of dwelling units, densities and development area authorized for
Village One West. This portion of Village One is located west of Paseo Ranchero, south of
Telegraph Canyon Road, north of the proposed extension of Olympic Parkway and east of the
existing Sunbow residential development. East Palomar Street is proposed to be extended through
Village One West from Sunbow to the Village One Core, In addition, the proposed future
extension of the light rail transit runs through the northern section of Village One West from
Telegraph Canyon Road southeast to connect into the East Palomar Street median, This portion
of Village One also has multiple ownerships,
Village One West, as adopted in the Otay Ranch GDP amendment on November 10, 1998,
approved a development area of approximately 237 acres. This amendment authorized 803 single-
family residential units and a density of 4,0 DDs per acre, It also provided a 5.0-acre
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
neighborhood park, a lO,O-acre elementary school and open space,
The Otay Ranch Company has proposed that the amended SPA One Plan for Village One West
include 890 single-family residential units, a lO,7-acre elementary school site, a 5. I-acre
neighborhood park, 56 acres of open space and 26 acres of circulation on a total of 296,5 acres.
Entry cottages (guard entries) are included at four main entrances to the residential neighborhoods
south and north of East Palomar Street. The right-of-way for the light rail transit is reserved
through the northern portion of Village One West.
The SPA One amendment for Village One West proposes 14 neighborhoods designed for varying
densities of single-family residential land use, Neighborhoods R-49A, R-49B, R-50, R-51A, R-
51B, R-52A and R-52B are proposed north of East Palomar Street. Neighborhoods R-53, R-54,
R-55, R-56A, R-56B, R-57, R-58, R-59 and R-60 are proposed for south of East Palomar Street,
Outparcelland areas under different ownership have been included by The Otay Ranch Company
with various single-family residential densities in Neighborhoods R-49B, R-51B, R-52B and R-
56B. The amendment proposes the following densities in each residential neighborhood:
Neiehborhood Land Use Area DUs Densitv
R-49A SF 15,1 ac. 88 5,8 DUs/ac
R -49B(Ross) SF 4.0 ac 27 6,8 DUs/ac
R-50 SF 21.5 ac, 86 4,0 DUs/ac
R-51A SF 16,9 ac, 66 3.9 DUs/ac
R-51B(deGraaf) SF 7,6 ac 27 3.6 DUs/ac
R-52A SF 17.1 ac, 66 3.9 DUs/ac
R-52B(Ross) SF 1.8 ac 8 3.3 DUs/ac
R-53 SF 9,1 ac, 36 4,0 DUs/ac
R-54A SF 2,6 ac, 9 3,5 DUs/ac
R-54B(Gerhardt) SF 5.2 ac, 28 5.4 DUs/ac
R-55 SF 18,7 ac 94 5.0 DUs/ac
R-56 SF 14,6 ac 77 5.3 DUs/ac
R-57 SF 4,3 ac. 22 5,1 DUs/ac
R-58 SF 19.4 ac. 69 3,6 DUs/ac
R-59 SF 14,9 ac. 64 4.3 DUs/ac
R-60 SF 18.4 ac, 88 4,8 DUs/ac
190,6 ac, 855
In addition to the proposed residential neighborhoods, a IO,2-acre school site (S-3), proposed to be
located at the southwest intersection of East Palomar Street and Paseo Ranchero, is designed to
accommodate an elementary school with access from East Santa Carina, A 5, I-acre neighborhood
park (Park P-13) is proposed to be located south of the East Palomar Street extension at the western
boundary of Village One West adjacent to the Sunbow development on the Gerhardt property,
----""..."---_. -...-....-.......--.... .-- ',---, ..-
Page 8, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
The Otay Ranch GDP policies require Village One West to be compatible with the adjacent Sunbow
development, and may differ from the rest of Village One. In addition to adding the Village One
West development area to the Otay Ranch SPA One, the amendment includes The Otay Ranch
Company proposing to transfer a number of units and increase the land densities approved in the
GDP. They propose to transfer 87 units to Village One West from Village One increasing the unit
count ttom 803 to 890, The GDP prohibits transfers between villages, but permits transfers within
a single village, The Otay Ranch Company has proposed several constraints with the transfer of 87
units to Village One West:
. requiring compliance with the GDP landform grading policy;
. ensuring impacts ttom Village One to Village One West are mitigated, and;
. complying with the GDP policy to ensure that Village One West is compatible with
the Sunbow development.
Analysis:
The proposed amendment adds Village One West to the SPA One Plan and increases the density and
lot count from 803 to 890 by transferring 87 units to Village One West from Village One east of
Paseo Ranchero, Staff concerns have been concentrated on respecting the Otay Ranch GDP policies
for Village One West including:
. utilizing landform grading;
. maintaining overall residential density, and;
. designing Village One West to be compatible with the adjacent Sunbow
development.
According to the applicant's traffic engineer, the transfer of 87 units from Village One to Village
One West does not create any additional traffic impacts that were identified in the Environmental
Impact Report (ElR-97-03) certified on November 10, ]998, The traffic counts that would be
associated with a transfer of units to Village One West were accounted for in the traffic analysis
completed for the entire SPA One,
Staff has expressed concerns about this transfer from Village One to Village One West because of
the following issues:
. Village One West is subject to Otay Ranch GDP landform grading policies, The
proposed SPA One amendment increases the development boundaries as provided
for in the] 996 GDP amendment.
Page 9, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
. The west side of Paseo Ranchero has a LM land use classification, not the LMV
classification contained on the east side in Village One. The GDP for Village One
West was not intended to have Village policies applied with small single-family lot
SIzes,
. Village One West is intended to be compatible with the adjacent Sunbow
development character utilizing larger lots and lower densities. Sunbow has 5,000
and 6,000 square foot lots adjacent to Village One West.
Issues:
Unit Count and Landform Grading:
Staff is concerned with the transfer of a large number of units, increase in density, compatibility to
Sunbow and compliance with the General Plan landfonn grading policy (Attachment 5) in Village
One West. The Otay Ranch Company has submitted a Tentative Map which proposes 818 lots for
Village One West. This tentative map does not include Neighborhoods R-54A or R-54B which have
37 units proposed on the SPA application for a total of 855 in Village One West. They have
decreased the unit count from an original application of 853 lots to 818 on the Tentative map in an
attempted to address staff concerns on the landfonn grading policy associated with slopes adjacent
to Telegraph Canyon Road, Paseo Ranchero, and more importantly, Olympic Parkway. Preserving
the natural canyons and slopes is critical to ensure the landfonn compatibility and transition from
the adjacent Sunbow development. The current proposed tentative map does not address the
landfonn grading policy to staffs' satisfaction, Staff believes there will need to be a further
reductions in lots along Olympic Parkway to fully comply with the landfonn grading policy, An
additional 10 lots along Olympic Parkway will need to be eliminated from the proposed tentative
map to confonn to the policies, Therefore, staff could support 808 units on the Otay Ranch
Company's portion of Village One West. With the addition of the 37 units in Neighborhoods R-54A
and R-54B, staff supports total unit count for Village One West of 845 instead of the 855 proposed
by the applicant. Staffs recommendation will require a transfer of 42 lots from Village One,
Guarded Entrances
The SPA Plan indicates four guarded entrances for Village One West. City staff was concerned with
the continued use of guarded entrances, restricting access to these neighborhoods. Staff took the
issue to the City Manager's Executive Committee for review, The Executive Committee supported
the guarded entrances in Village One West based on the applicant's desire to keep Village One West
similar to Village One,
Conclusion for Village One West:
Staff believes that the transfer of 52 units will not enable the applicant to comply with the Sunbow
compatibility policies, or the landfonn grading policies along Poggi Canyon. Staff would
recommend the transfer of 42 units to bring the total unit count for Village One West to 845 single-
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
family units, Compliance with the landform grading policies will determine the number of units on
the tentative map,
C. Planned Community (PC) District Regulations
The PC District Regulations are modified to reflect the Village One - Phase Seven (Purple Phase)
revisions and to incorporate the development area of Village One West into the SPA One Plan, The
SF4 designation has been applied to the residential uses in Village One West. The regulations reflect
a minor revision to the multi-family RM2 Zone parking requirement. Consistent with a revision
previously approved for the McMillin Otay Ranch ownership, the parking ratio was reduced from
2,5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit to 2.25 spaces per 3 bedroom unit. This represents a 10% reduction,
Because of the transit orientation of the SPA Plan, staff supports the modification,
D. Village One West Design Plan
A Village Design Plan has been prepared to address the identity and character of the Village One
West area, The Otay Ranch GDP provides that Village One West should be compatible with Sunbow
and may differ from the character of a transit oriented village. The land use design provides a
transition between the Sunbow II development to the west and the transit, pedestrian oriented Village
One to the east. Many of the design techniques implemented in Village One are included in the
Village One West Design Plan,
Single-family homes are arranged in neighborhoods along tree-lined streets. Cul-de-sac designs are
incorporated into the community to provide variety along the perimeter ofthe community. There
shall be no variation from the City Street Design Standard if any SPA One residential street is
approved as public, The Design Plan provides guidelines for perimeter landscaping, entryways,
interior streetscapes, non-vehicular circulation, parks, walls, fences and lighting,
E. SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan
The SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan is modified to reflect the
revised Village One land use plan and to incorporate the Village One West area, One private
pedestrian park has been added to the Village One - Phase Seven (Purple Phase). In addition, a 5,1-
acre public park has been added within the Village One West area adjacent to the Sunbow
elementary school site.
F. Affordable Housing Plan
The GDP requires the enactment of an Affordable Housing Plan concurrent with the adoption of
each SPA Plan. The SPA One Affordable Housing Plan is modified to reflect current circumstances,
Specifically, it has been expanded to include Village One West and revised to reflect the change in
the number of dwelling units in the Phase Seven (Purple Phase) of Village One, Additionally, the
Page 11, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
Plan is updated to reflect the McMillin Companies and The Otay Ranch Company Affordable
Housing Agreements enacted after the adoption of the initial SPA One Plan. The above changes
do not constitute procedural or substantive changes to the initial SPA One Affordable Housing Plan.
G. SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan
The SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) is modified to reflect the revised Village One -
Phase Seven (Purple Phase) land use plan and to incorporate the Village One West area into the
PFFP. Revisions to Phase Seven (Purple Phase) in Village One are included in the revised PFFP.
In addition, the Village One West area has been analyzed and the conclusions included in the revised
PFFP. As previously approved by the City Council, the PFFP is based on a non-sequential colored
phasing scenario, Threshold standards are not exceeded with the addition of Village One West to
the SPA Plan,
H. Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP)
The SPA One Plan amendments reflect the land use changes in the Village One - Phase Seven
(Purple Phase) and adds the Village One West area into the SPA One area, The SPA One Plan
amendments implement the Otay Ranch GDP amendments approved by the City Council on
November 10, 1998. The GDP amendment reflects land use changes that were contained in the
tentative MSCP agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies.
I. Resource Preserve Map (Phase 2 RMP, page 3)
As part of the agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies relating to the
MSCP, the agencies agreed to authorize the disturbance of sensitive habitat in the Poggi
Canyon area (Villages One and Two) in exchange for preservation of land within Village 13
and Village 15, The purpose of the proposed amendment is to modify the Preserve map to
reflect these changes by adding portions of Village 13 and Village 15 to the Preserve and
deleting the Poggi Canyon area fTom the Preserve, The City Council approved the underlying
GDP land uses for these amendment on November 10, 1998,
2, Ownership Map (Phase 2 RMP, page 71)
The Phase 2 RMP contains an ownership map depicting the major ownerships within Otay
Ranch. The map was initially included in the RMP because ownership patterns affect the
implementation of various RMP policies, It is proposed that a revised ownership map be
included in the Phase 2 RMP to reflect current ownership patterns,
3, CSS Restoration (Phase 2 RMP, pages 74-75,135,139)
Page 12, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
As part of the agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies relating to the
MSCP, the resources agencies agreed that the applicant need not restore CSS as initially
required by the GDP and Resource Management Plan, However, ranch-wide resolution of
the CSS restoration requirement awaits finalization of the MSCP between the City of Chula
Vista and the resource agencies, It is unreasonable to delay implementation of the applicant's
project pending resolution of these other issues, The purpose of this amendment is to clarifY
that CSS restoration is not a requirement of the applicant's project.
4, Maritime Succulent Scrub (MSS) Restoration (Phase 2 RMP, page 76)
As part of the agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies concerning the
MSCP, the resource agencies agreed that the applicant may disturb up to 25 acres ofMSS
before the GDPIRMP's requirement for MSS restoration is triggered, The ranch-wide
resolution of the MSS restoration requirement affecting other property owners is dependent
upon finalization of the MSCP by the City of Chula Vista and the resource agencies.
However, it is unreasonable to delay consideration of the applicant's project pending
resolution of these broader questions. The purpose of the proposed language is to clarifY that,
relative to the applicant's property, MSS restoration need not occur until the applicant
exceeds the 25-acre MSS threshold.
5. Grazing Prohibition (Phase 2 RMP, page 133)
The RMP prohibits cattle grazing within certain areas ofOtay Ranch starting in late 1997
and early 1998 based upon assumption that entitlements and actual development would
proceed faster than they actually occurred, Accordingly, the specific time rrame identified
in the RMP was misleading, The purpose of the proposed amendment is to tie the prohibition
of grazing to a specific entitlement event, the issuance of the first final map. The practical
effect of the changed language is negligible since, with or without the clarifYing amendment,
grazing is currently prohibited in the areas identified in the RMP,
6, Steep Slope Calculation/Analysis (Phase 2 RMP, pages 162 and 163)
The MSCP agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies permitted
development within the Poggi Canyon areas (Villages One and Two) and deleted
development rrom portions of Villages 13 and IS, The purpose of the proposed amendment
is to modify the slope calculations for these villages to reflect the agreement and the GDP
amendment recently enacted incorporating the agreement. Additionally, the specific
analysis relative to slope impacts and SPA One is deleted because it is out of date.
Page 13, Item
Meeting Date: 2/3/99
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes the amendments proposed for the Village One Core - Phase Seven (Purple Phase) are
consistent with the GDP goals, objectives and policies and, therefore, staffrecommends approval
of the amendments, Staff does not believe the transfer of all 52 units from Village One to Village
One West can be accommodated and meet the policies for compatibility with Sunbow and landfonn
grading. However, in staffs opinion 42 units could be transferred and compliance with the policies
met. Therefore, staff recommends the amendment to be approved with an overall count of 845
single-family residential units for Village One West. The amendments to SPA One and other
supporting documents will need to reflect this change, and staff recommends approval of the
documents with the condition that they be updated to reflect the approved number of units.
Attachments
1, Locator Map.
2, Village One Land Use Plan
3. Village One West Land Use Plan
4. Otay Ranch SPA One
a) Planned Community (PC) District Regulations
b) Village One West Design Plan
c ) SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Master Plan
d) SPA One Affordable Housing Plan
e) SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan
f) Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
5 Genera] Plan Landform Grading Policy
6. Disclosure Statement
(h:\home\planning\otaymch\S 1 WstlTp.doc )
Sunbow
..... /..,/.-- \
"...-,,- \
.~ PROJECT
LOCATION
I~
Q\..'tAf> Ie PARI\: '
CH U LA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT Olay Ranch Company PROJECT DESCRIPIlON:
C) APf'lICANT: AMENDMENTS
PROJECT Otay Ranch Village One Request: Amendments to Olay Ranch SPA One
ADDRESS: for Phase 7 and Village One West
SCAlE: FILE NUMBER: I
NORTH No Scale PCM-97-11
h:\home\planning\carlosllocalors\pcm9711.cdr 1/19/99
~~
~s
,....O'"";(J)IX!CONO>Il:I<XIC\lI'--COa;J(\Ie>>
MW,....~~M~~~M~~W~~~
"'!"':"'!mC!,,!qo.q
O)(J;I~r--:g~~~
'"
.5 J!
= "2
~ ~::>
..
E
~ t
III ~
.. '"
..
:)
'C ~:
Ii !I::>
..J
..
c5 g
.. i: ~
CI ~ '"
~ .21
:;: :I
~CXi:ea;~t::M(O~~~f38~r!S;
... ............
~_ ~ ~ :;: ~ ~ g :z: r! I~ "'
....;:f....C\j.............1l)0)
"':C\i
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~I:"!
0) ~ ~;! CD <.0,.... '<t Ice:E
, ~
o.q <q!q
...-'<t!<D
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~
;;;1;;;
E
E
E 8
~ !i
u s
~
,
'"
'"":'<tCOr--O>CONIl1'<tC"'JMIl1'<t'"":MIl1IX!
MMom~~~NWN~~w""'dwm
C\I................ C\I C"'J.....,... C') C\j.......,...,...,...,~
i!
.
..
~~~~1d~E
a.. a.. a.. a.. c... a.. S
~
,
'"
..
..
<J
~~]j
uus
.Q
,
'"
1J..1J..u..u.u.U.U.U.U.U.U.LLU.U.u..u..
00000000000000000000000000000000
..
'"
S LL LL U. LL u.. U. u.... u..
~ ::!::!::!::!::!::!::!::!
,
'"
.. .
""
_0
5...
H
J:~
W
O....C\lNI'--W!X)
.....C\lC')..,.I()(C,...(X)C)........................."j
d:ci:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:ci:d:a:
c.\
";'"C}I<?"i'fl~
a..a...a...a..a...d..
";-~
....
.. ..
uu
CI')'<tI.OWaJO.....r--
.................-N(\I'<I"
d:d:d::d:ci:d:d:d:
If
L
"ffi'
~
j
....
....
.....
.....
."..
,.'
.'
If
i
..
~ ~ v ~ I'"
:= ~ rn~ ~
o
o
'"
C
1\1
ii:
CII
III
::)
'C
C
1\1
...J
CII
C
o
CII
m
.!l!
:>
~ x
<I: x
a... B
(j) ~
OJ
.r:
()
c:
'"
a:
>-
'"
is
]j I-~
- c
~ 0 ~ ~ GJ
cXoCi5 en c5
.
'"
,!!
:;:
"
c
~
u
'"
"
Q
"
3
":' en.g
<nOU
N
.
'"
.. v
:> en
E
..
E
c: C-
O>
~ ..
'6
~ .. a
5 g. .~
e ";:.i"ii)
c. "oou
I-- 0 !i"
"C ii5
~ - i~~
~ .OJ
.. oU
e c:
"C f!! 8" ~
Q. I-- ~~. .
c: ~I- a..1!
CI) . !li2!~
. " =i~J! ,
.
C) . E -~ '" "
. ~ $ >P
CI) . ;~~j
..J .!!!-m:aa. i.d ~
~CCii:O t -IJ ~
de ~
~ d ~ r.::
~:E ~
.I
~ ~
- "
;,].
1- ~~
. 0"
~ ,9 E
'" "it
I ~"
. b a ~
\.
\.
\.
\.
.>
,.'
.....,
,..
.."..
"8
.c
;J;JJ
.c
'"
~
~
III
E
E
::I
U)
CI)
III
::J
"C
c
III
..J
-
III
CI)
3:
CI)
c
o
CI)
CI
III
:;
~CJ
~~
IC;:)
"'0
COO(J)(J)OIOO(f)T'""U)C")CO
Lri-.iMM-.:iMLriLriLri",-.:i.o:;
CCCDMv
cO"'LOLli
a .~
.~ ,g)"!i1
,., :ijw'2 a
~ ~~~ ~
e -5.0.9
f- ~I~
"CC
'''' q
"C ~E .l~
"c: S ~, "'~
c::: me> 'ii .~ I ~
....= - \ ,
CD a..o: ~r~ ~~U "
.;: E_ . jj
C) :is ~'C
. .- 0 <11 ~ ~,
CD . w~~ii ~~
.
. b~~aC. jf!"..
..J . z a:!L'O I ~~
.
. '" h
0'
'"
,5 J!
= '2
!;:)
"'
::J
o
~~~~~(J)d';r::~Pd~~tl3
r--
o
'"
"'
::J
o
on
on
'"
J"-..f'.,.OOCO
"'''I "I
..
'"
~
u
.0:
(J
.0:
Lri~~~a)~;~~;;:~
'"
<ri
(J
.0:
'" "I
g Lri 0
~
r--
0;
'"
r--
0;
I'"
~I"!
r-- r--
'" 0
'"
o CD U1 N
-.:it--: u)
... ..
c: ..
j;:)
(J
a:
~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~
oooooooooowwwoowwwmwwww
~
<Ii
~ w ~
'0 ~
- 10
:ErJ)
ci! ;;
IC
c: c:
00
~ GJ
~:
6>
a; ...
f2 ~
:g, 0
'5 ...
a
<a
15
f-
~g
m.<=
a.c5j
uj
o
" on
~ '"
5r~
c: "I
~ch
a a
g
€ ~
~.o:
'"
.a;
z
c::::aCCII]c:J
'" "I'"
V l() LO L()
d:d:d:d:
~o~~
VI.l')LOLl)
d:d:d:d:
.0:
friUl
d:d:
LOCDJ"-..como
LOLOLOLOLl)<.D
d:d:d:d:d:d:
'"
~ '"
cLch
-g
o
a:
"
o
~
m
o
'g.
a,
"
a;
...
<>>
::::
O~
<>>i{j
~
s:
~
E_
H
0._
_en
gj
w~-;>
.
.
'U
!. ]
Jj~
c
.!!!
c..
CI)
III
::J
"C
c
III
..J
-
III
CI)
3:
CI)
c::
o
CI)
CI
.!!!
>
x
<( ~
a.. E
(fJ x
w
.c
o
c::
'"
((
>-
'"
6
!~ j G
!~ q
. >,"
~1~H
~, l~~
Inc:orrect Approach
CONveNTIONAL ~'I "
~LD~ IZATI~ /
FINGeR CANVOI_ -
FILL!D
."~ -"
I:IUILDING ~
IN CON"NUOUS
UIoWlTICUu:n!D UNa '
f-=-" H
_11:1 a.uGWT
....aa-er...MrT"ICIH
Land Use Element
Figure 1-9
LANDFORM GRADING PLAN
CorrectJ Approach
(
\\
PlZUelZVATION Of'
I!ICIS11NG UNDRXZI.t
i
\
auHTAN'nAL
.
\
"
SLQfOE
""""T1ON
Co\II'IQI
_NO
~
c:.IH'tQ,I 011 ............. "TIIIC.oIJ_
t ~ t OR~CC_/ I
.....-nau...-o _~
NO euvm ~U5
NO CUT OI..CPU
1
1-65
ATTACHMENT 5
TIm C. f OF CHUlA VISTA DISCLOSURE ST. GMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the
contract, e,g" owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Village Development
The Otay Ranch, L.P.
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above isa corporation or pannership,list the names of all Individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares In the corporation or owning any pannership Interest In the pannershlp.
James P. Baldwin
Alfred E. Baldwin
.
3, If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trusL
N/A
4. Have you had more than $2SO wonb of business transacted with any member of the City stair, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Ycs_ NoXX If yes, please indicate person(s):_
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or Independent Contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City In this matter.
Kim John Kilkenny Ranie Hunter
Robet Cameron
James Baldwin
Kent Aden
Alfred Baldwin
6.
Have you and/or your officers or agents, In the aggrerte, contn"buted more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding ejection period? Ycs_ No_ If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
Date:
January 14,
" " · (NOTE: Attach additional pages as D~) · · · _
1997 ~ /
Slgna~ of contractor/applicant
(-
)
Kim John Kilkenny, Vice President
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
" I'~~", if deJitrd lIS: "Any indMduoI,Jinn, Cf>-JHU'flD>hip,joinI V<l'1lW<, tISSOCUuion, -W club,fr='''"" ;'""on. COfl'O'.,;on, ............... reca..., JJ)-ndicmc,
this and aJ'I)' other COWLI)~ ciIJ' DNl cOIDID)', cir)' municipality, dis1ria. or odtt:r poIilicaJ subdnviOll, or ony olMT group or cDmbinaljon <<ting A1' 1I1lIIiL.
ATTACfiE'lENT 6
~.___._~_.___....._..__._.._".____ "... _'_.._.__~_._n____...._.__
RESOLUTION PCM 97-11
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES THE
VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN; PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING
PLAN; PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
MASTER PLAN; AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN; AND PHASE 2
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN,
WHEREAS, an application to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
Plan was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on January 14, 1997 by the Otay
Project, LLC ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan Amendment includes changes to Village One, encompasses
200 additional acres west of Pas eo Ranchero, and amends supporting documents; and,
WHEREAS, the area west of Pas eo Ranchero (Village One West) is included in the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP); and,
WHEREAS, a GDP amendment was processed and approved for Village One West to add
single-family units to expand development areas; and,
WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan Amendment refines and implements the land plans, goals,
objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on
October 28, 1993, and as amended on November 10, 1998; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said 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 its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
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 on February 3, 1999
in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission, and was thereafter
closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted a Second-tier Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 97-03, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program have been issued to address enviroumental impacts associated with the
implementation of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, this Second-tier EIR incorporates, by reference, three prior EIRs: the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01, certified by the Chula
~~
I
~,'__"_"___'''_,'''_''__'.m ....._.____.__ .,_".____ .____",. _.__.
Vista City Council and San Diego Connty Board of Supervisors on October 28, ] 993; the Chu]a
Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03, certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March
2], ]995; and the SPA One EIR 96-01, as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, certified by the Chula Vista City Council on June 4, ] 996; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or
withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in
interest, to implement those measures, These findings are not merely infonnational or advisory, but
constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution
approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other
requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted
concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the
Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
recommends that City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Reso]ution approving the
Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA this 3rd day of February, ]999 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
John Willett - Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas - Secretary
Exhibit
Exhibit A - Draft City Council Resolution
B:\PC\SPA1-RES.WPD
?
2
DRAFT RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, VILLAGE
DESIGN PLAN; PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN;
PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
MASTER PLAN; AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN; AND
PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, an application to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
Plan was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on January 14, 1997 by the Otay
Project, LLC ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan Amendment includes changes to Village One, encompasses
200 additional acres west of Pas eo Ranchero, and amends supporting documents; and
WHEREAS, the area west of Pas eo Ranchero (Village One West) is included in the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP); and,
WHEREAS, a GDP amendment was processed and approved for Village One West to add
single-family units to expand development areas; and,
WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan Amendment refines and implements the land plans, goals,
objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on
October 28, 1993, and as amended on November 10, 1998; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said 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 its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries ofthe property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on February 3, 1999
in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission, and was thereafter
closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Enviroumental Review Coordinator has prepared a Second-tier Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 97-03, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, this Second-tier EIR incorporates, by reference, three prior EIRs: the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01, certified by the Chula
g
I
. - .--.--..-.....-
Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28,1993; the Chula
Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03, certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March
21,1995; and the SPA One EIR 96-01, as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, certified by the Chula Vista City Council on June 4, 1996; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or
withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in
interest, to implement those measures, These findings are not merely infonnational or advisory, but
constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution
approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other
requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted
concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the
Proj ect; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City ofChula
Vista on the SPA One Amendment, which includes the Village Design Plan, Public Facilities
Financing Plan, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, and Phase 2 Resource
Management Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, detennine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearings on the Final EIR held on August 26, 1998, and their public hearings held on this
Project on October 21, 1998, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby
incorporated into the record ofthis proceeding, These documents, along with any documents
submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 97-03, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and
the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista,
III. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Conncil does hereby approve SPA One Amendment and associated documents
subject to the following attached conditions,
9
2
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendments reflect the land
uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses
consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General
Plan.
B, THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AMENDMENTS
WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF
THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA One Plan Amendments and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain
provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the
project. The Public Facilities Financing Plan has been updated to include Village
One West, and specifies the public facilities required by the Otay Ranch, and also the
regional facilities needed to serve it.
C. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AMENDMENTS
WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer adjacent to
other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay Ranch
Planning Area One, A neighborhood parkft will be located within the Village One
West area to serve the project residents, and the project will provide housing types
compatible with Sunbow Master Planned Community, as required by the General
Development Plan. A comprehensive street network serves the project and provides
for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan closely follows all
existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site
impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch
Environmental Impact Report,
V. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City ofChula Vista is directed after City
Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Detennination filed with the
County Clerk of the County of San Diego, This document along with any documents
submitted to the decision makers shall comprise the record of proceedings for any CEQA
claims.
I "
(j
3
VI. ATTACHMENTS
All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula
Vista, California, this 16th day of February, 1999 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City ofChula Vista, California, do hereby certifY that the
foregoing Resolution No, was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at
a City Council meeting held on the 16th day of February, 1999.
Executed this 16th day of February, 1999,
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
Exhibits
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
B:\CC\SPAI-RES.WPD
((
4
Exhibit A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR OT A Y RANCH SPA ONE
(Village One, Village One West & Village Five)
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1, All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the
Developer as to any or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term
"Developer" shall also mean "Applicant",
2, If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur
or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such
conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall
have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building
permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the
approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with
said conditions or seek damages for their violation,
3, Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and
against any and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from
challenges to the Environmental Impact Report for the Project and/or any or all entitlements
and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project.
4, Approval of the Otay Ranch SPA One does not constitute approval of the final
lot configuration, grading and street design shown within the SPA One Plan,
5, The terms, conditions, and time limits, associated with this SPA shall be
consistent with the Development Agreement approved by Ordinance No. 2679 by the City
Council on July 16, 1996, and as amended on October 22, 1996,
6. These conditions of approval apply to all land area located within the boundary
of Village One, Village One west of Paseo Ranchero, and Village Five in the Otay Ranch Parcel.
This constitutes the entire area of Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One.
ENVIRONMENTAL
7, The Applicant shall implement all mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01 and
97-03, the Candidate CEQA Findings for this Project (Attachment A) and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reports Program (Attachment B),
8. The Applicant shall comply with all requirement of the Phase 2 Resource
Management Plan (RMP) as approved by City Council on 06/04/96, and amended from time
to time.
9, The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the California
,/ ....1
""----
Department of Fish and Game, the U,S, Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U,S. Army
Corps of Engineers,
DESIGN
10. The Applicant shall provide a residential alley product, as such product is defined
in the Village Design Plan, within the Purple Phase (Phase Seven) of Village One and the Grey
Phase (Phase Three) of Village Five as shown on the SPA One phasing plan as amended,
STREET, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS
11 , Residential street parkways shall be no less than six feet in width, The
Applicant shall plant trees within said parkways which have been selected from the list of
appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan and approved by the Director of
Planning and Building, and the Director of Public Works, The Applicant shall provide root
barriers and deep watering irrigation systems for the trees, The applicant shall comply with
the City's policy for Street Tree Improvement Plans,
12. Street cross sections shall conform to those standards contained in the SPA One
Plan, All other design criteria shall conform to the design standards contained in the document
entitled Street Design Standards and the Subdivision Manual both as amended by the City
from time to time, ("City Design Standards"), Any proposed variation from the City Design
Standards which are not addressed in the SPA Plan shall be approved by the City and indicated
as a specific waiver on the appropriate tentative subdivision map,
The following table indicates the relationship between the Otay Ranch SPA One
roadway designations (i,e" cross sections) and the approved City designations in the
Circulation Element of the General Plan for purposes of determining the appropriate design
standards for all streets within SPA One,
COMPARISON OF OTAY RANCH STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
TO CITY STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
FOR DETERMINATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS TO BE UTILIZED IN
TENTATIVE MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN PREPARATION
FOR OTAY RANCH USE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CITY
CLASSIFICATION OF STREET CLASSIFICATION OF
Scenic Corridor Prime Arterial
Prime Arterial Prime Arterial
Primary Village Entry Class I Collector
Secondary Village Entry Class II Collector
Village Core Class I Collector
Residential Promenade Class III Collector
! .~
_J
COMPARISON OF OTAY RANCH STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
TO CITY STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
FOR DETERMINATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS TO BE UTILIZED IN
TENTATIVE MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN PREPARATION
Core Promenade Residential
Village Main Residential
Village Plaza Residential
Residential A and B Residential
Alley Alley Standards
13. The Applicant shall provide a 60 foot wide pedestrian Paseo between
Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9, As a condition of approval on the appropriate tentative map, said
paseo shall be required to be dedicated to the City at the final map stage, Street
improvements will not be required to be installed, but may be required at some future date
should it become apparent that vehicular access is needed,
14, As directed by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, the
Applicant shall construct a pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to Village Five at the
vicinity of Palomar Street crossing over La Media Road, The timing of the construction of said
bridge shall be determined as defined by the City in the applicable Public Facilities Financing
Plan (PFFP) as amended from time to time, The Applicant shall be solely responsible for the
construction of said bridge,
15, In addition to the pedestrian bridge described above, the SPA One Plan provides
for the construction of a pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to Village Two and a
pedestrian bridge connecting Village Five to Village Six. The Applicant shall agree to fund half
of the cost of constructing the two pedestrian bridges in accordance with the triggers in the
Public Facility Financing Plan (PFFP) as amended from time to time,
16, In the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights of
way which are in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such
approvals conflicting with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards, Unless
otherwise provided for in the future ADA regulations, City standards approved herein may be
considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after construction has
commenced,
17, Vehicular access shall not be required to EastLake Parkway between the two
Otay Water District parcels. Pedestrian, cart and bicycle access, however, shall be provided.
Design of said pedestrian, cart and bicycle access shall be implemented in such a way so as
not to preclude the option of future provisions of vehicular access should it become necessary.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
18, The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and Clean Water Program,
;l
19. The quantity of runoff from the development shall be reduced to an amount
equal to or less than pre-development 1 OO-year frequency storm. Retention/detention facilities
will be required as approved by the Director of Public Works to reduce the quantity of runoff
to an amount equal to or less than pre-development flows, Said retention/detention facilities
shall be provided by the Applicant.
20, The Applicant shall provide drainage improvements in both Telegraph Canyon
and Poggi Canyon in accordance with the Master Drainage Plan and addendum for Otay Ranch
SPA One, Villages One and Five as approved by the Director of Public Works, Said Master
Plan shall be consistent with the approved SPA Plan,
21 , Prior to the approval of an amended Tentative Map for any land contained within
C,V,T, 96-04, the developer shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer a Grading Study
demonstrating that the grading depicted in the amended Tentative Map will generate the
necessary fill to construct those portions of Olympic Parkway and the Poggi Canyon Channel
located within the subdivision boundaries. This study shall include all the area of Village One
and Village Five within C,V,T. 96-04, This study shall incorporate the most recent design
information for those facilities, including the findings and recommendations, if available, of CIP
Project No, STM 331, Olympic Parkway from Oleander Avenue to SR-125, Said Grading study
shall identify the proposed location for stockpiling of fill material.
PUBLIC UTILITIES (SEWER, WATER, RECYCLED nCCLAIMCD WATER, WATER
CONSERVATION)
22. The Applicant shall provide water and recycled water improvements in
accordance with the report entitled Sub Area Master Plan for Otay Ranch Villages One and
Five Sectional Planning Area One ("SAMP") prepared by Wilson Engineering dated April 1998
or as amended by the Applicant and approved by Otay Water District, The SAMP shall be
consistent with the SPA Plan. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the approval
of any amendment to the SPA One SAMP in order for the SPA One SAMP to be consistent
with the approved SPA Plan prior to the approval of the first final "A" map,
23, The Applicant shall pay fees in accordance with applicable City of Chula Vista
ordinance(s) or provide trunk sewer improvements to both the Telegraph Canyon and Poggi
Canyon trunk sewers as indicated in the report entitled "Overview of Sewer Service for SPA
One at the Otay Ranch Project" (SPA One Sewer Report) prepared by Wilson Engineering dated
June 4, 1996 or as amended by the Applicant and approved by the Director of Public Works.
Any amended SPA One Sewer Report shall be consistent with the approved SPA Plan. The
Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the approval of any amendment to the SPA One
Sewer Report in order for the SPA One Sewer Report to be consistent with the approved SPA
Plan prior to the approval of the first final map (including a final" A" map) for the Purple Phase
(Phase Seven) of C.V,T, 96-04, or the first final map (including a final "A" map) for Village One
west of Paseo Ranchero,
24. Fund a revision of the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact fee
reflecting the approved land uses in SPA One, Said revision shall be prepared by the City, as
directed by the City Engineer, and approved by the City Council prior to approval of the first
final "B" map within the Poggi Canyon Sewer Gravity Basin, The developer shall not receive
credits towards future fees for funding this revision. All cost of revising the Poggi Canyon
~
/ \
Sewer Basin Development Impact shall be borne by the developer.
PARKS/OPEN SPACE/WilDLIFE PRESERVATION
General
25, The SPA One project shall satisfy the requirements of the City's Park Land
Dedication Ordinance (PlDO) (Chapter 17,10). The ordinance establishes a requirement that
the project provide three (3) acres of local parks and related improvements per 1,000
residents, local parks are comprised of community parks, neighborhood parks and pedestrian
parks (to the extent that pedestrian parks receive partial park credit as defined below), Two
thirds (2 acres/1,000 residents) of local park requirement shall be satisfied through the
provision of turn-key neighborhood and pedestrian parks within SPA One. The remaining
requirement (1 acre/1 ,000 residents) shall be satisfied through the payment of fees, dedication
of land, or a combination thereof.
26, All local parks shall be consistent with the SPA One PFFP and shall be installed
by the Applicant, A construction schedule for each proposed public park shall be prepared by
the applicant and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to the approval of the
construction documents.
27, All local parks shall be designed and constructed consistent with the provisions
of the Chula Vista landscape Manual and related City specifications and policies,
28, Prior to the approval of the appropriate Final Map, the Applicant shall enter into
a Chula Vista standard three party agreement with the City of Chula Vista and design
consultant(s), for the design of all aspects of the neighborhood and community parks in
accordance with the Master Plan whereby the Director of Planning and Building selects the
design consultant(s), to be funded by the applicant. The cost for the consultant(s) shall be
established and said amount deposited into an account prior to any work being initiated by the
consultant. The agreement shall include, but not be limited to, master planning, design
development phase, construction document phase and construction supervision phase for the
park sites, The construction documents shall reflect the then current requirements of the
City's Code/Landscape Manual requirements,
29, Parks located within guarded communities shall not receive park credit.
30, Pedestrian parks: Pedestrian parks less than five acres, as identified in the SPA
One Plan, shall be maintained by a funding entity other than the City's General Plan.
Pedestrian parks shall receive a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50% park credit, as
determined by the Director of Planning and Building pursuant to City wide small park credit
criteria which shall be approved by the City Council.
31, Neighborhood parks (turn-key):
a, The Applicant shall commence construction of the first neighborhood park
in SPA One, in a location determined by the Director of Planning and Building, no later than
/,
'-
issuance of the building permit for the 500th dwelling unit,
b. The level of amenities required in each neighborhood park shall be
determined by the City in conjunction with that park's master plan effort required by the City
of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. Said level of amenities shall be as described in the PLDO
ordinance and the park's master plan as approved by the Director of Planning and Building,
The Applicant shall complete construction of the first phase of the neighborhood park as
identified in the approved construction schedule,
Prior to issuance of the building permit for the 1,1 50th dwelling unit, the Director of
Planning and Building shall determine the level of amenities required for the second phase of
construction of this park consistent with the PLDO and the Park Master Plan, or in lieu of the
second phase, require the construction of another neighborhood park at a different location.
The location of the other neighborhood park, if any, shall be determined in conjunction with
the phasing study noted below,
C. At no time shall there be a deficit in "constructed neighborhood park"
based upon 2 acres/1,OOO residents, Applicant agrees that the City may withhold the
issuance of building permits should said deficit occur, For purposes of this condition, the term
"constructed neighborhood park" shall mean that construction of the park has been completed
and approved by the Director of Planning and Building as being in compliance with park's
master plan, but prior to the City's mandatory maintenance period, This condition is not
intended to supersede any of the City's maintenance guarantee requirements,
d. The Applicant shall provide a maintenance period in accordance with the
City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual.
e, The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of P.A,D. fees should they
deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the City-wide park's master plan,
32, Community parks: The Applicant shall pay P,A.D. fees, dedicate land, or a
combination thereof, for the Community Park based upon a formula of 1 acre per 1,000
residents, until such time as a turn-key facility has been accepted by the City, Said turn-key
facility is subject to the reimbursement mechanism set forth below,
a, The first Otay Ranch community park, to satisfy SPA One demand, shall
be located in Village Two as identified in the GDP,
c, Notwithstanding that the community park requirement (1 acre/1,000
residents) shall be satisfied through the payment of P,A,D, fees, dedication of land, or a
combination thereof, the Applicant shall commence construction of the first phase of the
community park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th dwelling unit, The first
phase of construction shall include, but not be limited to, improvements such as a graded site
with utilities provided to the property line and an all weather access road acceptable to the Fire
Department.
d, The Applicant shall commence construction of the second phase of the
community park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,000th dwelling unit. Second
I)
.,..-.. -"-'._-.....,- ..-', -~--"- .. -,,--_._--~,.._----_.. ----.
phase improvements shall include recreational amenities as identified in the City "ide; park's
master plan,
e. The community park shall be ready for acceptance by the City prior to
issuance of the building permit for the 3,900th dwelling unit.
f, The Applicant shall provide a maintenance period in accordance with the
City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual.
g. If the City determines that it is not feasible for the Applicant to
commence construction of the first phase improvements of the community park prior to
issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th unit, then the City shall have the option to
utilize the PAD fees for said improvements, or to construct another park or facility, east of the
1-805 Freeway within an acceptable service radius of SPA One, as set forth in the GDP,
33, Community gardens: Community Gardens shall be consistent with the guidelines
in the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, including creation of
the Community Garden Committee's and their responsibilities,
34, Water lines shall be stubbed from the nearest water main to the site(s) in order
to facilitate development of the Community Gardens.
35, Maintenance of Community Gardens shall be funded by a Home Owner's
Association or other funding mechanism approved by the City.
AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL
36, A reserve fund program has been established by Resolution No, 18288 for the
Otay Ranch Project, The Applicant shall fund the Reserve Fund as required by the Reserve
Fund Program,
SCHOOLS
37, The Applicant shall deliver to the Sweetwater Union High School District a 50
net usable acre graded high school site, deemed acceptable to the District, including utilities
provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District prior to issuance
of the 1 ,400th building permit (504 students) or upon written request by the District not prior
to 1,400 permits, The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department.
This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility
needs,
38, The Applicant shall deliver to the Chula Vista Elementary School District, a
graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access
road acceptable to the District, located within Village One, prior to issuance of the 500th
residential building permit (150 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable
~
/ /
'0
to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as
based on District facility needs,
39. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school
site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the
District, located within Village Five, prior to issuance of the 2,500th residential building permit
(750 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department.
This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility
needs,
MISCELLANEOUS
40, As required by the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement with Otay Ranch,
LP., (Ord. 2695). the Applicant shall file a master final map which provides for the sale of
super block lots (nAn Maps) corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and
phasing thereof, If said super block lots do not show individual lots depicted on the approved
tentative map, a subsequent final map shall be filed for any lot which will be further
subdivided. All super block lots created shall have access to a dedicated public street.
Backbone facilities shall be guaranteed prior to approval of the related n A n Map(s). The
Applicant shall secure the installation of improvements in a form and amount determined by
the City Engineer prior to approval of a master final map. Said master final map shall not be
considered the first final map as indicated in the conditions of approval unless said map
contains single or condominium multiple family lots shown on a tentative map,
41, The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and 9uidelines of the Parks,
Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Ranch Wide Affordable
Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation
Plan.
42, The Applicant shall secure approval of a Master Precise Plan for the-Village One
and Village Five Core Areas, prior to submitting any development proposals for commercial,
multi-family and Community Purpose Facility areas within the SPA One Village Cores,
43. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). the Applicant shall fund the preparation of an annual
report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch, The annual monitoring
report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services governed by
the threshold standards, An annual review shall commence following the first fiscal year in
which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second quarter of the
following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted on page 353,
Section D of the GDP/SRP,
44, The Applicant shall include maintenance of Telegraph Canyon channel east of
Paseo Ladera in any open space district formed for SPA One on a fair share basis, This
includes but is not limited to costs of maintenance and all costs to comply with the
Department of Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers permit requirements,
45. The owners of each village, or a portion of village(s), shall be responsible for
/'7
retaining a project manager to coordinate the processing of discretionary permit applications
originating from the private sector and submitted to the City of Chula Vista, The project
manager shall establish a formal submittal package required of each developer to ensure a high
standard of design and to ensure consistency with standards and policies identified in the
adopted SPA Plan, The project manager shall have a well rounded educational background and
experience, including but not limited to land use planning and architecture.
PHASING
46, Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay
Ranch GDP, the Applicant shall prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying
targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPAs and tentative maps),
projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold
standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities,
47, Phasing approved with the SPA Plan may be amended subject to approval by the
Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer,
48, The Public Facilities Finance Plan or revisions hereto shall be adhered to for the
SPA and tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required
to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility
phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of development
within and outside of the project area. Throughout the build-out of SPA One, actual
development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP (Le" the development of
EastLake III), Neither the PFFP nor any other SPA One document grant the Applicant an
entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility improvement
requirements to those identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista
threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance
on changing entitlements and market conditions, shall govern SPA One development patterns
and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development, In addition, the
sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula
Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and
Ordinance adopted by the City, The City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement
construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision, The SPA One PFFP, at
Applicant's expense subject to a Reimbursement Agreement, shall be updated not later than
six (6) months after approval of a PFFP for the EastLake III GDP Area, and the conclusions of
such update, including without limitation, the nature, sizing, extent and timing for the
construction of public facilities caused by SPA One, shall become a condition for all
subsequent SPA One entitlements, including tentative and final maps,
CODE REQUIREMENTS
49, The Applicant shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision ordinance and
Subdivision Manual.
50. The Applicant shall comply with all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape
:,~, (J
',-^_. ~
Manual.
51, The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19,09 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code (Growth Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City, Said chapter
includes but is not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan
implementation (19,09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures
(19,09,100),
52, The Applicant shall pay reimbursement associated with undergrounding of
utilities in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Resolution 17516 dated June 7, 1994,
53, The Applicant shall comply with City Council Policy 570-03 adopted by
Resolution 17491 if pump stations for sewer purposes are proposed,
54. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of
each final map for any phase or unit, whereby:
a, The Applicant agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any
units in the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occurs:
(1 ) Regional development threshold limits set by the adopted East
Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan in effect at the time of final map approval have been
reached,
(2) Traffic volumes, level of service, public utilities and/or services
exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance,
b, The Applicant agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any
of the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Otay
Ranch SPA One if the required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the
Annual Monitoring Program have not been completed.
55. Applicant shall apply for and receive a take permit from the appropriate resource
agencies or comply with an approved MSCP or other equivalent permit applicable to the
property,
56. The Applicant acknowledges its understanding that the City is in the process of
amending its Growth Management Program and Ordinance, to establish updated development
phasing provisions necessary to ensure compliance with adopted threshold standards, In order
for the Otay Ranch SPA One Project to be consistent with the City's growth management
provisions, the Applicant hereby agrees to comply with the pending amendments to the
Growth Management Program and Ordinance in order for the City to approve this Project, Said
provisions shall also be included as a condition of approval of the first Tentative Map, and any
subsequent tentative maps, within SPA One.
57. The Applicant shall irrevocably offer for dedication to the City or its designee,
fee title, upon the recordation of each final map for an amount of land equal to the final map's
obligation to convey land to the Preserve, Each tentative map shall be subject to a condition
that the subdivider shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City or its designee
stating that it is the responsibility of the tentative map Applicant to maintain the conveyed
J..-/
.. '~------"'--"'''"''-'-'''''' """- .----......--- - '-"'---~-"-
parcel until the Preserve Community Facilities District has generated sufficient revenues to
enable the POM to assume maintenance responsibilities. The applicant shall request to the
City Council the approval of the necessary modifications to C.F,D, No. 97-2 (Preserve
Maintenance District) to include operation and maintenance services of those areas conveyed
to the preserve during development of Village One West, Said modifications to C,F,D, 97-2
shall be completed prior to approval of the first "B" Map for Village One West.
VILLAGE ONE WEST
Conditions #58 to #71 apply to Village One West
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
58. Prior to the approval of the first Tentative Map for any land contained within
Village One West, the developer shall submit and obtain the approval of the City Engineer a
Grading Study demonstrating that the grading depicted in the Tentative Map will generate the
necessary fill to construct those portions of Olympic Parkway and the Poggi Canyon Channel
located within the boundaries of said Village One West. This study shall incorporate the most
recent design information for those facilities, including the findings and recommendations, if
available, of CIP Project No. STM 331, Olympic Parkway from Oleander Avenue to SR-125,
Said Grading study shall identify the proposed location for stockpiling of fill material.
PARKS/OPEN SPACE/WILDLIFE PRESERVATION
59. Neighborhood parks (turn-key):
a. Prior to the approval of the first final map for Village One West, the
applicant will enter into agreement with the City to provide Park P-1 3 in the Gold Phase,
b, The Applicant shall commence construction of the neighborhood park
in Village One West, in a location determined by the Director of Planning and Building, no
later than the earlier of either (1) the issuance of the initial residential building permit south
of East Palomar Street or (2) at a time necessary to maintain compliance with the
requirement that at no time shall there be a deficit in "constructed neighborhood parks"
based on the 2 acre/1 ,000 population standard (See Condition #36 (c) above),
60. Community parks: The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of P.A,D, fees,
excluding the cost of construction of the all weather access road, for the community park
should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the park's master plan,
The Applicant and the City shall mutually agree on a P.A,D. fee reimbursement schedule for
the community park in coordination with the adopted construction schedule, Milestones will
be established for partial reimbursement during the construction process, The City may
withhold up to 20% of the park construction funds until the park has been completed and
accepted, Reimbursement of P,A,D, fees shall include the interest accrued by the City on said
P,A,D. fees minus the City's cost of processing and administering this reimbursement program,
61, Trails: The first final "B" map shall not be approved until the SPA One Open
Space Landscape Master Plan is approved by the Director of Planning and Building, The Open
'\ ".
j.,,>'..,
Space Landscape Master Plan shall be based upon the Concept and Analysis Plan, the
requirements of which are outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and include,
but are not limited to elements such as final recreational trail alignments and phasing, Trail
locations shall be shown on the Tentative Map for Village One West.
All trails shall connect to adjoining existing trails in neighboring development
projects as determined by the Director of Planning and Building,
62, The Community Garden requirement is satisfied in Village One and is not
required in Village One West,
63, Open Space: The Applicant shall request of the City Council the creation of a
new Community Facilities District (C.F,D,) or annexation to an existing C.F.D. to fund
maintenance improvements within Village One West. The District formation or annexation
proceeding shall be completed prior to approval of the first final "B" map,
AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL
64. The Applicant shall install Chula Vista Transit facilities within Village One West,
which may include but not be limited to benches and bus shelters, in accordance with the
improvement plans approved by the City. Since transit service availability may not coincide
with project development, the Applicant shall install said improvements when directed by the
City, The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to fund these facilities, The
requirement for said agreement will be made a condition of the first tentative map for Village
One West,
65, The Applicant shall request an amendment to the agreement with the City of
Chula Vista, prior to approval of the first final "B" map of Village One West, regarding the
provision of affordable housing. Said agreement shall be a condition of approval of the first
tentative map for Village One West. Such agreement shall be in accordance with the Chula
Vista Housing Element, the Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan and the SPA One Affordable
Housing Plan.
66, Prior to the approval of the first "B" Map within Village One West, the applicant
shall annex property to the Sweetwater Union High School District (C,F,D, # 6), and to the
Chula Vista Elementary School District (C,F,D. #6), or provide some otherfinancing mechanism
approved by the school district, to provide for the construction of needed elementary, middle
and high schools, The C,F,D. shall be annexable.
67. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, prior
to approval of the first final "B" map within Village One West, to participate, on a fair share
basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the
Congestion Management Program (CMP).
68. The Applicant shall be required to equitably participate in any future regional
impact fee program for regional facilities as defined in the GDP/SRP, should the region enact
such a fee program to assist in the construction of such facilities. The Applicant shall enter
into an agreement, prior to approval of the first final" A" map, with the City which states that
the Applicant will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment
, :.,
c><"_., J.
, -",--_..._._------- --_._-,------.._."-~._.... .~"
district formed to finance regional facilities,
69. In order to satisfy their fair-share contribution for financing the light rail transit
system, the Applicant shall complete the following: 1) dedicate to the City the Light Rail
Transit (LRT) right-of-way on the final map containing said right-of-way, as indicated on the
approved tentative map; 2) rough grade said LRT alignment as part of the grading for Village
One West; and 3) prior to the approval of the first Map (including an "A" Map enter into an
agreement with the City which states that the Applicant will not protest the formation of any
potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance the LRT,
SCHOOLS
70, The Applicant shall deliver to the Chula Vista Elementary School District, a
graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access
road acceptable to the District, located in Village One West, prior to issuance of the 4,500th
residential building permit (1,350 students), The all weather access road shall also be
acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School
District as based on District facility needs, In the event that the District elects not to use this
site, the land use shall revert back to residential land use,
71, Prior to the approval of final "B" Maps within Village One West until such time
that the C,F.D. is formed, the levy of special taxes and bonds must be approved by the
qualified electors of the C,F,D, and the Chula Vista Elementary School District, and the
Sweetwater Union High School District.
,2y
RESOLUTION PCM 98-02
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE OT A Y RANCH AMENDED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
WHEREAS, an application for adoption of the Otay Ranch Amended Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) One Plan Amendment was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department
on January 14, 1997 by the Otay Project, LLC ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch SPA One Amended Planned Community District
Regulations are intended to ensure that the Amended SPA One Plan is prepared in accordance
with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), to implement the City of Chula Vista
General Plan for the Eastern Territories, to promote the orderly planning and long tenn phased
development of the Otay Ranch GDP and to establish conditions which will enable the Otay
Ranch Amended SPA One Plan to exist in harmony within the community ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, these Amended Planned Community District Regulations are established
pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 19.48 PC Planned
Community Zone, and are applicable to the Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan of the
Amended SPA One Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the SPA One Amendment includes several changes involving Village One
and Village One West; and,
WHEREAS, a GDP amendment was required to process the Amended SPA One, and a
GDP amendment was approved by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on November 10,
1998 to allow the Amended SPA One to be processed; and,
WHEREAS, the Amended SPA One refines and implements the land plans, goals,
objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on
October 23,1993, and amended on May 14, 1996 and November 10,1998; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and tenants
within 500 feet of the exterior 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 on February 3,
1999 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission,
0(')-
1
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted a Second-tier Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 97-03, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, this Second-tier EIR incorporates, by reference, three prior EIRs: the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01, certified by the
Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993; the
Chula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03, certified by the Chula Vista City Council on
March 21,1995; and the SPA One EIR 96-01, as well as their associated Findings of Fact and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, certified by the Chula Vista City Council on June
4, 1996; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the
City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to
implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but
constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the
ordinance approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of
approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of
implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Ordinance approving the
Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 3rd day of February, 1999 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
John Willett
Chair
&-6
2
m ___""~__""'_"~"_
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas
Secretary
Exhibit
Draft City Council Ordinance
B:IPCIORD.RES,WPD
~I
3
--_.. -..----.--..-.---.... --..--.----.-.-..-----.."---,----
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE OT A Y RANCH
AMENDED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
(PCM 97-11)
WHEREAS, an application for adoption ofthe Otay Ranch Amended Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) One Plan was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on January 14,
1997 by the Otay Project, LLC ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Amended SPA One Planned Community District
Regulations are intended to ensure that the SPA One Plan is prepared in accordance with the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), to implement the City ofChula Vista General
Plan for the Eastern Territories, to promote the orderly planning and long term phased
development of the Otay Ranch GDP and to establish conditions which will enable the Otay
Ranch Amended SPA One to exist in harmony within the community ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, these Amended Planned Community District Regulations are established
pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 19.48 PC Planned
Commnnity Zone, and are applicable to the Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan of the
Amended SPA Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the SPA One Amendment includes several changes involving Village One,
and Village One West; and,
WHEREAS, a GDP amendment was required to process the Amended SPA One, and a
GDP amendment was approved by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on November 10,
1998 to allow the Amended SPA One to be processed; and,
WHEREAS, the Amended SPA One refines and implements the land plans, goals,
objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on
October 23,1993, and amended on May 14, 1996 and November 10, 1998; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
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 its mailing to property owners and tenants
within 500 feet ofthe exterior 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 on February 3,
1999 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and,
I
,2f
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted a Second-tier Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 97-03, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, this Second-tier EIR incorporates, by reference, three prior EIRs: the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01, certified by the
Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28,1993; the
Chula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03, certified by the Chula Vista City Council on
March 21,1995; and the SPA One EIR 96-01, as well as their associated Findings of Fact and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, certified by the Chula Vista City Council on June
4, 1996; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the
City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to
implement those measures, These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but
constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the
ordinance approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of
approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of
implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on the Final EIR held on October 21, 1998, their public hearing held on
this project on November 3, 1998 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are
hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any
documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record ofthe
proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims,
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the ordinance adopting the Plauned Community
District Regulations for the Otay Ranch Amended SPA, finding that they are consistent
with the City ofChula Vista General Plan and that the public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practice supports their approval and implementation,
2
l~ c:r
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 97-03, the Findings of Fact, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State
EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista,
IV. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the thirtieth day from its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista,
California this 16th day of February, 1999 by the following vote:
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A, Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Beverly A Authelet, City Clerk of the City ofChula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No,_ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
at a City Council meeting held on the 16th day of February, 1999,
Executed this 16th day of February, 1999,
Beverly A Authelet, City Clerk
B:\CC\ORDINANC.WPD
3
30
" m___._.,_~._____ ........._.____.___.__._.. ..._.__.., ,'_'__
~{f?
~~
~-...::......,;..-..;:
~~~~
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
January 21, 1999
Chair John Willet and Commission Members
Chula Vista Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Chair Willet and Planning Commission Members:
The Chula Vista Economic Development Commission would like to revisit with you issues that were raised at
your joint workshop with Council last year regarding Industrial Land Availability. The EDC has continued to be
concerned about the lack of readily "deliverable" industrial sites in our city, as well as with the adequacy of our
long-term industrial inventory. Following our workshop in October 1997, and per the direction of Planning
Commission and Council members, the EDC established an Industrial Lands Task Force, The Task Force
presented Council with a set of recommendations which were approved by resolution [see Attachment 1]. We
feel that it is important to discuss these recommendations with the Planning Commission to ensure coordination
related to industrial land policy, and specifically to focus on the need to require master plan developers,
including EastLake and Otay Ranch, to install industrial related infrastructure early in the development
process; i.e. prior to residential phases.
The EDC is interested in actively continuing dialogue with both the Planning Commission and the City Council
and would like to suggest that a follow-up joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop be held to
update you regarding this topic - including significant regional efforts related to industrial land planning and
marketing - and to explore related challenges and opportunities facing our City today,
In addition to the adopted Task Force recommendations, I have attached related EDC correspondence with
Council [Attachment 2], Past correspondence deals primarily with the City's only existing Business Park, EastLake
Business Center, and EastLake's request to relocate their Phase II industrial zoning to the "Land 5wap" area
southeast of SR125 and Olympic Blvd. Our concern is twofold: 1] the city has no parcels over 2-3 acres in size
within a Business Park available for industrial businesses [Phase II could offer large parcels]; and 2J relocating
these acres would cut the Business Park in half; we want to ensure that any "replacement" business park be at
least 80 - 100 contiguous acres net in size to meet the criteria that industrial site selectors tells us is so important.
We appreciate your consideration of these matters.
Sincerely,
~/I (1-i:
//;'t:{, , t .' d
~ WY~Chair
Economic Development Commission
cc: City Counci I
David D. Rowlands, City Manager
Chris 5alomone, Community Development Director
Bob Leiter, Planning/Building Department Director
Cheryl Dye, Economic Development Manager
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5047
{Ub c/Lnu/lf;-
#/
RESOLUTION NO, 19018
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE INDUSTRIAL LAND TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT
WHEREAS, on October 9, 1997, staff presented a report regarding the lack of
adequate industrially zoned land in Chula Vista at a joint Planning Commission/City Council
workshop; and
WHEREAS, the report addressed the decreasing supply of "deliverable industrial
acreage and the increasing industrial demand both in the City of Chula Vista and county-wide;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Council requested that the Economic
Development Commission (EDC) establish a Task Force to review the issues discussed at the
workshop and that staff and the EDC return to Council with specific recommendations; and
WHEREAS, an Industrial Land Task Force was formed, composed of the EDC Chair,
the Planning Commission Chair, the Mayor, and 5 EDC Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force held four meetings and developed the following
recommendations:
Targeted Industrial Marketing Efforts:
1, Reaffirm existing business attraction, retention, and expansion strategies which
currently target biotechnology manufacturers, defense/aerospace firms, import/export
firms, and other high growth, high technology companies employing highly paid
workers
2. Reaffirm ongoing economic development marketing efforts to attract industrial/R&D
developers and users to the following areas currently zoned for industrial:
a, High Tech/Biotech Zone at the EastLake Business Center, Phase I and 11;
b. Otay Valley Road; and
c, Otay Ranch, Village 3 & 18b.
Industrial Land Supply:
1, Adopt a policy discouraging the use of industrially zoned land for non-industrial uses
and requiring individual applications to convert industrial land, such as General Plan
amendments, rezones, or CUP's, to include:
a. An industrial development impact analysis; and
b, EDC review prior to Planning Commission consideration, as applicable,
2, Reaffirm the City's intent to preserve the High Tech/Biotech Zone by maintaining the
existing industrial land use designation in the EastLake Business Center Phases 1 and
2,
......_--- .._---~_._,..-
Resolution 19018
Page 2
3. Direct staff to evaluate the existing IR (Industrial Research) zone to ensure the
flexibility needed to accommodate new, technology- and information. based industries
and to recommend amendments to Council as appropriate,
4, Evaluate the feasibility of applying the IR zone (as amended) as an Overlay Zone to
allow for limited R&D/Light Industrial uses within certain commercial areas within the
City including, but not limited to:
a. EastLake Village Center (including Kaiser site);
b. Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center and Villages 9 and 10 (University site);
c, Bayfront (Midbayfront, Port and B,F, Goodrich sites);
d, Broadway;
e. Town Centre I Project Area; (3rd Avenue);
f. Southwest Project Area (Main St.);
and return to Council with specific recommendations regarding the use of such Overlay
Zones,
5. Direct staff to evaluate land uses citywide to identify potential areas for rezoning to
industrial including, but not limited to:
a, Otay Ranch Village 2 (only that portion within the 1,000 ft, landfill buffer) and
Village 2 west, and report recommendations to Council.
Direct staff to evaluate the potential for annexing land to the south or east to provide
for additional industrial land inventory and report recommendations to Council.
7. Direct staff to work proactively with developers when negotiating or renegotiating
Public Facility Financing Plans, and related phasing requirements at the SPA level, to
ensure that improvements serving industrial/R&D areas, including but not limited to
transportation-related infrastructure, are provided in the most timely fashion feasible,
Fees and Customer Service:
1. Direct the Economic Development Commission to consider approaches the City may
wish to take to address Fees and Customer Service and report recommendations to
Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby adopt the Industrial land Task Force Recommendations, and directs staff to
implement,
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~~
Qc;~ C7
/bhJ M, Kaheny 0
l.9(y Attorney
uis Salomone
Community Development
Resolution 19018
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 23rd day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas and Horton
NAYES:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
None
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers:
None
Sh~:~
ATTEST:
~
I
('~, \XI'OJ'^^ () ~~Y /
Beverly A. Authelet, Ity J1eru
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I
COUNTY 0;: SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A, Authelet, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No, 19018 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council
at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 23rd day of June. 1998,
Executed this 23rd day of June, 1998,
J.c Beverly A, Authelet,
(
:-.~
---
~- -""'""'-
-.- -
ATTACHMENT 2
C11Y OF
(HULA VISTA
ECONOMIC: DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
September 9,1998
Mayor Horton and Council
City of Chula Vis::a
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Iv\ayor Horton and City Councilmembers:
On June 23, the City's Industrial land Task Force presented Council with a set of recommendations re'''ld to the
leck of de!iv'2:-a:.:e industria! cr'Jd R&D land in (hula Vista. Council unanimous:y voted to approve our
reCOr.lme:uJctior.s (5::= attached). However, at the same me=ting, the Ea..:tLake De'le!opment Company formally
presec,ted for the fic;t time a propos,,1 that would allow E2StLake to de.:e'op half of their remaining Business Center _
"pproximately '0 of the remaining 80 acres net - as residential. EostLake proposed "relocating' the 40 acres of
industrial zoned land to e!sEwhe:-e within the EcstLake community. Council directed staff to review E25tLake's
propes2.! and re~iJrn with an analysis.
The City's Ecor,Or.',ic De'le1opment Commission, which formed the T25~ Force, requested that the Task Force
reConVE:le to CQr.5;ce~ the EcstLake proposal which it viewed to be in conflict with the Task Force recommendations
adopted by Council. The Task Force met on August 24 to consider this rnctter.
It migot be he'pful to summarize here the T2Sk Force recommendations th"t related direcJy to the EastLake Business
Ce:1te~:
1) "Reafiir;!1 existir,g business attraction, rete:1tion, and expansion strategies which currently tag~t biotech
manuf2.c:ure~5... and other high tech compcniesn
2) "Reafiiriil ong'Jing economic deve!opme:1t marketing effor15 to attract industrial!R&D de'le1opers and users
to the following areas currently zoned for industrial (including the) High Tech/Bio Tech Zone..."
31 "Adopt 2. policy discaurcging the use af indusLria!!y zoned land for nonindustrial uses."
4) "Reaffirm the City's intent to preserve the High Tech/ Bio Tech Zone by maintaining the existing industrial
land use designation in the EastLake Business Center Phases! and II"
It is our undecst"oding that Council wished staff to review EastLake's proposal to "relocote" the industrial property
e1sewhere in the City. While the concept merited consideration, after Task Force review and discussion with staff,
the Task Force wishes to reiterate our recommendation that the Business Center not be "cut up" and reduced, in order
to avoid losing the benefits of scale and marketing synergies, Further, it is oUr understanding that staff has reviewed
EastLake's specific proposal to "relocate" the industrial zoning to the ..s.....ap property" on the northeost side of SR 125
and Orange, whic~ is cur,e:1t1y planned far residential. This site is loca:ed betvveen future retail and future housing
(see mapL Staff found that this proposal presents numerous potential problems, and the Task Force concurs. Among
these problems are the following:
1) The poter,tial for neither 40 acre site to be developed for industrial
2) Potenti,,1 delays to the construction of Orang~/Olympic Blvd
3) Pote"ti,,! impaccS upon the development of affordable housing which is currently required within the
reside:,t;2.1 "swap propertyll
4) I'-;egotive impacts upon the City's signincant investment in economic development strategies and targeted
industry effor'"LS
276 FOURTH AVENUElCHUlA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691.5047
5) Concecns repding locating an lso[ated 40 acres oi Industrial um b~tw~~M tl1~ F~;ail 6Mcl F@,jg:;RtielleRcl
uses
Staffs review also indicated that the proposal would entail maior delavs in the availability of industrially zoned land
for targeted hightech users due to:
1) the need for complex processing, including General Plen Amendments and EIR's covering both underlying
end (proposed) Overlay zoning, i.e, environmental reviews of both industrial and residential land uses on
L~e same parce!s; and .
2) the need to negotiate appropriate de'/e!opment agreeme:1ts.
In addition, the Committee fee's that if the EO acre parcel does not remain intact, steff will not only not have the
product necessary to market the High Tech/Biotech Zone as previously designed by Council, but that such a move
would seriously impair staff's ability to promote the City as a whole in a proper manner, Without prominent,
desircole pace!s sucn as this to proactive!y marke~, other properties withIn Chula Vista may not be ab1e to take
ad\"arI12ge of opportunities for exposure eithe~.
For all of the above reasons, the Task Force would like to strongly recommend thot Council recommit to the
recommendations that it approved on June 23, and to make clear its commitment to preserving the Business
Center in its entirety, in order to support long.adopted Chub Vista Economic Development Strategies.
The Task Force appreciates your attention to this matte~.
'~'!~
Z~Pton,
I~~t~ial Land Task Force Chair
cc: Economic De'lelopment Commission
David 0, Rowlands Jr., City Managec
Robert Leiter, Director, Planning /Building and Housing
Chris Salomone, Director, Community Development
Cheryl Dye, Economic Development Manager
CITY OF CHULA VIS7A
~\~
:-~:.--:
~=.::-= =-
- --
ATTACHMENT 2
ClN OF
CHULA VISTA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
5eptember 28, 1998
The Honorable Mayor and Council members
City of Chula Visca
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Horton and Councilmembers:
At your meeting on September 22, Council discussed the latest recommendations from the Economic Development Commissi~n's
Industrial land Use Task Force. As you know, this Task Force has remained committed to the idea that this city needs as much
contiguOL:5 indl!5~ria!ly zoned acreage within a master p!an"ed bcsiness park 2S possible if we are to be a successful P!.2.',.'er in
attracting new bUS;:i2SS and local business expansions. Our T25k Force has recommended and continues to recomr.-,enc that the
City preserve the remaining 80 acres of contiguous land at our only upscale Business Park - Eastlake Business Center - in order
to have a viable chance of anracting the kind o( businesses that our adopted Economic Development Strategies have tarse'ed. We
appreciate the landowner's concerns regarding the economic implica!ions of their property's land use. However, OUf concern, 25
we believe is Council's, is simply this: What is the best (or the future economic well-being of our city?
Task Force members are aware that at your September 22 meeting, you pe:mitted EastLake Deve!opment to have another 30 days
to Cieate an alternate proposal. \Ne submit to you that we have grave concerns about continuing delays by the landowner. This
issue has been on the table since the Joint Counci1lPlanning Commission \Norkshop (1np vpar 212'0. At that time, the EDC
recommended that Council reaffirm their commitment to the High Tech Zone and to preserving the entire EastLake Business Center
in taG; the landowner indicated concerns about a lack of demand in Chula Vista, Since that time the City has attracted Raytheon,
Solar Turbines, a:"',d other companies, and EastLake's Phase I of its Business Center has virtua1!y sold out. The Task Force and staff
need a final resolution without further delays. We urge Council to require EastLake to bring this issue to closure. We urge Council
to not accept (urther delays,
We have had a very real window of opportunity for the past year to attract desirable, job creating companies to EastLake - an
opf.iortunity that had been planned for by Council, staff, the EDC, Task Forces, 'elc in conjunction with EastLake in the previous
"dry" years. The City networked and marketed the High Tech ZJr.e extensively, achieved a grEat deal of recognition, and
positioned ourse!ves to me:::t future demand. In the last y-:::arl v..e have had several businesses express interest in EastLake. But
when push came to shove we have not been able to deliver because the property \fI..as not and is not on the market (example:
Siosite \fI.'as interested in 30 acrES for a manufacturing plant; they were turned away) That window may close with our city being
len behind if we continue the delays,
As of this time, if a major economic development project expr.:;ssed inte;2st in EastLake, land would not be available. The:-.:; is no
point in continuing to market what we don't have. We do not have a "High Tech Zone" until the landowner makes tr..:; land
available and becomes a willing and active partner with the City and staff.
We ne'2d Council's final determination regarding what direction that you want the Economic Development Commission and staff
to pursue. If we don't have enough land and land that is readily available for sale and development, then the City's existing
economic development strategies and related business attraciion and marketing activities need to change dramatic:.!ly. We
respectfully seek your guidance and policy direction on this matter,
lsincerel~-f. ,./J ~
~I Compton '! ~
Chair, Industrial land Task Force
K~~~tf-
~uss Hall
Industrial land Task Force
cc: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development
Robert leiter, Director of Planning/Building
Cheryl L. Dye, Economic Development Manager
~~f?
~
- - --
~- --
(ilk.. c/l.l7u..!dJ
#:1-
ON OF
CHULA VISTA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
January 21, 1999
The Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92101
Dear Mayor and Council:
On behalf of the Economic Development Commission I would like to thank you for your consideration of
our past communications related to the lack of readilv deliverable Chula Vista industrial sites. We continue
to feel strongly that this issue needs to be raised to a high level of attention. To date we have specifically
pointed your attention to the City's only existing Business Park - EastLake Business Center - and the
importance of maintaining the entire business park in its current contiguous 200 acre configuration and for
encouraging EastLake to make the property available for sale. Regional and local "experts" emphasize the
need for larger sized parcels for high tech manufacturing companies, and for a "critical mass" of land which
offers developers the economies of scale needed to finance a quality business park, The "experts" tell us
that 80 - 100 acres is the minimal desirable size; 200 - 300 acres and above is even more desirable.
As you know, EastLake has informed the City that they are not marketing the second undeveloped phase
of their existing business park (approximately 100 acres). they have also indicated that they will be asking
the City to reevaluate their request to "relocate" their industrial zoning elsewhere in the City as part of their
future EastLake III Plan and ElR submittal. We want to ensure that Council understands the following
implications:
1) The City is currently unable to provide sites larger than a few acres to business prospects (all others are
either improperly zoned, contaminated, or not for sale). We literally have brokers telling us they cannot
find sites for their clients in Chula Vista.
2) Availability of deliverable EastLake industrial property could be delayed for an undetermined period of
time, depending upon any number of factors related to the processing of the EastLake III Plan and EIR.
3) It appears at this point that no more than 40-50 contiguous acres are available at the Land Swap area,
which is the area EastLake has proposed for its "relocated" Phase II of its Business Park.
The EDCs recommendation that was approved by Council established a policy to maintain the EastLake
Business Center's conti~uous 200 acres. The EDC would respectfully recommend that at a minimum, any
"relocated" industrial area include at least 80 acres net of contiguous lands. We would like to encourage
Council and the City Manager to meet with EastLake to work towards resolution of their specific issues. It
is critical that both the City and EastLake commit to fasttracking this process if the City is to be able to' offer
industrial sites. '
We also would like to reinforce our recommendations that Council proactively evaluate how other
properties can be encouraged to come on line (Le. be properly zoned, be cut on the market for sale. and
be imc'roved with needed infrastructure), We are forwarding a letter to the Planning Commission informing
them of our hope that they will take these issues into consideration as they are considering entitlements for
276 FOURTH AVENUElCHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691.5047
The Honorable Mayor and Counci I
January 21, 1999
Page 3
the large masterplanned projects, in particular, the Otay Ranch. We hope that the Planning Commission
and Council ensure that industrial areas are improved and marketed early in the development of the
overall communities as opposed to being left dormant indefinitely, With residential growth booming, this
becomes increasingly important to preserve a critical jobs/housing balance.
Finally, it is our understanding that the SDEDC is looking for industrial land of up to 1,000 acres for a new
high tech/biotech business park. We think the City should evaluate options for "throwing our hat into the
ring." We suggest that Council hold a Workshop on "Employment Lands" as a follow-up to the workshop
held with the Planning commission over a year (see attached letter to the Planning Commission), The EDC
would be happy to facilitate inviting appropriate "expert" participants.
Again, we genuinely appreciate your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
~:;"f!ft~
Economic Development Commission
cc: Planning Commission
David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager
Chris 5alomone, Director of Community Development
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning/Building
Cheryl L. Dye, Economic Development Manager
CITY OF CHULA VISTA