HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1999/09/29
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, September 29, 1999
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALUMOTlONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 14,1999
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.
REPORT:
Consideration of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 97-02), (Third Tier EIR), California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for San Miguel Ranch SPA.
Staff is recommending this item be continued to October 6, 1999
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCM 96-04; Request to approve the San Miguel Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan including the Planned Community District
Regulations and Design Guidelines; Public Facilities Finance Plan;
Affordable Housing Plan; Air Quality Improvement Plan; and Water
Conservation Plan - Trimark Pacific - San Miguel LLC
Staff is recommending this item be continued to October 6, 1999.
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCA-OO-01; Request to rename the Design Review Committee to the
Design Review Commission.
Reporting staff member: Steve Power
4.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LFD-99-05; an appeal of a large family daycare permit located at 735
Glover Avenue.
Reporting staff member: Beverly Blessent
Planning Commission
- 2-
September 29, 1999
5.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Development Agreement between the City of Chula
Vista ("City"), Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
("Agency"), and ROHR, INC. operating as BFGoodrich Aerospace
Aerostructure Group, ("BFG").
Reporting staff member: Glenn Googins and Brian Hunter
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Representative to GMOC.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
to the a Special Planning Commission Meeting on October 6, 1999.
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-€ight 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 (TDD)
at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
~ ~ s~p ~ : : ~ ~ 13, J~9
Dear City Planning Commission, PLANNING
I am writing to you in re!;/U ds to me :san Miguel Ranch elementary school site proposed in
Case Number PCM-96-04. It has been brought to my attention that Trimark Pacific, the
Developer of San Miguel Ranch, has planned the entrance of the school for the intersection of
Proctor Valley Road and Rolling Ridge Road. As a resident ofEstancia and an elementary school
teacher here in Chula Vista, I appeal to you to change the entrance, for the safety of our
children. The safest place for the school driveway is facing the neighborhood of the attending
children. The children of our small, quiet neighborhood ofEstancia will be endangered by the
mass amount of traffic connected with a school entrance. I firmly believe it is the duty of the
Planning Commission to require the Developer to change this school entrance as asked of you in
our prior petition.
Sincerely,
Su,san Terh~ L . ..
'Vl.~j.,b./\a.ttA....;
Estancia Resident
510 Ocean View Lane
(619) 421-2252
f~
~~
,
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:L
Meeting Date: 9/29/99
ITEM TITLE:
REPORT: Consideration of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report (EIR-97-02), (Third Tier EIR), California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the San Miguel Ranch SPA
Final Subsequent EIR-97-02 was originally set for consideration by the Planning Commission on
September 15, 1999 (as was the public hearing on the San Miguel Ranch SPA), but that meeting had
to be canceled due to the lack of a quorum. Agenda items scheduled for a meeting which is canceled
are automatically carried forward to the next meeting of the Commission. As a result, the items must
be re-agendized for tonight's meeting.
Due, however, to the scheduling of consultants and other professionals associated with the project,
and in order to allow ample lead time for others interested in the project to arrange their calendars,
staff is requesting that the Planning Commission continue consideration of this Item to the meeting
of October 6, 1999, at 6:00pm.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission continue this Item to the meeting of October 6,1999, at 6:00pm.
(H:IIIOME\PLANNING\EDISAN-MIGl0929E1R.RP1)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 2
Meeting Date: 9/29/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM-96-04; Request to approve the San Miguel Ranch
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan including the Planned Community
District Regulations and Design Guidelines; Public Facilities Finance Plan;
Affordable Housing Plan; Air Quality Improvement Plan; and Water
Conservation Plan - Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC
The San Miguel Ranch SPA Public Hearing, and the related action on the FSEIR, were originally
set for consideration by the Planning Commission on September 15, 1999, but that meeting had to
be canceled due to the lack of a quorum. Agenda items scheduled for a meeting which is canceled
are automatically carried forward to the next meeting of the Commission. As a result, and since
public hearing notices were sent for the September 15 meeting, the item must be re-agendized for
tonight's meeting.
Due, however, to the scheduling of consultants and other professionals associated with the project,
and in order to allow ample lead time for others interested in the project to arrange their calendars,
staff is requesting that the Planning Commission continue consideration of the Item to the meeting
of October 6,1999, at 6:00pm.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of October 6,1999, at
6:00pm.
(H:\HOME\PLANNlNG\EDISAN-MIGI0929PC.RP1)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item3
Meeting Date 9/29/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCA-OO-Ol; Request to rename the Design Review
Committee to the Design Review Commission.
The Design Review Committee (DRC) has submitted a request to have their name changed to the
Design Review Commission. The proposed name change is intended to better convey the DRC's
level of responsibility to project applicants.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt an ordinance in order to:
1) Modify Section 19.14.581 of the Municipal Code to rename the Design Review Committee
the Design Review Commission, and;
2) Direct the City Clerk to change all other applicable Municipal Code sections to read Design
Review Commission.
DISCUSSION:
In the attached letter dated September 14, 1999, Chairperson Patricia Aguilar requests that the
Design Review Committee be renamed to the Design Review Commission. Ms. Aguilar states in
her letter that project applicants and architects going before the DRC often do not have a full
appreciation of the responsibilities of the Design Review Committee. The DRC feels that the term
"commission" better conveys their mission and scope of responsibility to project applicants.
The Design Review Committee is responsible for ensuring that development within the City of
Chula Vista maintains a high degree of design quality. The DRC applies the City Design
Guidelines in their review of such aspects of development plans as architectural style, site
planning, choice of building materials, and landscaping. The DRC reviews commercial,
residential, industrial, and institutional development. The DRC utilizes their design expertise
in assessing proposed development, and will often require that projects be modified in order to
be compatible with their surroundings.
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 9/29/99
Changing the name of the Design Review Committee would require the modification of language
within the Zoning Code. State law requires that changes to the Zoning Code must first be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
The Design Review Committee is established in Section 19.14.581 of the Zoning Code, which
states the following:
In order to relieve the planning commission of certain functions necessary to the
proper administration of this chapter, to intensify this municipality's efforts to
improve its townscape, and to promote the orderly growth and amenity of the
city and environs, there is established a design review committee with such
authority as is granted by the chapter."
In order to change the name of the Design Review Committee to the Design Review Commission,
the word "committee" must be replaced with "commission" throughout the Municipal Code. At
this time, staff is recommending that only the above referenced language be modified, with the
direction given to the City Clerk to modify all other applicable code sections at a later date. Staff
has prepared a draft resolution (Attachment "B") which recommends that the City Council adopt
an ordinance that modifies Section 19.14.581 of the Municipal Code, and authorizes the City
Clerk to make all other required changes.
Staff is of the opinion that the authority and responsibilities of the DRC should be fully
acknowledged and conveyed as clearly as possible to project applicants. A similar change was
made several years ago, when the Growth Management Oversight Committee was changed to the
Growth Management Oversight Commission. As the Planning Commission is aware, the DRC has
a significant positive impact upon the quality of design in Chula Vista. The title Design Review
Commission should help to more fully convey the responsibilities of the DRC.
H:\shared\planning\stevexp\DRCnamechangePC
~~f?
~--:
........-...;~-:;...
"'--......-.::...""'-
~.......~~
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Date:
September 14, 1999
From:
Mayor Horton and Members of the Chula Vista City Council
Patricia Aguilar, Chairman/JA--.--
Design Review Committee (\)kC)
To:
The purpose of this memorandum is to request your consideration of renaming the Design Review
Committee to Design Review Commission.
As you are aware, some of the Council's appointed advisory bodies are called "commission," while
others are called "committee". Our understanding is that this is a historical artifact and no
difference in function or responsibility level is implied by the two different titles. Although we have
no objection to the name "committee," we have noticed that project applicants and architects that
come before DRC for approval of their project designs often do not fully appreciate the
responsibilities of the committee, even though those responsibilities are explained to them in
advance by staff. Reasons for this are probably varied, but we believe that this simple name change
will give project applicants a clearer picture of the importance that the City of Chula Vista places
on the physical appearance of our community.
We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to answering any question you'
may have on this matter.
..
Attachment "A"
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910
P,,,' c,,"'"'~,"' i1":y.:;.~ r.;p.,
RESOLUTION NO. PCA-OO-Ol
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 19.14.581 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CONFORM ALL
OTHER APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TO
REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee IS
responsible for reviewing all significant development within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee has an appreciable positive
impact upon the quality of development within the City of Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, it is important to convey the responsibilities and expertise of
the Design Review Committee as clearly as possible to project applicants; and,
WHEREAS, changing the name of the Design Review Committee to the
Design Review Commission will help to better convey the authority, mission and
responsibilities of this body; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing
on said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City as least ten days
prior to the hearing, and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised,
namely September 29, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth
A venue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found the proposal, as a procedural
amendment, is exempt rrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under the General Rule exemption section 15061(b)(3).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS
PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council amend Section 19.14.581 of the Municipal Code and direct the
City Clerk to amend all other applicable sections of the Municipal Code, to change
the name of the Design Review Committee to the Design Review Commission, as
shown in Attachment "A."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be
transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 29th day of September by the following
vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
John Willet, Chairman
Diana Vargas, Secretary
ATTACHMENT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. PCA-OO-Ol
19.14.581 Design Review
Creation.
In order to relieve the planning commission of certain functions necessary to the
proper administration of this chapter, to intensify this municipality's efforts to
improve its townscape, and to promote the orderly growth and amenity of the city
and environs, there is established a design review ~ with such authority as
is granted by the chapter."
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ..!i::...
Meeting Date: 9/29/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: LFD-99-05; an appeal of a large family day care
permit located at 735 Glover Ave.
On July 29, 1999, the Zoning Administrator approved a Large Family Day Care permit
for the residence at 735 Glover Ave. A neighboring property owner (with the support of
others in the neighborhood) appealed this decision.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is exempt per
Class 5 (minor change in land use).
Staff Contact: Beverly Blessent, AICP; Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and
thereby deny the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
A Large Family Day Care operation is considered an accessory use in a single family
residence. Such a use is allowed to provide residential day care for 9-14 children
(including the provider's own children under the age of 12). These homes are required to
obtain a license from the State, as well as a permit rrom the City. The applicant has
already received a license from the State (June 9, 1999). The appeal of the City's
administrative approval of the Large Family Day Care Permit is the subject of this
hearing item.
The Large Family Day Care permit is subject to the following standards (Section
19.58.147) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code:
A. Notice shall be given to properties within 300 feet of the proposed large family
daycare home at least ten days prior to consideration of the permit.
B. The permit shall be considered without public hearing unless the applicant or
other affected party requests a hearing by the hearing deadline date. The
applicant or other affected party may appeal the zoning administrator's decision
to the Planning Commission.
Pal;" 2, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
C. The family day care function shall be incidental to the residential use of the
property.
D. A large family daycare home shall not locate within:
1. Three hundred feet of another such facility with said measurement being
defined as the shortest distance between the property lines of any such
facilities; and
2. Twelve hundred feet of another such facility along the same street with
said measurements being defined as the shortest distance between front
property lines, as measured along the same street, of any such facilities.
E. The owner must provide a double-wide driveway which shall be paved to meet
City Standards and be a minimum of 16 feet wide and 19 feet in depth as
measured from the edge of sidewalk to any vertical obstruction. The driveway
shall be available during all hours of operation for the loading and unloading of
children. If a garage exists on-site, it must be utilized for parking of personal
vehicle(s). In the event that less than a two-car garage exists on site, the owner
must designate an area on site other than on the driveway so that a total of two
personal vehicles can be parked on site, including the garage. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, applicant must comply with all other Municipal Code provisions as
to parking and traffic.
F. If in the opinion of the zoning administrator there is a potential for significant
traffic problems, the zoning administrator shall request review of the application
by the city traffic engineer. The city traffic engineer may impose accessory
requirements for the daycare permit in these instances to insure maintenance of
traffic safety levels within the vicinity of the home.
G. A usable rear yard play area of 1,200 square feet shall be provided. Outdoor play
activity shall not be allowed in the front or exterior side yard of the home.
H. Play areas shall be designed and located to reduce the impact of noise on
surrounding properties.
1. A business license shall be obtained concurrently with the use permit.
In response to the public notice on the permit, the Zoning Administrator received three
letters of opposition and a petition signed by twenty-four residents in the neighborhood.
(See Attachment 3). The letters requested a hearing in accordance with Section
19.58.147B of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
A Zoning Administrator hearing was held on July 29, 1999, (See Attachment 5, Minutes
of the Hearing). The applicant and her grandfather were present at the hearing and spoke
Page 3, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
in favor of the project. Eight neighbors spoke in opposition to the permit and voiced the
following concerns:
. Noise
. Traffic/speeding
. Not enough play space in rear yard
. Inadequacy of bathroom facilities
. Perceived devaluation of the neighborhood.
ANALYSIS:
Compliance with Permit Requirements:
The City is required to approve the permit if it complies with all City requirements. The
Zoning Administrator found that the permit met all City requirements.
. Notice was provided to all homeowners within 300 feet.
. The permit was considered at a hearing conducted by the Zoning Administrator which
was subsequently appealed by interested parties.
. The family day care function is incidental to the residential use of the property.
. The City has not approved any Large Family Daycare permits within the minimum
distance requirements.
. Parking requirements have been met. The drop off area in the rront of the home
complies with City regulations, as it is 32 feet long and 18 feet wide.
. The existing play area is 1,970 square feet.
. A 5 foot 6 inch fence surrounds the backyard on three sides.
Response to Appeal Concerns:
In regards to the residents concerns, the City is required to approve the permit application
if it is in compliance with all City regulations. It is staffs' beliefthat the proposed facility
does meet all of the required standards. The Zoning Administrator had the following
responses to the concerns of the neighbors:
. A 5 foot 6 inch fence surrounds the backyard on three sides and should alleviate some
of the noise. The Planning Commission may want to consider an additional condition
limiting the number of children that may play outside at anyone time. This could
alleviate potential concerns of the neighbors regarding excessive noise levels during
the day.
Page 4, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
. Regarding noise and traffic on the street, the applicant has provided flyers to all her
customers requesting them to only drop off children in the driveway or in rront of her
home and to slow down after dropping children off.
. The applicant has adequate play space in the rear yard per State regulations.
. Regarding the provision of only one bathroom in the home, the City does not have
regulations regarding this. However, the Building Division records note that a
building permit was issued to expand one of the bedrooms and add a bathroom. The
State of California Child Care Advocate has indicated that they have no regulations
regarding the number of required bathrooms in such facilities.
. Regarding the perceived devaluation of the neighborhood, Planning Division staff has
no objective evidence that this is the case nor has the applicant supplied any
information to indicate that this is a problem.
CONCLUSION:
Since the applicant meets all City requirements for a Large Family Daycare Home, the
appeal of Large Family Daycare Permit 99-05 should be denied and the decision of the
Zoning Administrator upheld.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Site Plan
3. Letters of opposition and petition
4. Letter of notice to parents
5. Minutes of July 29, 1999 Zoning Administrator Hearing
6. Zoning Administrator Approval letter
7. Appeal fonn
H:\HOMEIPLANNINGIBEVlCURRENTlPROJECTSILFD9905PCAGENDAREPORT.doc
"
"":!,.
..... ..-
\:1:" ~ 0----
11:> \------1.-----' .-----I
\ C ~~ 1._______
\ ~ '\~~
'Y:.~\ \~l..----
I~\ . V1----
\wj\~
D?~\~
\ _\----~ \ \' j;
\------\ \ I IY /
1---, \ \ (::\
. \ 1
\ 1 .
.\\01 I
\, Iv 1 \--/--\ ~
I . ,
, 1
\- 1\
' .
\ '
, \
\
1
CHUlA
LOCATOR
C)
,
PROJECT
APPUCANrS:
ROMINEE L. RICCA and
PATRICIA B. TORRES
735 GLOVER AVE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
VISTA PLANNING AND BUilDING DEPARTMENT
LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
Request: Proposed Family Daycare for 14 Children.
SCALE: I FILE NUMBER:
t NORTH No Scale LFD-99-05
h :lhomelplanninglcarlosllocatorsllfd9905.cdr 06/23/99
,
~N.
. ,
. .
. .
~
'" ~"^ ,.. .." ,. I-
~~~ ~'C "
.. ('Q)'~-~CY...
V V) ~..
~ . "<<
.,
~.~tIVI~/~: ~~ /&/-' I "
~ , ~
"';' .: -Sl"l>ItA6E.- .. , :~~J6TtN(;, ~DI ~ U\
~ ~ ~ ;~~'~~b.b, /2.' ~~
~ ~ . et~,~.1J'(t{.b .: be:ct.aN~ rIlJSTINL, ~ ~~
VI f;ftM\l,.V _ ~V,~). iJ'IwtJ N.iJ )( '~'"
~~ ~.; ?oOM I '~,~/~nN6. PLA.'I N4GA X ,,~
~~",_, If,''!.$" ,'_&Jb 12: (~~U~:~) x ~L
cn~~,:..:':' ~ ~
I~ ,"'.: 17' ~,
..a .q? ~ / ' J 3&.' to II . \1/ '< L.J !: , "-
~ ~ I ' '" .', - -- "" b
/W;-i~r;.11 NOf>k',: ~0-';':'faR, IJ.'i:'0R'.dgp.'~, ~~~A.
,&ij .. q -J f\ II' ,~, f't., ~ 1.:::11 I "-~
~!I' ~ ~ . ~'5TIIJ6, . ~Yi>#f."IN6f"tJNM-fi." ~ ;.. ~~
{,~ . :- ,I'. - .~' 0Jl '6iitu6EQA ",",J..~-1If))i~"'.' ''\J3~. :. " r , . 'I ~
~'V j. ., . .' ~'i.. ''- - I ~
~ ~'~~:: I/~" : 23 X leg J)df' ',' . .~~ "!l ',,, :' \)
? . I " '. . . . ,
. . . /" ,.1(1 . ~ "-
. ' ." I 'J
. ~ ~:'. p ! '11 .; '.~. ", , J9!< \ I - (
,~r7 !v: ~~ ~~ ~p9Ar,1>~fo" ,.,,:;,ort (1
I ~~""oeo.-, J' ,....,~: I~ ~
"""'I~", .te,(~ A. . C. Ilot Go.k-,~ '\
":~'" ..: /5' ~" I V\
:.-..~ E~,!2r.ljJ6 I ~ ~
; :\'r-~, .' b~I~~AY 11 .
~,. .:-. .F()lt-b~P~: F~foJT VAil]) ~Y:4-
:~'I ,.r.....~,... 6 c.' I j9J.
~ j.: . W~~{'iij, ~r '.:. 12 p..~~ I .
~: 1"~~~~1' ATTACHMENT;<:
E~LSiiA//;. S'~" I-J/&h
wDD/JeN Fsve6
~
:$c)(, ,p
"
)t
'1
)l
. .
J4. ^ Il. -- T\
...~ J
,. '..
.(, .
t'..:
._-- -
,;.
'-L.
...~
"
William K. and Mary Prusaczyk
729 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case Number LFD-99-05
Norman Ostapinks~ Project Planner in the Planning Department
Public Service Building
Chula Vista Civic Center,
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
To Whom It May Concern:
A notice was received on July 3, 1999 requesting a permit for the party residing at 735 Glover
Avenue to run a large family day care center. Please place us on record as opposing this permit.
The reasons for opposition are the increased traffic on a neighborhood street and too many children
within one residence. This area is zoned as residential, one family, and to allow a variance to anyone
who wants to run a business out of their home would cause too many car trips for the street and
endanger the children who already live on the street and who would not be expecting the increased
traffic within their neighborhood. It could also increase the noise level in the area and this increase
would really be noticed by the next door neighbors which is what we are.
Please let us know what we have to do in order to not allow this permit to be approved.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(Jj~~
William K. Prusaczyk
'!l~~
A\-rAct+MttJ-r ?
July 9, 1999
Mr. Norman Ostapinksi
Planning Department
Public Services Building
Chu1a Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Reference: Case Number LFD-99-05, Rominee Ricca/Patricia Barajas-Torres
Dear Mr. Ostapinksi:
This letter is to re-state, for the record, our objections to the
enlargement of the day care facility at 735 Glover Avenue. As I stated in
my phone message of 7-9-99 at approx. 11am, Mr. Power and I are away for
several months and are unable to attend the hearing.
Our objections are as follows:
1. The increased amount of traffic. Glover Avenue is not a thru street
and there is already a substantial amount of traffic generated by the
two Day Care centers already in operation on this street.
The noise factor. Children do tend to generate quite a substantial
2.
amount of noise throughout the day.
3. The lowering of property values.
4. If a larger day care facility is needed, it should be placed in a
Commercially Zoned Area and not a residential area.
5. Parking. The ability to park a car in front of my own home has become
increasingly more difficult. Family members are unable to park in front
of our home at certain times of the day.
Please advise us of the out
come of the hearing. Thank you.
~~
/
Niles & Elaine Power
715 Glover Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
"" .
~
Norman Ostapinski
Project Planner
Public Services Building
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
July S. 1999
Re: CASE NUMBER LFD-99-05
Rominee Ricca/Patricia Barajas-Torres
~35 Glover Ave.
Dear: Mr. Ostapinski
My name is Joe Wavrin. J have owned and lived in my home at ~40 Garret
Ave. for 4~ ~'ears. I am 9~ years old. I lire alone with the help of my
children. I spend half 01' more of m" da': in m,' backyard. watering and
tending my trees and garden. I sleep and read in my backyard swing each
day. ~ly happiness is my home and yard. My onlr wish is to stay in my
home and yard in peace and quiet.
I believe it is wrong to takeaway my happiness. my peace and activities
of my yard and home by allowing ~he noise of 9-14 children playing next
to my backyard fence.
My neighhoThood is mostly old people like me. If thi~ licence is granted
our lives will not be the same.
Sincerely Yours
t' ,(r' -
"'- v...e W~
oe Wavrin
740 Garret Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Ps.
I re '1, ues-+ a.-. he</!. ot', 7; .
Heese a:..dv,'se me J da+e a...nd T/~e:.J
-12.1-;2. '153
,
July 4. 1999
In reply to: CASE NUMBER - LFD-99-05
Zoning Administrator
Planning Department
Public Services Building
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CalWomia 91910
Dear Zoning Administrator:
Subject: application for a Large Family Daycare H_ pennit
It has recently come to our attention that you have received an application from Rominee Ricca and
Patricia Barajas-Torres to obtain a perm~ for a Large Family Daycare Home to be operated at 735
Glover Avenue in Chula Vista. We are residents in the surrounding neighborhood and wish to make ~
known that we are strongly against this proposal. We are requesting a public hearing in this matter and
wish to be notified of any decisions made by the Zoning Administrator in regard to this application.
The following are a few of the issues we have:
With the aJrrent daycare facility at this location, we are already dealing w~h cars turning around in our
driveways. vehicles idling in the streets and Vans and buses stopping out front honking their horns to
drop off and pick up children. A larger facility will only make this worse. And while we all enjoy listening
to children enjoying themselves, we are concerned about the prospect of having 14 children playing in
the backyard everyday while people in the surrounding homes are trying to relax in a peaceful
atmosphere.
We have safety concerns as well. The streets are narrow with parking on both sides, often only
allowing one car to safely pass at a time. Many young children live here who ride their bicycles and play
on the sidewalks. We also have a nearby school whose children walk our quiet streets as a way to
avoid the busier Fourth Avenue and J Street intersection. The prospect of an increase in traffic is
worrisome.
We are also concerned about the impact this business will have on our property values. Realtors now
are having to disclose the facts about this permit application to prospective buyers of houses in our
area. This makes the neighborhood much less appealing and lowers the prospected value of all our
homes.
We all have chosen to live In this quiet residential neighborhood for a variety of reasons. Many of us
selected this area to raise our children in and many have elected to retire here. Some of us are original
owners and some of us saw this area as a good place to make an investment in our futures. We do not
want the increased noise, we do not want the increased traffic and we do not want the decrease in our
property values. This is a safe, quiet and pleasant residential neighborhood and we want it kept that
way.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Residents listed below
cc: Norman Ostapinksi
Project Planner in the Planning Department
,~
. Page 2
July 4. 1999
RE: Application for a Large Family Daycare Home pennit at 735 Glover Ave. Chula VISta, CA
CASE NUMBER - LFD-99-05
The following people are against the above proposal and are requesting a public hearing:
SIGNATURE
NAME
ADDRESS
1.~ Jr~ Gloria W. Bach 724- GI6ver
2'/~"'AJIrAJf;~-, GAoldrrF.]3:1ri 1.-<Jj QOi/GX:.. .
?r _0/ , . ~.
Vi ,',. - .~-, ...I ~
3. ~~~1_/~/(-ftJ 1 ~-.5/!i:i:/i'~1/.-ht . &Ju W ~
4. J LaAd ~I .i~A-1 xi. 1 I-S" p;~ 1~6Iu,j)dJ !/UJA7;:
5. ~ (I {;~, 6!-1 rf~ c~t~
6. Q~/- k)~
7. iJ~ It.fi""J;:-' -; ] c r; /-111-,'-'0I~. C V.
8. J'/JzP-~ c7f.c;zdLuy
9. --/-!;~ J( 1~ ~/;i/ia~~ Uh'/~
10. ,&~/I/f'''./ ~lLd 7/<J (}/pvr:L/;-~ C:/vJ!ft~/'l/&
11. 0"?l;;?d..Ji/AA.E J(d' 6%>Vff C jJ .11 '716
12. ~".,./d ~4d /'tf7b' 4/{lJ/~r &/f? ~ 9'/9/?
13. '1?05/f B/J55~1/ -7Bf3 gJ/TWT lJi~, t!.;/, 9/9/1)
'1 iff) lJ~.If (-;;';5-- (i. U
73 ( j}d~ ~<--L- i eU.- z~
-~
. Page 2
July 4, 1999
RE: Application for a Large Family Daycare Home pennit at 735 Glover Ave. Chula Vista, CA
CASE NUMBER - LFD-99-QS
The following people are against the above proposal and are requesting a public hearing:
SIGNATURE
NAME
ADDRESS
1.yL.~
2~$?~/;:ll#~
5.
7.~5 (;;, \ u"..eJ( 1\<Jf'_ C. V.
q\"'UO
gt//{~p r/tfllrCl/f1 l:3CJ a )p-t:Je:< tf)~.C
~?/CJ
3. t0o.J:X::1... ~ ~~ wf"tu,'d:...I?THf't-TCttEK 730 G;.L.a~ A'\JG?
c..J. '\1"I\u
13!i'udJ.f't-h f.h;-nds '1'f:()~U{
7i{1( rPo1&" ~
C:.tluF 4 Vi S?YI e/lC1~/O
/J'i G-(uilW f'rv~.
C f\v"~ Vlr:r~ CFt.
V''--IO,'<-IA ~~,..;
6. I.
......1 ,.
V'
::;f
9~.J'A
10.~
grtWC M~.
}.(Ar-t PtY LC,- PkS,A[1.A1/L-
'1.)J? Gt/N>..r An 6V thy I/>
J
W I LL-l ~^" le?/U-U 4<_i...O......_
72.'1 GW(:1l.....4v~
11. A ,
13i4/(!{;. A- /f1 rf>G..l-t;;1
73 i G.to ,I iff'[, jJv e
0, (j,J'h. T &VYs2 72~ ~;/&-lPt.
J/ fk-lnc / t(?:Je.yer 13f(;/"{)rer 1Iv-e.
12.
13.
,
..
-
PARKING NOTICE
TO: PARENTS
DATE
,
PLEASE WBEIf DROPPING 017 OR PlCIONG UP YOUR
CRn.DERN,PJUUC ONLY IN TBE DRIVEWAY OR IN FRONT
OF MY BOUSE, AS TBIS IS REOUlRED BY TBE CI'I'Y OF
CBIJLA VISTA.
TIIANB YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION
ROMDIEE RICCA
PROVIDER
AT-r ACH MENT 4-
DGN
pAJI-WS
IIIAVE JlECEIVED NVIIJUIOUS COJIPiAnvTs FBOII
NElGIlBOBS rJlAT IIY DAJ"CAU PARIlJIITS AU DJllVlNG TOO
FAn An'D DBOPPING OFF AND PICUNG UP TIIJWI
~ nmw ON 011Jl5'J'JIEET (GLOVER AVE CIulLA Vl51'A)
NElGllBDas WIU. JIB BEPOJlTlNG UCENSB NI1IIBEJI, COLOJI,
AND IlJAJCB OF AI1TOIIOBll.E TO THE PBOPD AI1T.BO.8JTIES.
rOUIlf]51' pr.. A$E SLOW DOWN, A8 TlJIS .1EPOBDJZES
IIJ" USCBNSB AND J"OI1Jl ~nERN UNDU IIY CltR~ WIfICB
CDf1I.D CAUSE AN INCDlnJUlCB TO J"OU. J"OI1Jl CDDPBJlATlON
IS VEBJ" DfPOIITANT AND TlJISIIf1ST JIB TAIrIlIV' VEJlJ"
f:~iUOO5i.r.
TIfANJC 1"00
BOIllND BlCCA
PBOVIDU
parent signature
date
provider signature
date
MINUTES
JULY 29, 1999, 4PM
LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE PERMIT 99-05
APPLICANT: ROMINEE RICCA
ADDRESS: 735 GLOVER AVE
The meeting was called to order at 4PM on Thursday, July 29, 1999. Staff members in
attendance were Norm Ostapinski and Beverly Blessent, both rrom the Planning
Department. A list of outside attendees is attached.
The appellants, all long time homeowners in the neighborhood, each spoke and generally
had the following concerns regarding the proposed large family day care:
The appellants felt that traffic and noise are issues. The parents will drop off the children
as early as 6 AM and play loud music or honk their horns as they drive up. They are
dropping off children seven days a week and often children will spend the night. They
also stated that children are picked up after 6 PM and often after 7:30 PM. They believe
their property values will decline because ofthe day care facility. They stated that there
are three houses for sale in the neighborhood and they will be hard to sell because of the
presence of the large family day care operation.
The neighbors felt that the yard was too confined and did not think it was big enough to
accommodate 14 children. They did not want to see the children all in the yard at the
same time.
They felt that the home had only one bathroom and that was not adequate for 14 children.
The neighbors object strenuously and feel that their quality ofIife will be compromised if
the project is approved.
They are opposed to the increase in the number of children. It is a primarily elderly
neighborhood and they believe this will be disruptive. They are fine with 6 children
enrolled in the daycare but not the 14 proposed.
The residents noted that 99% of the neighborhood signed the petition opposing the
daycare operation.
One neighbor thought that another facility of the same type was located nearby on Garrett
Avenue.
The applicant responded to the neighbors concerns as follows:
The day care provider has handed out notices to all parents stating that drop off and pick
up of children must occur only in rront of her house or in the driveway. She felt this has
alleviated any problems with traffic. She stated that car stereo music might not
necessarily be rrom parents dropping off the children.
A-r-rACHME.N-r .5
Page 2
July 29, 1999 Minutes
LFD 99-05
She noted that all children were there by 9:30 AM and only one sometimes stayed the
night.
She stated that the reason that the three homes in the neighborhood were for sale is that
two had died and one had been transferred out of the area. It did not have anything to do
with her daycare operation.
The meeting was adjourned at 5PM. Mr. Ostapinski stated that they would be receiving a
written notice of the Zoning Administrator decision in the mail within 10 working days.
A:\LFD9905APPEALMINUTES.doc
SfC-"V-IIV S iLi E E~"
, ,......'~ i~;t., /i /-
1-r y-i-f7 - t/:::>
---r-+\ U f:5 J U L Y 2. 9 I I q 9 1
735: GLv!/~ /If/~
, , , ."70 --= /' .,/JP'
'--,0 1,fV\.Siv-1y-,
I -'qi/t,Y ~ru
Kc: ...-{ II,
I . Vel'
,.1
'/ \ifS I k
4; J(' !
'-:Y . I
, I
tI0 f\ IJ\,G::- -A,v bRr- (..5
"'20 R r n -r-.....t- 7' !.-,I .~'"' (~Lv-:\ L/+ fr
/J' U /7/ '- (.., i: ; " _ _ _
-:.:z!.k- zj;;if'--<', / 7-::( ,/ f/-:/. /;7 (, Y'
/c2_4'-k-Ci..L'iZ.- ~ I~ /~ 7- ~--t:'t,/ t...--...--(L.c./_ "--
/? ' ,(,J'./, I.. ',~ 'I"
\..!,(/(J./vi..-<\...-- rd-v../"----t:...-/ I ;.::: d ,X,JJ~--z -r. /c. C,'C. l:.' V
;i::1/77d 0f/o&/ ';/3u ~~'?~;C C;:r- ,~' (<
~L~ ~\-..~~ ~ 5--0 9(C"h"'-J,-. l~\",""-. ~,V
t I"" AI" ./. v . /' /< /' /,'
I'~ /_,~,. ,......l~ .-; / ,.... -' /:...----..,L--~ ~:.--I.':......:.:..- '- .:---'
,- .... v'"- " ./-.-./ ~..
, M / . U ~ /.. ,/
"'f () ~~~. V/-/<--t?'J~~' /,~~ '7~7/--e/~' Ct,
v 4\ c71/ l~t//0-?'---1 //J (j .-!( d--44.z7?" Cj)
~ft'GI/;3,.,1I-~JPJ. i :3 Zs'- T S 7- e V 7/'y/D
,#IYUnee Kj'C:.CPI [I?:J~ Ett'~e\ /\\Je tv gIG( \ 0
0'1
,)( !
!y
if
i/
~ ,/l
I
iX
i
!X
X
;<
I
-'-..
~J~
~
-------
..........~~~
~"-~~
em Of
CHUlA VISTA
August 9. ] 999
?~"'NNING "'ND 3UIL::>ING DS?"'::;TMSNT
Rominee Ricca
735 Glover Avenue
Chula Vi= CA 91910
Su~ject: LFD-99-05: Large FamiJy Daycare Home at 735 Glover A venue
Tne Zoning Administrator has considered your request to operate a large family daycare nome in
YOlIT residence at 735 Glover A venue. The Zoning Administrator has reviewed your proposed
site pJan. leners of opposition and testimony rrom the administrative hearing held on Ju)\ 2".
] 999. and existin!.! conditions on and in the immediate vicinity of the subject properr\": Tn~
- . .' . .
Zoning Administrator has been able to make the required findings to grant your request which j,
hereby approved subject to the fo1Jowing conditions:
Piannin!! D~11anmen1
1.
Application to be obtained through communi!}' care licensing.
..,
Obtain a business license through the Ci!}' of Chula Vi= Finance Deparunem.
,
.J.
The house shall be retained as your primary residence.
4.
Restrict drop-off and pick-up of children to the concrete driveway .within the ITom
setback of the property. This area shall be kept clear and reserved for exclusive use of
clients' vehicJes during normal pick-up and drop-off hours.
5.
Applicant shall insure that traffic noise produced by client's vehicles entering 8; exiting
the site are reasonable and does not disturb the residential character of the neighborhood.
6.
Along vvith all employees, park personal vehicles within the exisring two-car garage
during all hours of the day care operation.
7.
Ally complaints regarding noise wil1 result in a review of the permit. The Zoning
Administrator may impose measures at that time to alleviate any excessive noise impacts.
which may incJude but are not limited to restrictions on outdoor play areas and the play
schedule.
Fire Department
Applicant may apply for Chula Vista and State Licenses after Fire Clearance inspection has been
completed by the Fire Department. Call 691-5055 for appointments and the final inspections.
~ r!t",~ !~trurCA~ORNIA9'910
<o""'.:'c~,,,,,,,,,<".='po~.=-r'
Failure to comply with any conditions of appro\'al shall cause this permit to be re\';ewed by the
City for additional conditions or revocation.
Findings offact are as follows:
] .) The family daycare function is incidental to the residential use of the property.
2.) The Planning Division has examined all City records and the records of the State
Community Care Licensing Dept. and has determined that the Large FamiJy Daycare
home is not located within 1200 feet of another such facility on the same street or within
a 300 feet radius of another such facility as measured form the exterior boundaries of the
property.
3.) The existing driveway will provide a safe loading and unloading area for two vehicles.
4.) Off street parking provisions for personal vehicles of the applicant and employees ""ill
relieve parking congestion in the street and allow unrestricted drive-way access for pick-
up and drop-off of children during all hours of day care operation.
5.! The usable rear yard play area of approximately] 970 sq. ft. exceeds the minimum Code
requirement of 1,200 sq. ft. An 8'Xl 0' storage shed and a 1 TX24' covered patio
located in the rear yard are not included in this calculation.
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. A completed appeal
form along with a deposit of$I,OOO must be recdved by this office within ten days of the date of
this letter. Forms are available :&om the Planning Department. In the absence of said appeal the
decision of the Zoning Administrator is final.
Failure to use this permit within one year from the date of this letter shall cause the permit to
become nulJ and void unless a wrinen request for an eA'tension is received and granted prior to
the expiration date.
-7~
Norman Ostapinski
Planning Technician III
d
cc: City Clerk
Fire Marshal
Code Enforcement
Debra Hanes, Community Care Licensing, 8745 Aero Ct. Ste. 200, SD 92123
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director
Beverly Blessent, Senior Planner
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
- .~
city of Chula Vista
P1anning Department
Date Received fr-Z;S-9f
Fee Paid wAive'"
Receipt No.
Case No: <-. PD - 90-17">
APPEAL FORM
Appeal from the decision of: ____Zoning ____Planning ____Design Review
Administrator commission committee
Na1Pe of
Appellant: 'N(,>,L"'r{,,12- C;;. TP.A~ HE"R.
H01Pe Address
T::.a GLo"~ ,p..-IJ G
Phone ('"-\~) 't ~ I - Ii:>-:J...Cc'1
(' Hu~ \fl~TA c..c:>.. G~'\\O
Business Address
Project Address
"1 3-::; &Lo\J~ ~\\G
c.\-\~ V\'S.\~ ~fI\ ~\\\~
Project Description Lo;=1)~H-c~ L~. r~'''<<'-'L,,? ~A'IC,P!,e~ \-i.a~;:-
(ExaJPple: zone change, variance, design review, etc)
Please use the space below to provide a response to the decision you are
appealing. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
~cuJ
c.~t'oo.>
Pt
'f-I' <-re-8\Z., bL,,- 'R \ LCNc ",r:
A L. f"> e..c..~ \>A., 'i (" A R E=i (' r-- ~ ,_12 \.>J~ e: I\J
HC~:;::- 6"'-1"'....1"~c:;: $\("0' A L~-rTE~
1'1: R""", 'T ~ '5~v~ ""L ...~ T\-4-E: I-\Nk.~
.....\' ,\-1,<2 D~,t;..,N~'- ~'\}",!:,,""(?'3,. ) '! A,......... r,,\'-.)~
TL"r<,,~EP i ",,\\$
'10;:z. ~ ~ \,.+i?
p~~\.....,~ -rrlt:[
A- R'E (!> "'-' '" (?~
"'\" 'T",-~ .
0-l~\. ~~..
Signature of Appellant
&' {.;z.;~ )99
Date I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not Write In this Space
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the:
____ Planning commission
____ City Council
on
Planning Commission Secretary
city Clerk
Rev. 6/96
M:\no.e\pl.nning\.o\.~.l.rev
A-r-r Act-t M tNI 7
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING AN APPEAL OF LARGE F AMIL Y DAY CARE PERMIT 99-05
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Large Family Daycare Permit was
filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on June 10, 1999, by
Rominee Ricca and Pat Barajas and;
WHEREAS, said application requested approval to establish a Large Family Day
Care facility at 735 Glover Avenue in the R-l zone, and;
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the proposal
is exempt rrom environmental review, and;
WHEREAS, several letters of objection to the proposal and a petition were
received rrom surrounding property owners, and;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held an administrative hearing on July 29,
1999, in order to take testimony on the matter, and;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator determined that the permit met aU City
requirements regarding Large Family Day Care, and;
WHEREAS, on August 9, 1999, the Zoning Administrator issued a letter of
approval for the Large Family Day Care proposal, and;
WHEREAS, on August 23, 1999, concerned neighbors filed an appeal of this
approval with the Planning Department, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said Large Family Daycare Permit 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 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at
least ten days prior to the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m., September 29, 1999, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
hereby denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 29th day of September, 1999 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Diana, Vargas, Secretary
H:IHOME\PLANNINGIBEV\CURRENTlPROJECTS\LFS9905AppealRESOLUTION.doc
John Willett, Chair
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 5
Meeting Date 9/29/99
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Development Agreement between the
City of Chula Vista ("City"), Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Chula Vista ("Agency"), and ROHR, INC., operating
as BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group, ("BFG")
Resolution recommending that the City Council and
Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed
Development Agreement in accordance with the attached
draft City Council/Agency Ordinance based on the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BACKGROUND:
The City, Agency, and the San Diego Unified Port District ("Port") are currently in the process of
redeveloping the Chula Vista Bayfront. The successful redevelopment of the Bayfront will
require integrated planning that will involve real property owned by Agency, Port, and other
parties. City, Agency, BFG, and Port have entered into a Relocation Agreement dated July 13,
1999 setting forth their agreement with respect to the consolidation and relocation of BFG's
facilities and operations to BFG's existing campus north of the proposed H Street extension. In
consideration of its substantial investment in the relocation, BFG desires to receive assurance
through a development agreement ("Development Agreement") that it may proceed with
development in accordance with existing rules, regulations and official policies of the City and
Agency. In exchange BFG has agreed to cooperate with adjacent Bayfront development
proposals and to certain development restrictions on its own property.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that no new environmental impacts that
have not been previously addressed in the Bayfront Specific Plan EIR and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the BFG Relocation Agreement will occur as a result of the approval of
the proposed Development Agreement.
RECOMMENDA TJON:
That the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution recommending that the City
Council and Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed Development Agreement in
accordance with the attached draft Ordinance based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
1. Backqround
The proposed project is a Development Agreement for the reconfigured BFG aerospace office
and manufacturing campus. The project site is generally bounded by Bay Boulevard to the east,
the realigned Marina Parkway to the west, F Street/Lagoon Drive to the north, and the proposed
extension of H Street to the south. The project site is further described on Attachment 3. BFG,
-~----,.._._--_.._~-,"-"-~~-"._"_.~--_._-~
SF Goodrich
Item No. _, Page No.2
and its predecessor, Rohr, Inc. have operated aviation and aerospace related manufacturing on
the Chula Vista baytront for over 50 years. Within that time, significant expansion of the Rohr
facilities has occurred, including expansion onto fill land that is currently held in trust by the Port.
In 1997 Rohr was acquired by the BF Goodrich Company and currently operates as SF
Goodrich Aerospace, Aerostructures Group.
Due to a number of factors, including changes in manufacturing processes, increased efficiency,
and market changes, certain land and buildings within the existing BFG campus are not fully
utilized. The purpose of the Relocation Agreement, approved by the City Council/Agency on
July 13, 1999, is to facilitate the consolidation of operations for BFG onto a smaller area of land.
This will allow the redevelopment of the vacated lands, resulting in increased economic
productivity, and potentially reducing growth pressures on other areas of the community.
Under the Relocation Agreement, BFG transfers fee ownership of approximately 37.6 acres to
the Port and vacates current leasehold interest south of the proposed H street extension to
Marina Parkway. In exchange the Port will transfer fee title ownership of 16.66 acres (please
see attached exhibit). Additionally the Port will arrange for the conveyance of fee title ownership
of the SDG&E and MTDB rights-of-way that currently bisect the BFG property. An easement
over this entire area would be retained by SDG&E for the electrical transmission lines and other
facilities. The City agrees to convey properties (approximately 3 acres) that are currently owned
in fee by the City to BFG. and agrees to arrange for the transfer of an additional 3.02 acre
parcel owned by the Rados Brothers. After the property transfers, BFG has until January, 2003
to relocate its south of H Street operations to the consolidated "New Campus" north of H Street.
Both BFG and the Port shall share in the costs of environmental review and remediation for the
"South Campus" properties being vacated by BFG per the terms of the Relocation Agreement.
The Relocation Agreement also provides financing assistance to BFG from the Agency to
facilitate the construction of industrial manufacturing facilities, and related offices and ancillary
support facilities, and finance equipment newly developed, rehabilitated, or installed during the
Relocation Period. The Agency subsidy is limited to the amount of tax increment generated by
such facilities. The agreement also contemplates substantial Port funding and construction of
the H Street extension project and a realigned Marina Parkway. The Relocation Agreement
also contemplates the negotiation and processing for consideration of the proposed
Development Agreement.
2. Nature of Procosal
The item presented for your consideration is a statutory Development Agreement for the
consolidated BFG campus (see site map attached). This type of Development Agreement is
expressly provided for under California Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5.
Developers request such agreements to "vest" their land use entitlements, typically for a project
that is expected to be built out over many years. Entitlements that are "vested" cannot be
changed in the future by the local governing agency except, typically, in the case of unforseen
risk to public health or safety. No specific physical construction activities are being proposed by
BFG at this time. Some improvements requiring permitting and Design Review approval are
expected, however, as part of BFG's relocation and consolidation process. The potential for
expansion of "New Campus" office and industrial facilities in the future is unknown at this time.
A copy of the proposed Development Agreement is attached (see Attachment 4). A summary of
its terms and conditions are set forth below.
"_n...__.._..,._._
SF Goodrich
Item No.
, Page No.3
3. General Plan. Zonina. and Land Use
GENERAL PLAN
USE
ZONING
CURRENT LAND
Site:
CP (Professional Bayfront
And Administrative Specific
Commercial), IR Plan ("BSP")
(Research and Limited
Industrial), IG (General
Industrial), and PQ
(Public and Quasi Public)
aerospace manufacturing,
vacant parcels
North:
CT (Commercial BSP
Thoroughfare), CRD
(Central Resort District),
PR (Parks and Recreation),
And PQ
Park, vacant restaurant, and
fallow agriculture
South:
IG and PQ
BSP
aerospace manufacturing
East:
Transportation Corridor
Interstate 5
West:
Port of San Diego
Port Master vacant and modular building.
Plan construction sites
Industrial
4. Analvsis
Vestina
BFG proposes to invest approximately $50 million dollars in an area where they are adjacent to
visitor commercial uses. They desire the assurance of being allowed to continue their industrial
use. The Development Agreement gives BFG the vested right to implement all existing
permitted uses for a period of up to twenty years. This term would expire if and when BFG
defaults under the Relocation Agreement. BFG would still be required to obtain all permits
required under existing land use laws. The City/Agency reserves the right to impose new land
use laws that are consistent with the existing laws, and changes to existing laws in the event of
an unforseen threat to public health or safety.
Rados and Aaencv Parcels
BFG intends to use the Rados and Agency parcels for parking and open storage. BFG is
required to obtain all appropriate permits in order to allow this to occur, and the City/Agency
retains the right to impose reasonable conditions on such uses. BFG agrees to use is best
efforts to (a) minimize and screen open storage of equipment and materials, and (b) not to use
the perimeter of the New Campus for open storage. BFG agrees not to use the Rados parcel
for open storage at any time and acknowledges and agrees that such use shall not be
permitted.
The City/Agency shall be granted an easement over a portion of the Rados Parcel for the
installation and maintenance of a Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area "entry statement". If
after six years from the effective date of the agreement BFG has not committed to the
development of the Rados Parcel into a permanent use that is integrated with an industrial
SF Goodrich
,tem No. _' Page No.4
and/or office development project, the Agency shall have the right to reacquire the Rados Parcel
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement.
BFG's oblioation to cooperate/no challenoe
The Development Agreement states that BFG will not oppose, challenge or seek conditions or
mitigation measures in connection with land use permits and other approvals necessary for
development of projects proposed within the Baytront Redevelopment Project Area consistent
with or less impactive than the existing rules, regulation and official policies. In addition BFG
shall reasonably cooperate with the Agency in its processing, approval and implementation of
adjacent developments.
Development Restrictions
BFG agrees to submit to the Agency a master plan showing vertical improvements for the
ultimate development of their property prior to processing permits for such improvements. In
order to develop the site, presently the Baytront Specific Plan/Coastal Development Application
Permit Procedures Manual requires a presubmittal conference, submittal of sufficient drawings
to establish the functional land use, basic design and landscape concept, materials,
architectural features, signage, and finish, staff review, formal submittal to the Design Review
Committee, and submittal of plans to the Redevelopment Agency for an Owner Participation
Agreement.
Conclusion:
Staff recommends approval of the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement is
part of a larger substantial redevelopment project on the Sayfront. The Development
Agreement helps eliminate the uncertainty in planning for BFG allowing them the opportunity to
master plan the property per the existing rules, regulations, and policies of the City and Agency.
It also provides the City with some assurances that BFG will undergo a master planning process
for site development, and will cooperate with other development proposals on adjacent Bayfront
properties.
Attachments
1. Proposed City Council/Redevelopment Agency Resolution
2. Proposed City Council/Redevelopment Agency Ordinance
3. Location Map
4. Development Agreement
,--..-.,--'--
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD APPROVE THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIUAGENCY ORDINANCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.
WHEREAS, on July 13. 1999 the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board approved a
Relocation Agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District. and ROHR, Inc., dba BF Goodrich
Aerospace Aerostructures Group ("BFG");
WHEREAS, among other things, the Relocation Agreement contemplates the negotiation and
processing of a development agreement under Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5
relating to the vesting of BFG's entitlements on a consolidated "New Campus" north of the proposed H
Street Extension ("Development Agreement").
WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the Development Agreement. For the following
reasons: (a) the Development Agreement is part of an important redevelopment project on the Bayfront;
(b) the Development Agreement helps eliminate the uncertainty in planning for BFG allowing it the
opportunity to master plan the property per the existing rules. regulations, and policies of the City and
Agency; (c) the Agreement also provides the City with some assurances that BFG will undergo a master
planning process for site development, will restrict certain undesirable uses, and will cooperate with other
development proposals on adjacent Bayfront properties.
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that no new environmental
impacts that have not been previously addressed in the Bayfront Specific Plan EIR and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the BFG Relocation Agreement will occur as a result of the approval of the
Development Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Development
Agreement 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 300 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the real property that is the subject of the hearing at least 10 days prior to the
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.,
September 29, 1999. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission, all staff and public testimony was taken and considered by the Planning Commission, and
said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby finds that
the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and the applicable Bayfront Specific
Plan; and recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Ordinance and
Development Agreement in substantially the forms presented with such minor modification as may be
approved by the City Attorney 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 THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA. this 29'h day of September, 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
._--~-----_.. -
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AND THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ROHR, INC. OPERATING AS BFGOODRICH
AEROSPACE AEROSTRUCTURES CROUP, ("BFG"),
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City"), a charter law city, is authorized pursuant to
Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Title 7 of the Government Code, Section 65864 through 65869.5 to
enter into binding development agreements with persons having a legal or equitable interest in
real property for the development of such property in order to establish certainty in the
development process; and,
WHEREAS, City, Agency, BFG, and the Port of San Diego have entered into a
Relocation Agreement. dated July 13, 1999, setting forth their agreement with respect to the
consolidation and relocation of BFG's facilities and operations currently on their property; and,
WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the Development Agreement. For the
following reasons: (a) the Development Agreement is part of an important redevelopment project
on the Bayfront; (b) the Development Agreement helps eliminate the uncertainty in planning for
BFG allowing it the opportunity to master plan the property per the existing rules, regulations.
and policies of the City and Agency; (c) the Agreement also provides the City with some
assurances that BFG will undergo a master planning process for site development, will restrict
certain undesirable uses, and will cooperate with other development proposals on adjacent
Bayfront properties.
WHEREAS, the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the
general plan and the applicable specific plan as described in the attached Planning Commission
Agenda Statement; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that all potential
environmental impacts have been considered previously with the Environmental Impact Report
for the Bayfront Specific Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Relocation
Agreement and no further environmental review is warranted; and,
WHEREAS, on September 29, 1999 the City Planning Commission voted _ to
recommend that the City Council/Agency approve the Development Agreement in accordance
with Resolution ; and,
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said Development
Agreement 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 300 feet of
the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely on
October 12, 1999. at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City
Council/Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and Agency does
hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows:
----,-~_.~--
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION I: the City Council/Agency hereby finds that the Development Agreement
provided for herein is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Bayfront
Specific Plan in that the agreement conforms to all existing land use designations and other
rules, regulations and official policies governing this property.
SECTION II: the City/Council hereby approves the Development Agreement in
substantially the form presented with minor modifications approved by the City Attorney.
SECTION III: this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the thirtieth day from
its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Lieter
Director of Planning
John Kaheny
City Attorney
~.__.~__m_.__.
ATTACHMENT 3
.... w
z'" z . @
!ill::> " ~
Q U Q
w~ fa 0111 W Q
Q << Z
w" I ~~ << w ~
",,,, ~ ~ ..
",U " ~ .
c", " ~" z " ~ w M ~~
. U Q '" U Z W
Z~ w W'" ;; "
W W
g~ ~ ~W Z << " 0
-> ~~i ~ Q
.... '" '" '" "
c< I :c " " ~
...~ << << << .
g" , " 110
....or "
WU "
"
'" - "
J.:iatu.8./'.
I~"""""'l~~
~ " ~/ij
: ~
~ - S
: ... :r
, -I
~ ~ I
o
.
:
~
.
>
<<
.
~
>
<<
~
.
<<
<<
.
<<
z
.
<<
.
J.13IU.S.l. ~
o
'"
~~\
,
> ,
<< ,
. ~ ,
o ~ -
tJ
~
"
I
I
I
\
@]
AVM 113dWONYS "'
,
--
~r~ + .:m ",no ...
+ +fI!1 +
+ IT:\+
+ + ~~j +
~ -~U~
QI :.)~!
+ N+ ~~~ +
+ ;r~" +
r +
+
>
~
.
i ......M~Crw
.
.
~:UII"'. .:1.
o
<<
<<
.
~
5
.
>
<<
.
I
enl
z. ~.
.s;, w ~I "
.::1:, Q ...;:" r.
w. @
CJ w. ~
z. <: w '"'. ,
.- C' 01 ~ z '" :>, \ 1'>0
~'- E Q " 1:
.. " E (j~
%:~ i w w w '" <1> ..
"U ~ ~ z ~ ~ >> .. 1,1
.2~ ~ 01 '" z ~ Q Z -e a. ~ '" .. " ~-
0 ~ ~:~ Q 0 0 ~ ~ ~ <1> 0 .. .. 2 ~ 2 ~
8 ~I " ~ x ~ '" ;:;>
~ or- z 0 Q, "- " " '" 0- m t~~
0 Q: 5' w C ~ W 0 ~ ~ 0- "- ":::;0
~ . ~ . 0 0 ~ . 0 ~ W m m >>
tZ , ~: ::) w w w Z z "- ., 0- 0- lD " "' ~! I. ~.
" ~ d
ti Qi C < < '" < ~ 0 (!) (!) 0 '" 0 I
0 :1:1 Q' w w w w " 1: 1: <II "
is ~i . 0 ~ I~
~ ,..! Z' ~ ~ ~ ~ z . u.. 0 0 '" m 0 b~lll!
@ ~ 01 wi ~ " ~ Li 0) CJ) 0- 0- <( a:: '"
@i: UJ. ~! I' " ,
x' . ;..
z c.J 1:..' ~ '" '" '" "' CD i'-
~ wi -
.L301IU.S .1'.
o
.
;
,
o
. I
:1 .
\ .,
\ .i
, ~
.I.3311~~:.d :, .1.',1..0 NOO::!'"
----'f....~e
ATTACHMENT 4
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement" or
"Development Agreement") is made and entered into this 12th day of October, 1999 ("Effective
Date"), by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred
to as "City"), REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a redevelopment
agency formed pursuant to Health and Safety Code 99 33000 et seq. ("Agency'), and ROHR, INC.,
operating as BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group, a Delaware corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of The BFGoodrich Company (hereinafter referred to as "BFG'). All references in
this Agreement to "City/Agency" shall refer collectively to City and Agency. City, Agency and
BFG are from time to time hereinafter referred to individually as a "party" and collectively as the
''parties. "
The parties hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts, which are incorporated into and
made a part of this Agreement:
1.1 Government Code Anthorization. The City of Chula Vista, a charter law city, is
authorized pursuant to Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Title 7 of the Government Code, Sections 65864
through 65869.5 (the "Development Agreement Statute'), to enter into binding development
agreements with persons having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of
such property in order to establish certainty in the development process.
1.2 BFG. BFG is the owner of certain real property (the "BFG Land') located in the City
of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, California as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A. BFG
intends to acquire, and has an equitable interest in, certain other real property (the "Transfer
Property") -- including the Agency Parcel and the Rados Parcel -- pursuant to those certain Land
Transfer Agreements between BFG and (a) the Agency; and (b) the San Diego Unified Port District
("Port"). The Transfer Property is also shown on the map attached as Exhibit A. The BFG Land
and the Transfer Property shall be collectively referred to as the "New Campus." The New Campus
consists of approximately acres of land, as more particularly described in the legal
description attached as Exhibit B, and is within the Specific Plan.
1.3 Objectives of Agreement. City, Agency and Port are currently in the process of
redeveloping the Chula Vista Bayrront (the "Bayfront," as further defined in Section 2.5). The
parties acknowledge that the successful redevelopment of the Bayfront, of which the New Campus is
a part, will require integrated planning and development that will involve real property owned by
Agency, Port and other parties. City, Agency, BFG and Port have entered into a Relocation
Agreement dated July 13, 1999, setting forth their agreement with respect to the consolidation and
relocation of BFG's facilities and operations currently on the Existing Campus (as defined III
Section 2.15 below) and other matters as described therein (the "Relocation Agreement").
1.4 Intent of Parties. For the reasons recited in this Section I, BFG and City/Agency have
determined that the development of the New Campus in accordance with the Relocation Agreement
and the Existing Rules, Regulations and Official Policies (as defined in Section 2.24 below) is a
development project for which this Agreement is appropriate. Further, this Agreement will
eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development of the New Campus and
surrounding properties, ensure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within
the City at the least economic cost to its citizens, and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes of
the Development Agreement Statute. In exchange for these benefits to City/Agency, together with
the public benefits served by the development of the New Campus, BFG desires to receive the
assurance that it may proceed with development of the New Campus in accordance with the Existing
Rules, Regulations and Official Policies (as defined in Section 2.17 below) pursuant to the terms and
conditions contained in this Agreement and based on the Project Approvals. BFG intends to develop
the New Campus in accordance with the Existing Rules, Regulations and Official Policies.
1.5 Public Hearings. On September 29, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of
Chula Vista ("Planning Commission"), after giving notice pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65867, 65090 and 65091 held a public hearing on BFG's application for approval of this
Agreement. The City Council of the City ("City Council'~ and the Board of the Agency ("Agency
Board'~, after providing public notice as required by law, held a public hearing on this Agreement
on October 5, 1999.
1.6 City Council Findings. The City Council has found that this Agreement is consistent
with the General Plan, as well as all other applicable Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. The
Agency Board has found that this Agreement is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, as well all
other applicable Rules, Regulations and Official Policies.
1.7 City Ordinance. On October 12, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. approving this Agreement with BFG.
Section 2. Definitions.
In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires:
2.1 "Agency" means the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political
subdivision in the State of California exercising govemmental functions and powers and organized
and existing under the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety
Code Sections 33000, et seq.).
2.2 "Agency Board" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.5.
2.3 "Agency Parcel" means the real property Agency owns on Bay Boulevard south of
Lagoon Drive, comprising approximately 3.65 acres, which is part of the Transfer Property shown
on Exhibit B.
2.4 "Agreement" means this Development Agreement.
2
-MEOOOOC.DOC
2.5 "Bayfront" means the property located in the City of Chula Vista, California, bounded
by F Street and Lagoon Drive to the north, Interstate 5 to the east, J Street and Marina Parkway to
the south, and the San Diego Bay to the west.
2.6 "BFG" means Rohr, Inc., operating as BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group, a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of The BFGoodrich Company.
2.7 "BFG Land" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.2.
2.8 "CEQA" shall mean the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.
2.9 "City" means the City of Chula Vista, a municipal corporation having charter powers.
2.10 "City/Agency" means the City and the Agency.
2.11 "City Council" means the City Council of the City of Chula Vista.
2.12 "Development Agreement" means this Development Agreement.
2.13 "Development Agreement Statute" means Title 7, Chapter 4, Article 2.5,
Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code.
2.14 "Effective Date" means October 12, 1999, the day and year first above written, as
authorized by Ordinance No. of the City ofChula Vista.
2.15 "Existing Campus" means that certain real property in the City of Chula Vista owned
or leased by BFG on which BFG currently operates a manufacturing facility.
2.16 "Existing Permitted Uses" means all uses for which the Existing Campus is
currently used that are consistent and in compliance with the Rules, Regulations and Official
Policies applicable to the Existing Campus as of the Effective Date, including, without
limitation, manufacturing and related operations (including all activities associated with the
research, development, manufacture, assembly, processing, testing, servicing, repairing, storage
and/or distribution of products and component parts and all activities incidental thereto),
accessory uses and buildings (including off-street parking and loading facilities, administrative,
executive and financial offices and incidental services, such as restaurants to serve employees)
and all other uses of the same general character as the foregoing; provided, however, that nothing
herein shall be construed to permit any uses which are inconsistent with public health and safety.
2.17 "Existing Rules, Regulations and Official Policies" means all Rules, Regulations and
Official Policies existing and in effect as of the Effective Date.
2.18 "General Plan" means the City of Chula Vista General Plan.
2.19 "New Campus" means the BFG Land and the Transfer Property as shown on Exhibit
C. In the event BFG elects to close pursuant to the Relocation Agreement without receiving title to
(or a possessory interest in) one or more of the properties comprising the Transfer Property, the New
3
-MEOOOOC.DOC
Campus shall not include such properties unless title to (or a possessory interest in) such properties
is subsequently acquired, in which event such properties shall be included in the definition of the
New Campus for purposes of this Agreement.
2.20 "New Rules" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.3.
2.21 "Planning Commission"means the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista.
2.22 "Planning Director" means the Planning Director of the City of Chula Vista.
2.23 "Port" means the San Diego Unified Port District formed pursuant to the San Diego
Unified Port District Act, Harbors and Navigation Code App. I, 99 I et seq.
2.24 "Project Approvals" means all special use permits, owner participation agreements,
design review approvals, parcel maps, tentative and final subdivision maps, environmental approvals
(including CEQA approvals), lot line adjustments, building permits, grading permits, preliminary
and final development plans, certificates of occupancy and all other land use, environmental and
building approvals, permits and entitlements required for the development of the New Campus in
accordance with the applicable Rules, Regulations and Official Policies.
2.25 "Rados Parcel" means the land currently owned by Rados Bros. and located at the
corner of Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive, comprising approximately 3.02 acres, which is part of
the Transfer Property shown on Exhibit A
2.26 "Relocation Agreement" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.3.
2.27 "Rules, Regulations and Official Policies" means the City and Agency rules,
regulations, ordinances, laws, general or specific plans, zoning, and official policies goveming
development, design, density and intensity of use, permitted uses, growth management,
environmental review, construction and building standards and design criteria relating to
development or use of real property and applicable to the New Campus; these include, without
limitation the General Plan, the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, approved on
October 13, 1992 by Ordinance No. 2532 and certified by the Califomia Coastal Commission on
January 15, 1993, the Specific Plan, and the Redevelopment Plan, ChuJa Vista Bayftont
Redevelopment Project, dated June 24, 1974.
2.28 "Specific Plan" means the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan
contained in Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapters 19.81 through 19.87, as amended consistent with
the terms of this Agreement.
2.29 "Term" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.1.
2.30 "Transfer Property" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.2.
Section 3. Conflicts of Law.
3.1 Conflict of City and State or Federal Laws. In the event that state or federal laws or
regulations enacted after the Development Agreement Effective Date prevent or preclude
4
-MEOOOOC.DOC
compliance with one or more provIsIOns of this Agreement or require changes in the Project
Approvals, each party shall provide the other party with written notice of such state or federal law or
regulation, a copy of such law or regulation and a statement concerning the conflict with the
provisions of this Agreement. The parties shall, within thirty (30) days, meet and confer in good
faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such state or federal law or
regulation.
3.2 Cooperation in Securing Permits. The City/Agency, without the obligation to incur
costs, shall cooperate with BFG in the securing of any permits which may be required as a result of
modifications or suspensions made pursuant to Section 3.1 hereof
Section 4. Development ofthe New Campus.
4.1 Existing Permitted Uses. Provided that BFG is not in default under this Development
Agreement or the Relocation Agreement (excepting minor or inconsequential matters not affecting
the substance of these agreements), and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this
Agreement, BFG shall have the vested right to implement all Existing Permitted Uses on the New
Campus.
4.2 Permitted Density and Maximum Height and Size of Structures. The maximum
density or level of intensity of BFG's development of the New Campus shall be that allowed
pursuant to the Project Approvals. The maximum height and size of structures to be constructed
upon the New Campus shaIl be that allowed pursuant to the Project Approvals.
4.3 Application of Subsequently Enacted Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. The
City or Agency may adopt new or modified Rules, Regulations, and Official Policies after the
Effective Date ("New Rules'~ that shall be applicable to the New Campus, but such New Rules shall
only be applicable to the extent that they do not conflict with the Existing Rules, Regulations and
Official Policies, and only if their application will not materially modify, prevent or impede the
Permitted Uses or materially impair any of the rights granted BFG under the Relocation Agreement
or this Agreement. Any such New Rules that materially limit or restrict the rate or timing of
development of Permitted Uses on the New Campus shall be presumed to conflict with the Existing
Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. Provided, however, that this shall not preclude the
application to the New Campus of such subsequently enacted New Rules that are (a) specifically
mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations adopted after the
Development Agreement Effective Date as provided in Government Code Section 65869.5;
(b) specifically mandated and required by a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) changes to Uniform
Building Code and similar safety regulations that may change from time to time; or (d) required as a
result of facts, events or circumstances presently unknown or unforeseeable that would have a
material adverse impact on the health or safety of the surrounding community, all of which shall be
allowed and shall be applicable to development on the New Campus after the Effective Date.
4.4 Infrastructure, Fees, Conditions and Dedications. City/Agency shall use best efforts
to minimize or eliminate any City/Agency imposed public fees, dedications, exactions or costs
(including, without limitation, development fees, inrrastructure fees, or processing fees) that could
be incurred by BFG in connection with relocation of its operations or additional development of the
New Campus in accordance with Existing Rules, Regulations and Official Policies or that would
5
-MEOOOOC.DOC
otherwise result from such relocation, consolidation, and the installation of relocation and
consolidation-related New Campus improvements.
4.5 Project Approvals. In connection with the Relocation and any New Campus
development, BFG shall be obligated to obtain any and all permits required under the Existing
Rules, Regulations and Official Policies ("Project Approvals"). City/Agency shall use its best
eftorts promptly to process and implement all Project Approvals reasonably necessary to implement
the BFG Relocation to the New Campus and to fulfill the goals, objectives, policies and plans shown
and described in this Development Agreement consistent with Existing Rules, Regulations and
Official Policies. All permits to which the Bayfront Specific Plan/Coastal Development Application
Permit Procedures Manual (adopted by Agency Resolution No. 624 on September 10, 1985), is
applicable as of the Effective Date (including architectural design, site plan, conditional use and
coastal pennit development proposals) shall be processed in accordance with such procedures
manual.. City/Agency shall cooperate and diligently work to process to completion any Project
Approvals (including any and all initial studies and environmental assessments and analyses (if any)
required under CEQA) which are required by law in connection with the relocation and
consolidation of BFG's operations and implementation of the Permitted Uses on the New Campus.
Such cooperation shall include, without limitation: a) Scheduling, convening and concluding all
required public hearings; and b) Processing in an expeditious manner and in accordance with
Existing Rules, Regulations and Official Policies aH applications for Project Approvals.
City/Agency shall retain its discretionary authority as to Project Approvals, provided, however, such
approvals shaH be regulated by the Existing Rules, Regulations and Official Policies and New Rules
allowed under Section 4.3 above.
4.6 Life of Subdivision Maps. Pursuant to Government Code section 66452.6(a), the tenn
of any tentative map for any subdivision, resubdivision of the New Campus or amendment to any
such tentative map (including any lot line adjustment or merger ofIots within the tentative map) or
any other tentative map or parcel map filed subsequent to the Development Agreement Effective
Date shall automatically be extended for the Term.
4.7 Other Governmental Permits and Fees. BFG shall apply in a timely manner for such
other permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-govemmental
agencies having jurisdiction over the implementation of any aspect of the Pennitted Uses on, or
provision of services to, the New Campus (including, without limitation, districts and special
districts providing flood control, sewer, water and/or fire protection and agencies having jurisdiction
over air quality, solid wastes, and hazardous wastes and materials). City/Agency shall cooperate
with BFG in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals and City/Agency shall use its best
efforts to work with other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies so as to limit to the extent
possible the imposition of additional conditions, fees, dedications or exactions by or through such
agencies; provided, however, in no event shaH City's obligations hereunder require City/Agency to
incur out-of-pocket costs.
4.8 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of any legal or equitable
action or other proceeding instituted by a third party challenging the validity of this Development
Agreement or any provision hereof, the parties shall cooperate in defending said action or
proceeding; provided, however, BFG shall be solely responsible for costs incurred in such defense.
6
-MEOOOOCDOC
4.9 BFG Obligations. In consideration of City/Agency agreements under the Relocation
Agreement and this Agreement, BFG agrees as follows:
4.9.1 Rados/Agency Parcels Use and Development.
(a) Temporary Use for Parking and Open Storage. BFG shall not be
prevented by the City/Agency rrom utilizing the Rados and Agency Parcels for parking
and the Agency Parcel for open storage for a period of six (6) years after the Effective
Date of this Agreement (the "Interim Use Period'} However, BFG shall be required to
obtain all appropriate permits from the City/Agency in order to allow open storage and
parking on the Agency Parcel and parking on the Rados Parcel, and City/Agency retains
the right to impose reasonable conditions on such uses. During the Interim Use Period,
BFG agrees to use its best efforts (a) to minimize and screen open storage of equipment
and materials, and (b) not to use the perimeter ofthe New Campus for open storage.
BFG agrees not to use the Rados Parcel for open storage at any time and acknowledges
and agrees that such use shall not be permitted.
(b) City Easement for Enhanced Landscaping and Entry Feature at
Northeast Corner of Rados Parcel. Prior to the Closing, City/Agency shall be granted
an easement over a portion of the Rados Parcel as identified on Exhibit F attached hereto
("Easement Area"). The easement shall be for the installation and maintenance of a
Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area "entry statement" which may include enhanced
landscaping, water features, statuary, monument signs and/or other quality architectural
features ("Entry Statement"). City/ Agency shall bear the construction and maintenance
costs ofthe Entry Statement. Prior to City/Agency installation of an Entry Statement,
BFG shall bear all costs related to improvements or maintenance of the Easement Area.
In the event that a BFG Development Project or City/Agency proposal for an Entry
Statement requires an adjustment to the Easement Area, the parties agree to meet and
confer with the goal of developing a mutuaIly agreeable adjustment that would
reasonably accommodate each party's development needs.
(c) Agency Option to Reaquire Rados. In the event that by the end of
the Interim Use Period, BFG has not committed to the development ofthe Rados Parcel
into a permanent use that is integrated with an industrial and/or office development
project on the New Campus, Agency shall have the option ("Rados Option'~ to reacquire
the Rados Parcel on the terms and conditions set forth below:
(1) Purchaiie Price.
The Rados Option purchase price ("Rados Option Purchase
Price'~ shaIl be the sum of (I) $1,052,409, (the "Original
Purchase Price'~; (2) six percent (6%) of the Original Purchase
Price multiplied by the number of years BFG owns the Rados
Parcel prior to Agency exercise of the Rados Option; and (3) the
County's then most recent appraised value of any improvements
installed on the Rados Parcel.
7
-MEOOOOC.DOC
(2) Option Term.
If the Rados Option is triggered (as provided above), the Rados
Option ("Rados Option Term') shall commence upon the
expiration of the Interim Use Period and shall expire on the date
falling five (5) years thereafter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Rados Option shall terminate prior to the expiration of the Rados
Option Term in the event that (i) BFG requests in writing that the
Agency purchase the Rados Parcel for the Rados Purchase Price
and the Agency fails to exercise the Rados Option pursuant to
Section 4.l1.1(c)(3) within sixty (60) days after such request; or
(ii) during the Rados Option Term, Agency approves an Owner
Participation Agreement for the development ofthe Rados Parcel.
(3) Option Exercise.
Agency shall exercise its option rights hereunder by notifying BFG
in writing of its intent to do so ("Option Notice'). The parties
shaIl then meet and confer to prepare all necessary conveyance
documents on terms consistent with the terms hereof The Rados
Parcel shaIl be transferred in its then "as-is" condition. Agency
shall bear all standard escrow costs. The transfer shall occur
within ninety (90) days after the date of the Option Notice. The
Rados Option Purchase Price shall be paid in cash at close of
escrow.
(4) Retention of Rights.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, BFG shall retain the right to
convey the Rados Parcel to a third party at any time; provided,
however, that the Rados Option to reacquire, unless previously
terminated, shall run with the land and be binding upon such third
party. In addition, City/Agency shall retain the right to reacquire
the Rados Parcel at any time pursuant to its powers of eminent
domain.
4.9.2 No Challenges; Cooperation. BFG shall not oppose, challenge or seek
conditions or mitigation measures in connection with land use permits and other approvals
necessary for development of projects proposed within the Bayrront Redevelopment Project Area
consistent with, or less impactive than, the Existing Rules, Regulations, and Official Policies
applicable thereto. In addition, BFG shall reasonably cooperate with City/Agency in its
processing, approval and implementation of adjacent developments to the extent necessary and
reasonable to encourage land use, infrastructure and traffic compatibility. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, BFG shall reserve the right to oppose, challenge or seek conditions or mitigation
measures in connection with any project or activity that has a material, adverse impact on the
8
-MEOOOOC.DOC
uses or operations of the New Campus, provided, however, that this shall not include a right to
challenge based upon market competition.
4.9.3 New Campus Master Plan. New Campus Master Plan BFG agrees to
submit to the City/Agency a master plan for the ultimate development of the New Campus
showing vertical improvements prior to processing permits for such improvements.
Section 5. Default, Remedies and Termination.
5.1 General Provisions. In the event of default or breach of this Agreement or of any of its
terms or conditions, the party alleging such default or breach shall give the defaulting party not less
than thirty (30) days notice of default in writing, unless the parties extend such time by mutual
consent in writing. The time of notice shall be measured from the date actually delivered in
accordance with Section 6.7. The notice of default shall specify the nature of the alleged default,
and, where appropriate, the manner and period of time in which said default may be satisfactorily
cured. If the nature of the alleged default is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such 30-
day period, the commencement of the cure within such time period and the diligent prosecution to
completion of the cure shall be deemed a cure within such period. During any period of curing, the
party charged shall not be considered in default for the purposes of termination or institution of legal
proceedings. If the default is cured, then no default shall exist or be deemed to have existed and the
noticing party shall take no further action.
(a) Option to Institute Legal Proceedings or to Terminate. After proper notice
and the expiration of said cure period, the noticing party, at its option, may institute legal
proceedings or give notice of intent to terminate this Agreement by certified mail. Written notice of
termination of this Agreement shall be effective immediately upon delivery to the defaulting party.
Failure or delay in giving notice of default pursuant to this Section 5 shall not constitute a waiver of
any default. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any failure or delay by the
other party in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of
any default or of such rights or remedies or deprive such party of its right to institute and maintain
any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights
or remedies.
5.2 Enforced Delay, Extension of Time of Performance. In addition to specific
provisions of this Agreement, the parties shall not be in default where delays or defaults are due to
an act of God, natural disaster, accident, breakage or failure of equipment, third-party litigation,
strikes, lockouts or other labor disturbances or disputes of any character, interruption of services by
suppliers thereof, unavailability of materials or labor, rationing or restrictions on the use of utilities
or public transportation whether due to energy shortages or other causes, war, civil disturbance, riot,
or by any other severe and unforeseeable occurrence that is beyond the control of that party.
5.3 Institution of Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party
may institute a legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenants or
agreements herein or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, to recover damages for
any default, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement.
9
-MEOOOOC.DOC
Section 6. General Provisions.
6.1 Duration of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the
Effective Date and shall expire on the earlier to occur of (a) the twentieth anniversary thereof, or
(b) the material, uncured default by BFG under the Relocation Agreement or a transfer without the
approval of the City/Agency pursuant to Relocation Agreement Section 9.17 ("Term"), unless
extended by mutual agreement of the parties in writing. The expiration of this Agreement shall not
affect any rights of BFG arising rrom the Project Approvals.
6.2 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended rrom
time to time by the mutual consent ofthe parties hereto but only in the same manner as its adoption
by an ordinance as set forth in Government Code Sections 65867, 65867.5 and 65868. The terms
"Agreement" or "Development Agreement" used herein shall include any such amendment properly
approved and executed. Any amendment to this Agreement which does not relate to the Term,
Permitted Uses, provisions for reservation and dedication of land, or conditions, terms, restrictions
and requirements relating to subsequent discretionary actions, or conditions or covenants relating to
the use of the New Campus shall not require notice or public hearing pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65867, 65867.5 and 65868. Any amendment of the Project Approvals pursuant to
Section 6.3 of this Agreement, shall not require an amendment to this Agreement. For purposes of
this Agreement, the resubdivision of the New Campus or the filing of an amended subdivision map
which creates new legal lots (including the creation of new lots within any designated remainder
parcel) or which reflects a merger of lots, shall not require an amendment to this Agreement. Those
Subsequent Approvals which are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan shall also not
require an amendment to this Agreement. This Agreement may be canceled and terminated at any
time by mutual consent of the parties.
6.3 Amendment of Project Approvals. Upon the written request of BFG for a minor
amendment or modification to the Project Approvals including, but not limited to: (a) the location of
buildings, streets and roadways and other physical facilities, or (b) the configuration of the parcels,
lots or development areas, the Planning Director shall determine whether the requested amendment
or modification is consistent with this Agreement, the General Plan, the Specific Plan and the Rules,
Regulations and Official Policies. For purposes of this Agreement, the determination of whether
such amendment or modification is minor shall be made by reference to whether the amendment or
modification is minor in the context of the overall Project. If the proposed amendment is both minor
and consistent with this Agreement and the Rules, Regulations and Official Policies, the Planning
Director may approve the proposed amendment without notice and public hearing. For purposes of
this Agreement and notwithstanding any City/Agency ordinance or resolution to the contrary, lot line
adjustments shall be deemed minor amendments or modifications.
6.4 Binding Effect of Agreement. Throughout the Term, the provisions of this Agreement
shaH constitute covenants or servitudes which shaH run with the land comprising the New Campus.
6.5 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of each and every obligation of the parties
under this Agreement.
6.6 Independent Contractors. Each party is an independent contractor and shall be solely
responsible for the employment, acts, omissions, control and directing of its employees. Except as
10
-MEOOOOC.DOC
expressly set forth herein, nothing contained in this Agreement shall authorize or empower any party
to assume or create any obligation or responsibility whatsoever, express or implied, on behalf of or
in the name of any other party or to bind any other party or make any representation, warranty or
commitment on behalf of any other party.
6.7 Notices. All notices, demands and correspondence required or provided for under this
Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, sent by certified mail, postage prepaid or sent
by a nationally recognized overnight courier that provides documentation of delivery.
Notices to City shall be addressed as follows:
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: City Manager
With a copy to: City Attorney
Notices to Agency shall be addressed as follows:
Redevelopment Agency of the City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Director of Community Development
Notices to BFG shall be addressed as follows:
BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group
850 Lagoon Drive
Chula Vista, CA 91910-2098
Attn: Art Sellgren
With a copy to:
BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group
850 Lagoon Drive
Chula Vista, CA 91910-2098
Attn: Group Counsel
And a copy to:
McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen
1331 N. California Blvd., Suite 600
P.O. Box V
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Attn: Geoffrey L. Robinson
11
-MEOOOOC.DOC
A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party in the manner
provided above. Thereafter, notices, demands and other correspondence pertinent to this Agreement
shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address.
6.8 Rules of Construction. The singular includes the plural; "shall" is mandatory, and
"may" is permissive. Section headings are for reference purposes only and shall not be used to
interpret this Agreement. Section references shall be deemed to refer to sections of this Agreement
unless otherwise specified.
6.9 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, void or unenforceable
but the remainder of the Agreement can be enforced without failure of material consideration to
either party, then this Agreement shaH not be affected and it shaIl remain in fuIl force and effect,
unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties. Provided, however, that if the
invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement results in a material failure of
consideration, then the party adversely affected thereby shaH have the right in its sole discretion, to
terminate this Agreement upon providing written notice of such termination to the other parties.
6.10 Entire Agreement, Waivers, Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and agreement of the parties with respect to the rights and obligations conferred or
assumed hereunder pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute ("Development Agreement
Statute Rights and Obligations"). This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes any and an prior versions or drafts of this or
any other agreement and an negotiations or previous agreements relating to the Development
Agreement Statute Rights and Obligations. To the extent of any inconsistency between this
Agreement and the Relocation Agreement with respect to the Development Agreement Statute
Rights and Obligations, the provisions of this Agreement shaH control. To the extent of any
inconsistency between this Agreement and the Relocation Agreement with respect to any matters
other than the Development Agreement Statute Rights and Obligations, the provisions of the
Relocation Agreement shan control. An waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in
writing and signed by authorized representatives of the party to be charged with such waiver. The
waiver by any party of any term, covenant, agreement or condition contained in this Agreement shaH
not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant,
agreement or condition, nor shan any custom or practice which may grow up among the parties in
the administration of this Agreement be construed to waive or lessen the right of any party to insist
upon performance in strict accordance with an of the provisions of this Agreement.
6.11 Further Action. Each party agrees to take aH further actions reasonably necessary to
implement this Agreement.
6.12 Exhibits Incorporated. The foHowing documents are referred to in this Agreement,
and attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full:
Exhibit Designation
Descriptions
A
Legal Description of the BFG Land
B
Legal Description of the Transfer
Property
12
-MEOOOOC.DOC
C
New Campus Map
6.13 Project is a Private Undertaking. It is understood and agreed to by and between the
parties hereto that: (a) any development by BFG of the New Campus shall be a private
development; (b) the City/Agency has no interest or responsibilities for or duty to third parties
concerning any improvements until such time and only until such time that the City/Agency accepts
the same pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or in connection with any subdivision map
approvals; (c) BFG shall have full power over and exclusive control of the Project and the New
Campus subject only to the limitations and obligations of BFG under this Agreement; (d) the
contractual relationship between the City/Agency and BFG is such that BFG is an independent
contractor and not an agent of the City/Agency; and (e) nothing in the Agreement is intended or shan
be construed to create or reflect any form of partnership or joint venture between the parties.
6.14 Findings in Support. City, through its City Council, hereby finds and determines that
the execution of this Agreement is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general
welfare and that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the General Plan and the
Specific Plan.
6.15 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with
the laws of the State of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties on the day and
year first above written, as authorized by Ordinance No. of the City Council.
City:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a municipal corporation
By:
Mayor
Agency:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA,
a municipal corporation
By:
Chair
13
-MEOOOOC.DOC
BFG;
-MEOOOOC.DOC
ROHR, INC., operating as BFGOODRICH
AEROSPACE AEROSTRUCTURES GROUP,
a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of THE BFGOODRICH COMPANY
By;
Name;
Its;
APPROVED AS TO FORM
CITY ATTORNEY
By;
City Attorney
14
Exhibit A
New Campus Map
Exhibit B
Legal Description of the New Campus Property
1. Agency Parce1
2. Rados Parcel
3. Port Parcels
4. SDG&E Parcel
5. MTDB Parcel
6. BFG Land
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, September 29,1999
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROlL CAWMOTlONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 14, 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.
REPORT:
Consideration of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 97-02), (Third Tier EIR), California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for San Miguel Ranch SPA.
Staff is recommending this item be continued to October 6, 1999
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCM 96-04; Request to approve the San Miguel Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan including the Planned Community District
Regulations and Design Guidelines; Public Facilities Finance Plan;
Affordable Housing Plan; Air Quality Improvement Plan; and Water
Conservation Plan - Trimark Pacific - San Miguel LLC
Staff is recommending this item be continued to October 6, 1999.
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCA-oO-01; Request to rename the Design Review Committee to the
Design Review Commission.
Reporting staff member: Steve Power
4.
PUBLIC HEARING:
lFD-99-05; an appeal of a large family daycare permit located at 735
Glover Avenue.
Reporting staff member: Beverly Blessent