The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1999/03/10 r AGENDA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Chula Vista, California 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 10, 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: December 16, 1998 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-95-0l B - Amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facilities Financing Plan to amend the threshold for Olympic Parkway construction. The Otay Ranch Company and The McMillin Company. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the following applications filed by the Otay Water District for 509 unincorporated acres located at the northern terminus of Hunte Parkway. 1) PCl-99-0l; Prezone to A-8, Agricultural, and 2) PCC-99-l6; Conditional Use Permit to establish an l8-hole championship golf course and associated facilities. ,- c Planning Commission -2- March 10, 1999 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSION ER COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT to the Planning Commission Workshop on Wednesday, March 17, 1999. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WlrH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting! activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. H:IHOMElPLANNINGIOIANAIPCAGENOA.OOC ,. c MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, December 16, 1998 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CAW MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair Willett, Commissioners Hall, Ray, Thomas, Tarantino and O'Neill Robert Leiter, Director of Planning and Building Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner Maria Muett, Planning Technician Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney Staff Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-99-11; Request to install, operate and maintain a 60-foot high monopole, within a palm tree design, housing 12 panel antennas and enclosure for 175 square foot equipment building - Nextel Communications. Background: Maria Muett reported that Nextel Communication is proposing to construct and operate an unmanned cellular communication facility at 428 Broadway consisting of a 175 sf radio equipment building and a 60 ft. monopalm supporting 12 directional (panel) antennas located in the courtyard within the building near the north property line of the site. The applicant is proposing to install a monopalm, which is a new product in the industry designed to camouflage and create a more aesthetically pleasing product, consisting of a wood pole encasing and supporting the antenna structure and plastic palm fronds mounted at the top of the pole. The site currently contains a small two-story retail office complex; situated and surrounded on the north, south, and east side by CT zone (Commercial Thoroughfare) and to the west byR-3 (multiple density apartments). Other similar monopole facilities located in Chula Vista are PacTel Cellular and U.S. West sites adjacent to 1-5 south of Anita St., and Air Touch and Nextel Communications are located atop Community Hospital located at 751 Medical Center Drive and an additional Air Touch facility is located at 625 H Street, which is the closest facility to the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes I December 16, 1998 - 2 Staff visited the monopalm that Nextel installed in Spring Valley, located on a hill side, surrounded by taller buildings and considerably more mature vegetation, which blends in and does not seem to create such a contrasted visual impact than the one that is proposed in (hula Vista. This being a new product in the industry, the applicant did not have a historical perspective as to the deterioration of the product over time. Staff has concerns with the maintenance of the product and believes that regular inspections, immediate repair work and constant maintenance would be required if the monopalm is approved. In accordance with department policy, co-locating on existing facilities must be attempted if feasible, and if it cannot be accomplished, documented evidence must be submitted. Multiple sites were rejected for various reasons, which include impacts to parking, setback conflict, site restrictions for their equipment building, property owner not receptive to the proposal, lease unavailability and placement of a lone palm tree was not compatible within the commercial center. Staff is satisfied with the applicant's conclusion as to alternative locations within their needs area. Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-99-11 recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit and the conditions and findings contained therein for a monopole. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Thomas asked if a provision would be included that would require the applicant to remove the pole if for some reason the applicant failed to comply with the maintenance requirement. Maria Muett stated that a condition can be added requiring the applicant, at the City's request, to remove it if they do not uphold the maintenance agreement. Public Hearing Opened 7:30. Mark Burnett, representing Nextel Communication stated that the proposed project is a wireless telecommunication facility for transmitting and receiving radio signals for cellular phones and two-way radios and they are recommending using a monopalm. The area coverage is from 1-5 to Broadway, between C Street and L Street. Most desirable for this technology are sites located on top of tall buildings, because higher is better and you get more coverage area which translates into less sites. Eight sites were look into, and for reasons previously stated, did not work out. Mr. Burnett concluded by stating that they are receptive to whatever the Commission desires and they are willing to go with the monopole or the monopalm. Public Hearing Closed 7:40. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - December 16, 1998 Commissioner Tarantino expressed concern with the lack of precedence on mai ntenance on the deterioration and maintenance of a monopalm. Commissioner Tarantino also stated that he was pleased to see the applicant's creativity in the monopalm design. Commissioner Hall stated that with all of the development that is occurring in eastern Chula Vista the City will probably experience a proliferation of these types of facilities and asked if there was was anything being done by the City to prepare for this. Director Leiter stated that the industry's state-of-the-art technology allows for this kind of facilities to be installed on light standards and other infrastructure so that they do not have to be on separate towers. The City anticipates that over time, especially in new developments, these facilities will be better integrated to the other infrastructure that is being built in new subdivisions MSC (O'Neill/Thomas) (3-3-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC 99-11 recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit with conditions and findings therein, for a monopole. Commissioners Thomas, Ray, and Tarantino voting against it. Alternate motioned offered by (Thomas/Tarantino) (5-1-0-0) that the Planning Commission approve the design as planned for a monopalm and that conditions be included for maintenance and upkeep of the monopalm which include a provision that requires its removal if the applicant fails to comply with the required maintenance. Motion carried with Commissioner Ray voting against. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-99-06; Request to construct a gasoline fueling facility at Costco Warehouse, 1144 Broadway - Costco Wholesale Background: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner reported that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a six dispenser fueling facility on the site of the existing Costco Warehouse at 1144 Broadway immediately adjacent to the corner of Broadway and Oxford Street. The entire shopping center site is comprised of 31.3 acres, of which, the Costco site is 9 acres. The proposed fueling facility will require the removal of 51 existing parking spaces in the southeast corner of the site. Due to staff's concern over the loss of parking spaces, the applicant did an overall parking analysis of the entire 31.3 acre site. The applicant is proposing to utilize a fenced-in area directly behind the Costco warehouse to accommodate 45 employee-only parking spaces. During a preliminary review of the project on November 2, 1998, the Design Review Committee had concern with there not being sufficient stacking distance between the pumps and the driveway coming off Oxford Street. Staff also has concern with stacking of vehicles backing into the driveway and onto Oxford Street. The traffic impact analysis for the project indicates that there is a stacking distance of approximately 120 feet between the pump islands and the Oxford Street driveway, which Planning Commission Minutes - 4 December 16, 1998 translates into approximately 6 vehicles. A study conducted at the existing Rancho Del Rey facility, which also contains 6 dispensers, revealed that there were no more than 5 vehicles qued at anyone time. The study concludes that the length of the queues anticipated will be similar to the Rancho Del Rey facility and will rarely, if ever, impact the Oxford Street driveway. During the review process, comments were received from Sweetwater Authority expressing concerns with groundwater contamination, specifically a substance known as MTBE, which is considered to be potentially carcinogenic. Staff has met with SWA and has agreed to condition the project to require that plans be submitted to them for review prior to issuance of building permits. Staff included a condition that an on-site attendant be present at all times, however, the applicant opposes this condition and is proposing to have an on-site attendant only during peak hours and available by roam phone which is worn at all times. Based on the applicants request to modify this condition, staff contacted the Fire Marshal and he did not oppose the applicants proposal because they had previously submitted plans which included the installation of video monitors located within the canopy, transmitting into the warehouse and had the ability to initiate emergency shut-offs from within the warehouse as well. Applicant also requested to modify the language under the condition for hours of operation to include the word "generally". Staff does not agree with this request. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for IS 99-03 and adopt PCC-99-06 approving the conditional use permit for the proposed fueling facility with the revision to condition B as recommended by the applicant regarding attendant hours. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ray asked for clarification on the revised condition that was left on the dais, because it reads "One on-site attendant shall be required at all times on the Costco site and available by roam phone...". In addition, what does the word "generally" mean, on the hours of operation condition? Jeff Steichen responded that the applicant is proposing have someone at all times at the actual site, which includes the warehouse building and be available by roam phone, but will only be at the gas station site during peak hour periods. Staff does not agree adding the word "generally" on the hours of operation condition because it would be extremely difficult to enforce. Commissioner Thomas concurred with Commissioner Ray's concerns and stated that he has first-hand experience as a former gas station dealer, with problems that may arise such as, special needs for the handicapped, cars pulling out with the nozzle in the car, and spills, and strongly opposes not having a full-time attendant at the gas station. L Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - December 16, 1998 Commissioner Tarantino asked if Costco should decide to close the Broadway facility sometime in the distant future, what type of environmental impact would the fueling facility have on any potential new tenant on the site. Bob Leiter, Director, stated that fueling facilities are heavily regulated by the County Environmental Health Department and other agencies. The City did conduct an Initial Study, which determined there were no environmental impact, however, that is primarily regulated by agencies other than the City. Commissioner O'Neill stated that the concern that Sweetwater Authority expressed over the hazards associated with MTBE, although somewhat legitimate, are not as potentially hazardo~s as they once thought, in comparison with the emissions. The Authority's concerns probably stem from the use of wells and if the double containment system fails. Since all new tanks and former tanks are required by law to be retrofitted to the new double containment tanks, the likelihood of leaks occurring are greatly reduced. Commissioner Hall expressed concern with not having a full-time attendant at the fueling station site. Public Hearing Opened 8:15 Bruce Kreager, Barghausen Consulting Engineers stated that the Costco fueling facilities offer two grades of gasoline (Regular and Super Unleaded) typically at 6 cents p/gal. less than their competitors and are able to do this by sales volume and limiting the product to two types of gasoline. Mr. Kreager further stated that the hours of operation for the fueling facilities are typically from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekends. He clarified that the word "generally" was intended in the event that they might compress or expand the hours of operation by an hour or half hour, and asked for clarification from staff what would happen if they decided to change the hours; would they be in violation of this condition, or would there be an administrative means by which to adjust the hours. The fueling facilities are designed to be both fully automated and remotely supervised. All sales are activated by the use of a Costco member card followed by inserting a credit or debit card, and there are no cash sales. The remote supervision, which the Fire Marshal supports, entails having video monitors on the underside of the canopy that are positioned at the fueling pumps and are being relayed to the front counter in the inside of the warehouse where there are monitors that display what is seen on those cameras. Additionally, there is a help phone, which is located at the canopy. If a customer has difficulty operating the dispenser, they can request help by using the phone, which will immediately ring the roam phone, a walkie-talkie-type phone, that the warehouse manager wears at all times. Mr. Kreager further stated that Costco has chosen to go above and beyond what is the current State requirement for underground storage regulations and have installed monitoring systems located between the dual walls of the tanks and inside the tanks which provide continuous measuring of the levels of gasoline. . . Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - c December 16, 1998 In response to the concern over people driving off with the nozzle in the car; the hoses that are used by Costco have double-popped valves so that in the event that someone drives away, the valve will contain the fuel within the hose and will not release any product into the environment. For the record, Mr. Kreager stated that Costco's commitment to staying at the Broadway location can be substantiated by the amount of money they have invested in remodels, both recently and future, which exceeds 2.5 million dollars. Commissioner Thomas stated that he would support having staff do an administrative change of hours if the applicant so desires, however, still opposes not having a full-time attendant. Commissioner Ray stated his understanding is that if the applicant wishes to regress the hours of operation, he may do so without City approval, however, if he wishes to expand the hours of operation, it would need to be cleared with the City, however, he would support directing staff to do it administratively. Commissioner Ray also stated that as a user of the Rancho Del Rey station, he has experienced excessive stacking and wanted to know what measures would be taken to ensure that the same problem does not occur at the Broadway site. Mr. Kreager responded that the traffic study indicated the traffic count on Broadway is about half of that on East H Street (22,000 ADT's vs. 45,000 ADT's). Unlike other stations, the Costco station is availab!e only to members and studies indicate that people who are already shopping at the warehouse will also make use of the station on that same trip. Furthermore, the volume of sales at the Broadway facility is much less than that at Rancho Del Rey. David Medelbaum, Kid's Warehouse, stated he opposes the project because it would exacerbate the existing parking problem that adversely affects Kid's Warehouse. When they first leased the space, the best that they were offered is to have designated pregnant parking in front of the store, which could not be enforced. It is his opinion that this shopping center is grossly underparked. The center simply is not designed to have employee or customer parking in the rear of the building. There is a problem with vandalism and theft and you need a full- time security guard policing the back parking lot, and would need to be fenced in. Therefore, this is not an option to employees or customers. Jackie, Kid's Warehouse Manager, strongly opposes the project because increased congestion wi II worsen the existing traffic and parking problems. Rafael Chavez, former Kid's Warehouse store manager, stated the parking situation was problematic, narrow parking spaces, empty boxes and shopping carts, had his car broken into when he parked in the rear. Scott Boreman, Traffic Engineer, Linscott Law & Greenspan, stated according to City parking standards, even with the loss of 51 parking spaces, the parking requirements are met. In addition, he stated that back in May when the parking and traffic analysis started, at a randomly selected time, the parking utilization was at 55%. r Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - December 16, 1998 Public Hearing dosed 8:50 Commissioner Hall stated he appreciated the comments made by Kid's Warehouse personnel and understood they have legitimate concerns, some of which can be addressed, like the empty boxes and carts strewed throughout the already congested parking lot. He does have some concern with not having the full-time attendant, however, if there have been no problems with the Rancho Del Rey facility, he is inclined to support the applicant's proposal. Commissioner Ray stated that he would like to see an internal traffic flow and parking study, in addition, he favored looking into creative ways to lessen the queuing that would most likely spill on to Oxford Street, by moving the driveway further west. In addition, if the project is approved, Cmr. Ray would propose to have a six month review of the parking and traffic conditions, and that a concerted effort be made by Costco to implement a consistent, frequent cart removal program. Chair Willett asked if the parking analysis figures on Attachment C included the parking in the front only. Jeff Steichen responded that it encompassed the entire site, including the back of the building. Commissioner Thomas stated that he concurs with Cmr. Ray's comments, however, he would like to have the additional information before the project is approved. He also asked how the applicant and staff justifies removing 51 parking spaces from the existing lot to accommodate the station. In addition, he asked what was the projected gallonage for this facility. Jeff Steichen responded that the applicant has submitted a parking plan which will contain 45 employee parking spaces at the rear of the Costco building and they will be requiring their employees to park there. Jessie Sanchez, Costco Manager responded that Rancho Del Rey gasoline sales is approximately 195,000 gallons per week with 45,000 ADT. The projection for the Broadway site at peak will be approximately 130,000 gallons per week. Commissioner O'Neill stated that the stacking issue needs further review and the security and housekeeping issues are probably out of the Commission's purview. Bob Leiter stated that the traffic analysis reported that even if the traffic volumes were as great as those at the Rancho Del Rey site, the stacking would accommodate the activity except on rare occasions. Commissioner O'Neill strongly urged the applicant to consider moving the facility to the rear of the Costco building. Not only is this area underutilized, but with the added traffic to the back, it would bring more security to the entire Price Bazaar tenants. ,. [ Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - December 16, 1998 Bob Leiter concurs with the Commissioners desire to pursue the possibility of extending the queuing and staff would be willing to work with the applicant's traffic engineer to further explore the possibilities. Another possibility is to reconfigure and condition the parking space to be more accessible to the other storefronts. However, it is not something that can be resolved tonight and perhaps Costco would be willing to look into it. MSC (O'Neill/Thomas) (6-0-0-0) to continue PCC-99-06 and request that the applicant further study the feasibility of moving the facility to the rear of the building, improving the queuing situation soliciting the City Traffic Engineer's input, return to the Planning Commission with a more comprehensive report which is to include statistical information on number of vehicles based on projected gallon sales, ADT's, and that this item be continued to January 27, 1999. Motion carried. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT at 8:00 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 1999. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Pla~~mission PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: V Meeting Date: 3/10/99 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-95-0IB - Amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan to amend the threshold for Olympic Parkway construction. Applicants: The Otay Ranch Company and The McMillin Companies. On June 4, 1996, the Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) was adopted by the City Council along with the SPA One Plan and other documents required for implementation of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The SPA One PFFP established thresholds for public improvements serving Villages One and Five, including Olympic Parkway. In order to expedite the improvements of Olympic Parkway, a financing plan with security for construction has been negotiated with the Otay Ranch Company and McMillin Companies. An amendment to the SPA One PFFP has been proposed to establish improvement thresholds so that Otay Ranch Company and McMillin Companies can equitably share in the number of units as the Olympic Parkway threshold. The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the impacts of the proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One PFFP were adequately analyzed in the SPA One Amendment Environmental Impact Report EIR 97-03 and no further action is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution No. approving the amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan for Paseo Ranchero and Olympic Parkway. DISCUSSION: The SPA One PFFP trigger to guarantee the construction of Olympic Parkway from 1-805 to Paseo Ranchero and Paseo Ranchero from East Palomar Street to Olympic Parkway is currently set at 1,213 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) in Table II. Phase I improvements include Olympic Parkway from Brandywine to Paseo Ranchero and Paseo Ranchero to East Palomar Street. Phase II extends Olympic Parkway from Paseo Ranchero to East Palomar Street. In order for the Otay Ranch Company and the McMillin Companies to share the EDUs in the next phase of SPA One development, the developers and staff are proposing that additional thresholds be established for the approval of Final Maps. In a separate financing agreement, improvement requirements for each developer have been determined and EDUs limits proposed for the future approval of Final Maps. Table ll-A will be added to the SPA One PFFP to further define the threshold requirements for the construction of Olympic Parkway. Currently, Final Maps containing 1,213 EDUs have been approved. With the approval of the agreement by the City Council guaranteeing the construction of Paseo Ranchero and Olympic ,. I Page 2, Item No.: _ Meeting Date 3/10/99 Parkway, Final Maps containing up to 1,800 EDUs can be approved in Stage 1. When the 4d Take Allocation environmental permits for the habitat in Poggi Canyon have been approved by the Wildlife Agencies, Final Maps containing up to 1,995 EDUs may be approved by the City Council in Stage 2. Prior to the approval of Final Maps with 2,526 EDUs, Stage 3 requires: 1) full environmental clearance from the appropriate agencies including clearance for the Quino checkerspot butterfly; 2) approval of grading plans with full bonding for Phases I and II (Olympic Parkway and Paseo Ranchero); and 3) approval of the detention basin agreement for Poggi Canyon. Receipt of bond proceeds by the City for McMillin Companies improvements in CFD 97-03 (La Media, East Palomar and Olympic Parkway) will allow 2,690 EDUs to be approved in Stage 4. Stage 5 requires the Phase I improvements for Olympic Parkway and Paseo Ranchero to be approved and bonded, which will allow up to 3,126 EDUs to be approved. With Phase II Olympic Parkway improvement approved and bonded along with La Media and East Palomar, 5,429 EDU's can be approved in Stage 6. Stage 7, full buildout of SPA One including Village One West, requires approval of improvement plans and bonding for Olympic Parkway from East Palomar to the SR-125 right-of-way. Security for PFFP improvements are typically required prior to Final Map approval because this is the furthest point in the development process where the City has the greatest control with fInancial obligations. Most bonds guaranteeing improvements are posted and impact fees are paid prior to the approval of Final Maps. These proposed modifIcations in Table 11-A are not a reduction of the construction threshold, but rather a refmement of the threshold security which cannot be exceeded until the roadway construction is guaranteed for Phase I and II of Olympic Parkway. The PFFP amendment will be considered by the City Council at their March 16th meeting, along with: 1) the overall alignment study and finance plan for Olympic Parkway; 2) a contract for consultant services for project management and plan checking of improvement plans for Olympic Parkway; and 3) a security agreement between the City and the Otay Ranch Company and the McMillin Companies to construct Phases I and II of Olympic Parkway. Conclusion Staff has concluded that the proposed agreement between the Otay Ranch SPA One developers and the City of Chula Vista for fInancing and construction of Olympic Parkway and Paseo Ranchero will facilitate timely construction of the facilities. Staff recommends the Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facility Finance Plan be amended to incorporate Table ll-A detailing the staged improvement of Olympic Parkway, Paseo Ranchero, La Media and East Palomar Street. Attachments 1. Amended SPA One PFFP Table 11 and new Table ll,A H:IHOMEIPLANNINGIOT A YRNCHIPFFP,PC,doc ,. c Legend ~ . i E..uSUD1R.&iJ ,,~ ~'_"" ;t:J E.tuuo, Bus Vi~9"" ,'-J RalISu,UOf. Ii QJ ~ ~ Par\..Jn6-RIdcl'lU!J Su:uon hn-and-RuX: Tr.mIf~FKiilr:-- . Sweetwate' Reservoir ~ < -------.." ...... Source: CII~ of Chul.1 .....lStiI ."'-.;..... ~~~ ">;, '7.....,<_-.- ,...' ~..:. - ,.. ..."...- ~ j!~ /-- ~ . . '" .. ....- ..r .-' <7"" ' ~I@.L ; --- -- ,~-----.-_.--.~ ".... ... \ ---- Upper 01av Reservoir' ...,",' " "'i'C-.rc ffi . ..._.Ali_..~_.........~. Ota)' Ranch Sectional Planning Area One II I Public Transportation Concept Map Exhibit 8 --'~----~~-"' I" " a; . ~ ~ . :> Ci ii5 ~ "C ~ .;;; -.:: ai .. ;;; Ci !!! ,:: . () ;:: ~ ~ " ,5 "" . 1:' .&; 'j .. ]! m .. " !!'. '" " a; '" <: " '" < en a: ~ '" -= <: - ii5 ~ "C cn '" 'iii ]! 0 Ui ~ E ~ ~ '" -.:: i;; ~ ~ ~ " " <: <: .. 0 Q; a; W .2' '2 w i;; 'I: 'I: () ~ Q; Q; ;;: '" w "" "" ~ j 'C .,. -'" ~ .. o!! ii5 ii5 ~ ~ ... '" 'E i;; ~ .s ~ ~ ii5 ii5 .!!! ~ :J ::;; " " :> '5 E :J c: c: <: 'iii ~ .. i= E Oi E w ::; "C ~ g- t: E ~ .. '" a. '" '" 8 " '" '" " to "C ijj :3 0 <: " co .. .. ~ !!' () '" '" ~ co '" '" W ....J Jg " E Oi <b ....J Jg e Ui '" .&; 'iii '" <b :> :> 0 Co> 'i;; " - " 't:: co 'C '> a. c: .. e " .. Jg cn c: a: '" 'I: C . . ,.... cn a: < '> . CD I . ; I . . " . I . I C) . " I . . . I . CD . . I . I " ~ 0**+ . ..J I . . . I C . . n I . I . ~ . I n ...L. , , \ -..-..C:::..-..-.. I ."...... ..-..-1 f -..-..-..-..-..- r /) \:)r--ol 0\ ;). \: \.. ! , .... ". ~ \"' is \._....:: ".~\I ~ i \ \ 0 . ~ o 1 .~~ J1 ~ tJ ~ C>., c c: .... ..... 0> ] ..!E - ~ .- <( - c.. ..... ~ , ~ ...... D... ~ ~j - ~ (J) ;; 't lffi il. .2 ~ w ~ - .::::. 1: . i~ .!!! t;..) (.) ... t!: - :: .... c: '" ~ ~! (.) 1:::.; a:I .r ... .,.. a:: b 0 ~ .- - - (.) >- ~ .- w.., a:I - 'JJ 0 '" c ~ cO .- ~ .e- ..... .- J ...... ..:. ....... ~ t;..) - ~ '-' ::: ~~ ... t;~ t;..) !}5 .- t~ ...... ...t:::. - - Q., :::'" 6~ ",'" ~.. "=:7; ~ ..:: -'^" _---::::: ,----/,. '~ Q ,,\ o,~ \.1, o')~,' . .!; ~ ! ~ ~ ,. "" ~ ~ 1 ! H ~ >, ~ !~.. ~.! ~ jH ~ alII SPA One Public FacilitieL'inance Plan TRAFFIC Table 11 Transportation Phasing Cumulative PIwe (Footnote or PIwe .pecific EDU trigger) Internal TraaaportatiOD Improvements EDU. Blue I Grey I Pink I Om I Org I Yel Bm Red I'urp Sliver Gold Pasco Rancbero - E. Palomar to Olympic 1,213 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 300 (2) (2) Pkwy.- ~ La Medio - E. Palomar OlympIc Pkwy.~ 2.911 (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) E. Palomar - SaIIIa Rosa to Olympic Pkwy. 2.911 (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) 300 (2) (3) (2) (2) (2) La Media PedesIrian Bridge 2.911 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 1/2 Olympic ~. Bridge (\Tillage I to 4,629 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) Village 2) 1/2 Olympic ~. Bridge (\Tillage S to 4,629 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) Village 6) Olympic ~. - Pasco Ranchero 10 La 2,911 (2) (2) (2) (2) 300 (2) 300 (3) (3) (2) (2) Medi. Olympic~. - La Media to E. Palomar 3,136 (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (2) Olympic Pkwy. - E. Palomar to _ Otay S,429 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (2) Ranch boondaly (S) Regional TraasponatioD ~provemCDts (I) Olympic~. - 1--80S *' Pasco Rancbero~ 1,213 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) E. Palomar - existing improvements 10 Pasco 2,911 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (3) Ranchero F_Legend: (I) Interim impnM:menIs for any facility <:an be c:onsttuaed .Ube discretion of the City EngiJ=r. (2) 4-- to 1JODC1n1<t jnd to ~ and a= 10 construct the facility prior 10 the FmaI "B" Mop 1bat 1riggm the c:umLLiatiYe FDUs z; defined in this Exhibit (3) ^_ to "m''''''' ",d 10 ~ and """" 10 construct the fiI:IIlty prior 10 the first final map in Phase (4) To befinaoced1brough a local DIF. To be secured by c:ash on a parcel by parcel basis prior to each com:spouding Final "B" Map until DIF is established. * See Table llA fol'1'h~ng of these improvements. No"": Impmvements me triggered by the sooner ofphase specific EDUs or cumulative EDUs. Facilities 10 guanmICCd prior 10 the first final map triggering the improvemenls. Single Family Residential- I EDU per DU Multi-Family ~-.;_;.I - 0.84 EDU per DU Commen:iaI-73.6S EDUs per Mres CPr - :13-'6 Iilw.; po. Ap. Otay Ranch 54 March 4, 1999 3 TABLE ll-A ~PROVEME~TSTAGE IMPROVEMENTS & OTHER MAXIMUM EDU REQUIREMENTS LIMITS * 1. * Approval of Olympic Parkway 1213 and related roadway financing and construction At completion of stage 1 1800 requirements. City Council can approve EDU(s) not exceeding: 2. * 4 D take allocation approved by 1800(1) the County including the deficit species survey. At completion of stage 2 1995 requirements, City Council can approve EDU(s) not exceeding: 3. * Full Environmental Clearance 1995(1) obtained by appropriate agencies for Olympic Parkway including the Quino checkerspot butterfly. * Approval of full grading plans and full bonding by the City for Facilities 4,6,7,12, 13,21,22 in Table 11. * Appropriate detention basin agreements approved by City for Poggi Canyon. At completion of stage 3 2526 requirements, City Council can approve EDU(s) not exceeding: 4. * Bonds proceeds for 97-3 have 2526(1 ) been delivered to the City and certified by the Finance Director At completion of stage 4 2690 requirements, City Council can approve EDU(s) not exceeding: 1 c TABLE ll-A IMPROVEME!liT STAGE IMPROVEMENTS & OTHER REQUIREMENTS MAXIMUM EDU LIMITS * 5. * Plans for Facilities 4 and 7 are approved and security received by the City. Security obligation for Facility 7 is for the portion between Brandywine to Paseo Ranchero. 2690(1 ) 6. At completion of stage 5 requirements, City Council can approve EDU(s) not exceeding: * Plans for Facilities 6, 12B, 21 and 22 are approved and security received by the City. At completion of stage 6 requirements, City Council can approve EDU(s) not exceeding: * Plans for Facilities 23 are approved and security received by the City. 3126 3126(1 ) 5429 7. Full buildout of SPA 1 and SPA 1 West (I) Improvement shall be fully secured before the maximum EDU limits is reached. * These maximum EDU limits do not supersede other requirements contained in the PFFP, approved Tentative Map and Final Map agreements. H,\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEVlOL YMPIClMAXl.EDU WP61 --- :, c RESOLUTION NO. PCM-95-0lB RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA ONE PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was approved on October 28, 1998, and the Otay Ranch Specific Planning Area One Plan and Public Facilities Finance Plan were approved on June 4, 1996; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 1999, the City Council approved an amendment to the SPA One Plan adding the area west of Pas eo Ranchero to the SPA One Plan; and WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the construction of Olympic Parkway in a timely manner, the Otay Ranch SPA One developers and the City of Chula Vista have entered into a financial and construction agreement that further define the stages of Olympic Parkway construction; and WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch SPA One PFFP amendment analyzes the public facilities necessary to serve the Village One West area and finds the all threshold can be met; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the amendments to the PFFP fall under the purview ofEIR 95-01, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment to the PFFP and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet ofthe exterior boundaries of Village One and Village Five at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m. February 3, 1999 which was continued to March 10, 1999, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval of the amendment to the PFFP is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Plan and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice support the approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the amendment to the PFFP in accordance with the findings contained in the attached City Council Resolution No. _' c, ,. And that a copy ofthis resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City CounciL PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 3rd day of February 1999 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: John Willett - Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary 7 ( RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA ONE PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN TO CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION THRESHOLDS FOR PASEO RANCHERO AND OLYMPIC PARKWAY. WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was approved on October 28, 1998, and the Otay Ranch Specific Planning Area One Plan and Public Facilities Finance Plan were approved on June 4, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) trigger for Paseo RancherolEast Palomar Street to Olympic Parkway (Facility No.4) and Olympic ParkwaylI-805 to Paseo Ranchero (Facility No.7) is shown as 1,213 EDUs on Table 11 of the Otay Ranch SPA One PFFP; and WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the construction of Olympic Parkway in a timely manner, the Otay Ranch SPA One developers and the City of Chula Vista have entered into a financial and construction agreement that changes the EDU trigger for Facility No.4 and Facility No.7 rrom 1,213 to 1,800 EDUs; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that the amendments to the PFFP fall under the purview ofEIR 95-01, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on January 13, 1999 and voted to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM-95- OlB recommending to the City Council approval ofthe amendment to the PFFP; and WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment to the PFFP and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries ofVjlJage One and VjlJage Five 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. on January 19, 1999 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the amendment to the PFFP introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this matter held on January 13, 1999 and the minutes and resolution resulting thererrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. ? " ( NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby approves the amendment to the PFFP based on the following findings and all other evidence and testimony presented with respect to the proposed changes, and subject to the following findings: FINDINGS The amendment to the PFFP is consistent with the General Plan and the General Development Plan for the following reasons: 1. The amendment incorporates details of a fmancing and construction agreement between the developers ofOtay Ranch SPA One and the City ofChula Vista which will facilitate timely construction of Olympic Parkway and Paseo Ranchero; and 2. The amendment will not adversely affect adjacent land uses, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality in that updated dwelling unit figures allow for more exact calculations related to traffic, park requirements, police, fire and emergency medical services, schools, libraries, parks, trails and open space, water requirements, sewer capacity, and drainage, among other issues. APPROVAL OF AMENDED PFFP The City Council hereby approves the amended PFFP for Village One and Village Five of the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area I Plan THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. Presented by Approved as to fonn by Robert Leiter Director of Planning and Building John M. Kaheny City Attorney H,IHOMEIPLANNINGIKIM\CITYCNCL\PFFP.RES 2 q c PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~ Meeting Date: 3/10/99 ITEM TITLE: Consideration of the following applications fIled by the Otay Water District for 509 unincorporated acres located at the northern terminus of Hunte Parkway: I) PCZ-99-01 - Prezone to A-8, Agricultural; and 2) PCC-99-16 - Conditional Use Permit to establish an I8-hole championship golf course and associated facilities. Applicant: Otay Water District The proposed project consists of prezoning 509 unincorporated acres to A-8, Agricultural, a prerequisite to annex the property to the City of Chula Vista, and establishment of an 18-hole championship golf course and associated facilities, including a driving range, clubhouse, and other amenities. The Otay Water District has conducted an Initial Study of possible environmental impacts associated with this project. Based on the Initial Study (Attachment 8), City planning staff has concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and, therefore, recommends that the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. OTHER BOARDS/COMMISSIONS: At its February 15, 1999 meeting, the Design Review Committee considered plans for the clubhouse and accessory buildings; parking layout; landscaping; fencing; and signage. The project was approved conceptually. A detailed architectural package must be submitted to and approved by the DRC, prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. RECOMMENDATION: I) Based on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for this project. 2) Adopt attached Planning Commission Resolution PCC-99-16/ PCZ-99-0I (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Ordinance (Attachment 4) prezoning a 509-acre parcel to A-8, Agricultural, in accordance with Exhibit A, attached thereto; and adopt the Draft City Council Resolution (also Attachment 4) approving a Conditional Use Permit to establish an I8-hole championship golf course H:\HOME\PLANNING\KIM\REPORTS\OWD.CUP 1 c Item: Meeting Date: 3/10/99 and associated facilities based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION: 1) Site Characteristic~ The 509-acre, rectangular-shaped parcel, where the project is proposed, is approximately 0.4 mile north of Proctor Valley Road, and is between the bases of San Miguel and Mother Miguel mountains to the north, and Rolling Hills Ranch subdivision, currently under construction, to the south. Phases II and III of Rolling Hills Ranch lie east of the parcel, and the proposed San Miguel Ranch subdivision to the west (see Locator, Attachment 1). The site is divided into two major areas: 1) a 230-acre Habitat Management Area (HMA) along the west, north and east property lines; and 2) a 254-acre "Usable Area" in the central portion of the parceL While the HMA features steep slopes and canyons, the "Usable Area" slopes gently from north to south, approximately 200 feet in elevation. The golf course and accessory structures are proposed to be constructed in the central 254 acres, which presently house several water storage tanks and a caretaker house. While the golf course has been designed around the existing water tanks and ground reservoirs (in some instances these facilities are part of the golf course layout) the caretaker house is proposed to be removed. Existing access to the site is a dirt road extending northward from Proctor Valley Road. 2) Zoning and r ,and Use A) Sweetwater Community Plan IJ Site - Specific Planning Area c East - Specific Planning Area c West - Specific Planning Area c North - Specific Planning Area c South - N/A H:\HOME\PLANNING\KIM\REPORTS\OWD.CUP 2 " r Item: Meeting Date: 3/10/99 B) City of Chula Vista General Plan Designation o Site - Open Space (Sphere of Influence) o East - Low Density Residential (0-3 du/ac) o VVest - ()penSpace o North - ()pen Space o South - Low Medium Density Residential C) City/County Zoning o Site ,Specific Plan (County) o East - PC, Planned Community (City) o VVest - Specific Plan (County) o North - Specific Plan (County) o South - PC. Planned Community (City) 3) Proposal The proposed project involves Prezone and Conditional Use Permit applications. The following paragraphs describe each application separately: Prezone The Prezone application requests prezoning of 509 unincorporated acres, which are part of San Diego County's Sweetwater Community Planning Area (more specifically the Eastern Bonita Specific Planning Area) to the City's A-8, Agricultural Zone. The purpose and intent of the Agricultural Zone is outlined in Section 19.20.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Attachment 5). Approval of entitlements is a prerequisite for annexation to the City. An application has been submitted to LAFCO, which will be considered by City Council in July. ConditionHllJse Permit The Conditional Use Permit proposal includes 1) an 18-hole championship golf course; 2) a lighted driving range; 3) chipping and practice greens; 4) an 8,500 square-foot clubhouse; 5) a 7,500 square-foot equipment/office building; 6) a 2,500 square-foot fertilizer/chemical storage building; 7) a 6,000 square-foot golf cart storage buildiDg; 8) a 220 space parking lot; and 9) a tree and plant nursery (see Site Plan, Attachment 2). The 254-acre golf club site also includes existing recycled water facilities, and on three sides is surrounded by approximately 230 acres of a habitat preserve known as San Miguel Habitat Management Area (HMA) which was designated by Otay Water District in 1994. H:\HOME\PLANNING\KIM\REPORTS\OWD.CUP 3 I c Item: Meeting Date: 3/10/99 The project also includes a segment of the City's greenbelt trail along the south property line, continuing north to a SDG&E easement. In order to minimize noise and light impacts, the driving range will be located in a graded depression, approximately 1,800-2,000 feet away from the nearest residential neighborhood. The practice greens will be lit by parking lot equivalent lighting and will be located north of the clubhouse. The clubhouse will include food services, restrooms, pro shop, locker rooms, and office space for facility staff. Seating capacity for the interior dining room will be a maximum of 40 people. As many as 180 people will be able to be served for special events and tournaments on the clubhouse's 1,600 square foot covered patio area. Proposed hOUTS of operation are from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Three shifts of employees (fifteen people per shift) will run the business operations, golf course landscaping and equipment maintenance. ANALYSIS Prezone Staff concludes that the proposal for prezoning the 509 acres (currently in unincorporated San Diego County) to the A-8, Agricultural Zone designation is consistent with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan designation of Open Space, and with the surrounding zoning and land uses. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice also support the prezoning to the Agricultural ZODe. In addition, the prezoning is in substantial compliance with the goals and objectives of the Eastern Bonita Specific Planning Area of the Sweetwater Community Plan, which is an area plan of the City's General Plan. Conditional Use Permit The proposal to construct an 18-hole golf course and associated facilities, includiDg a driving range, would be, in staff's opinion, an appropriate use of the "Usable Area" of the overall site. The proposed use is highly compatible with the surrouDding land uses, The following paragraphs discuss the major issues of the project and staff's recommendation. Driving range The Chula Vista Municipal Code does not include specific guidelines for golf courses. However, Section 19.58.170 addresses golf driving ranges. It states that: H:\HOME\PLANNING\KIM\REPORTS\OWD.CUP 4 .. f- Item: Meeting Date: 3/10/99 .. .Floodlights used to illuminate the premises shill! be so directed and shielded as not to be an annoyance to any developed residential property. The golf driving platfonn shall be not less than two hundred feet from any adjacent R zone. The driving area shall be plnnted with grass, equipped with a sprinkler system, and mnintained in good condition at all times. The driving range, designed to control glare, will be in a graded depression with lights "oriented down toward the range and in a northward direction, away from the adjacent communities" [Mitigated Negative Declaration], and complies with the above criteria. It will be on the western boundary of the "Usable Area" and the eastern boundary of the HMA, 1,800-2,000 feet away from the nearest residential development, Rolling Hills Ranch Phases II and III, to the east. To minimize any glow visible from that subdivision (not yet constructed), condition number five will require that eucalyptus trees be planted along the entire eastern edge of the driving range. Steep terrain west of this project will act as a natural buffer between the lights of the driving range and San Miguel Ranch. The proposed hours of operation of 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. daily will necessitate floodlights for several hours in the evenings, especially during winter months. The Sweetwater Community Planning Group recommends the golf course be open during daylight hours only, stating that "intense lighting in an area next to endangered habitat will cause significant negative impacts on the wildlife." However, a point illumination study conducted by Lithonia Lighting (commissioned by the applicant) indicates minor impacts on the adjacent Habitat Management Area, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project makes the determination that light and glare impacts would be "less than significant." Betty Dehoney of P&D Environmental Services, who prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration, states in a letter dated March I, 1999 to planning staff that: To minimize the impacts associated with new lighting on-site, increased tree cover, reduced discing and late night dark periods would be observed. To allow wildlife movement to continue in much the same way, the proposed lights would be turned off at IO:()() p.m. Wildlife movement through the project site is not expected to be significantly impacted by the golf course following implementation of these measures. To ensure that these measures will be implemented, condition number seven, addressing hours of operation and lighting levels, shall be enforced. It should also be noted that the golf course is expected to be an Audubon International Signature Status course. The Signature Program focuses on "wildlife conservation and habitat enhancement, water quality management and conservation, waste reduction and management, energy efficiency, and Integrated Pest ManagemeDt." Greenhelt equestrian trail To comply with the City's General Plan, the project includes an important link of the City of Chula Vista greenbelt trail system. It runs along the south property line, and continues north along the eastern edge of the environmental preserve area (see Site Plan, Attachment 2). Staff H:\HOME\PLANNING\KIM\REPORTS\OWD.CUP 5 ,. ( Item: Meeting Date: 3/10/99 endorses the general location of the greenbelt trail, but reconunends that the trail design, construction specifications, signage and [mal alignment be submitted to the Planning and Building Director for review and approval, prior to issuance of grading permits. The Sweetwater Conununity Planning Group and various citizens have reconunended that the greenbelt trail be extended to the northern end of the Otay Water District property along the western edge of the Usable Area (see letter, Attachment 6). However, staff is not in favor of the trail extension because it would run parallel to the proposed driving range and golf course fairways, posing a considerable safety risk to users who could be struck by golf balls. In addition, the northern trail extension is not part of the City's or County's General Plans. To seek a possible alternative northern route, the Otay Water District has been meeting regularly with various supporters of the trail. Parking Staff conducted an informal survey of local golf course establishments, which indicated that the average number of parking spaces provided is six spaces per hole. This project features 220 guest parking spaces and 15 employee spaces. Based on the average parking provided for this type of facility, the project will have an excess of 127 spaces. Staff reconunends that a minimum of 108 standard size parking spaces (including handicap spaces) be maintained at all times. Compliance with the City General Plan and adopted Policies The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan, which designates the golf course property Open Space, and requires construction of a greenbelt trail. It is also consistent with the goals and objectives of the Eastern Bonita Specific Plan, which include preserving steep terrain and natural beauty of the area, and connecting a system of riding and hiking trails into existing and proposed adjacent trails with San Diego County and the City of Chula Vista. Approximately fifty percent of the site (primarily the steep slopes) have been designated environmental preserve and wi11 remain protected under a Habitat Management Area (HMA). This Conditional Use Permit proposal for an 18-hole championship golf course and accessory facilities is in substantial compliance with: the goals and objectives of the Planning Area of the Sweetwater Conununity Plan; the City of Chula Vista's General Plan designation of Open Space; and the proposed prezoning designation of A-8, Agricultural. CONCLUSION For the reasons noted above, staff reconunends conditional approval of the proposed prezoning and Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the attached Draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance. H:\HOME\PLANNING\KIM\REPORTS\OWD.CUP 6 " Att:H'~hm~nt~ 1. Locator Map 2. Site Plan 3. Planning Commission Resolution 4. Draft City Council Ordinance/Resolution 5. Agricultural Zone Description 6. Sweetwater Community Letter 7. Disclosure Statement 8. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study H:\HOME\PLANNING\KIM\REPORTS\OWD.CUP 7 Item: Meeting Date: 3/10/99 .- - ~ L I I SAN MIGUEL RANCH BOUNDARY , l C HULA LC) r--~ n COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA _._--""-- i-I LEGEND ITIITII Habitat Management Area EZJ Usable Area I I Total Area 509 Acres ~ L ROLLING HILLS RANCH PHASE I & II --- o VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ~~I~ Otay Water District Otay Water Distrtct Use Area PROJECT N/O Proctor Valley Rd near ADDRESS: Hunte Pkwy. . SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale PCC-99-16 h:lhomelplanninglcarlosllocatorsIPCC9916.CDR 2/9/99 I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PREZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Request: Proposal to prezone 509 acres A-8, Agrtcultural, and Conditional Use PannI! to establish an 18 hole championship golf course. ATTACHMENT 1 J- ( RESOLUTION NO. PCC 99-16/ PCZ-99-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREZONE 509 ACRES AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF HUNTE PA~AY AGRICULTURAL (A-8); AND APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH AN 18-HOLE CHAMPIONSHIP GOLF COURSE AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES WITHIN THE SAME SITE - OTAYWATERDISTRICT. WHEREAS, duly verified applications for a Conditional Use Permit and Prezoning were submitted to the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista OD September 14, 1995 by the Otay Water District ("Applicant"); and, WHEREAS, said applications requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish an IS-hole championship golf course and associated facilities; and Prezone 509 acres located at the northern terminus of Hunte Parkway Agricultural (A-S); and, WHEREAS, the Otay Water District, an independent Californian State agency, has conducted an Initial Study of possible environmental impacts associated with this project, and based on the Initial Study, the Planning Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for this project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Conditional Use Permit and Prezoning applications, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publicatioD in a newspaper of geDeral circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners aDd residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely March 10, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth AveDue, before the Planning Commission and said heariDg was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to these applications; and, WHEREAS, rrom the facts presented, the Planning Commission hereby determines that the Prezone and Conditional Use Permit, as conditioned, are consistent with the City of Chula Vista GeDeral Plan and the California GovernmeDt Code, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice support the requests. I ~ ATTACHMENT 3 r: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Ordinance and Resolution approving the Prezone PCZ-99-01 and Conditional Use Permit PCC-99- I 6 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contaiDed in the attached draft City Council Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council and the Applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 10th day of March, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: John Willett, Chairperson Diana Vargas, Secretary (H: Ihomelplanninglkim IPCC,9916,pcr) 2 ~ I. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.19.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE PREZONING 509 ACRES AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF HUNTE PARKWAY A- 8, AGRICULTURAL. WHEREAS, the property cODsists of approximately 509 acres located at the northern terminus of Hunte Parkway (site) and diagrammatically represented in the attached Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a prezoning was filed with the Planning Division of the PlanniDg and Building Department on September 14, 1998; and, WHEREAS, said applicatioD requested to prezone 509 acres A-8, Agricultural; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Planning and Building Department set the time and place for a heariDg on said hearing, together with its purpose was given by its publication in the newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners withiD 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of property at least 10 days prior to the heariDg; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., March 10, 1999 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for the project; and WHEREAS, ITom the facts presented, the Planning Commission has determined that the prezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that public necessity, convenience and good zoning practice support the prezoning to A-8, Agricultural; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on the project, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the prezoning of the project site to A-8, Agricultural. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: I ') ATTACHMENT 4 ,- SectioD I: Based on the findiDgs and recommendation of the Environmental Review Coordinator, the City Council does hereby adopt Negative Declaration issued for the project. Section II: That the proposed prezoning is consistent with the City General Plan, and that public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice support the prezoning to City's Agricultural zone. Section III: That the zoning map or maps established by Section 19.18,010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code are hereby amended to prezone the property Agricultural, as reflected iD the Zoning Map, attached hereto and made a part hereof, to become effective only upon annexation of the property to the City of Chula Vista. Section IV: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the thirtieth day ITom its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning John M. Kahaney City Attorney H:\HOMEIPLANNINGIKIMICITYCNCLlOWD,ORD 2 {" ,. , j' //- ./ // // -'/ /, ;- /;/ ///,f< // // /(/ : /:/ //' /;/ /;/ // ,/,/ / // // .-:> .// // ../-' /,/-; / /// / ,/ ,'/ '.' . / < t- '// // '/./ / /' N :/:/ /) /J // '/ //"" ~~. OW~___.. WhW 650": ...~~ I .~,~/~~/<~h;j~/, b _:-~-~@ i ---"------~;~~ /~/~ IV r~w~ ~// f/ /~ ~m~~:~ // // -'i-' /::' ./// /'/ // // /:/ /~ . ., \ '. . ~ .. .' ~-";l/I ,"0"1::::", ...---". ..- . CASE NUMBEIt I i ACREAGE: SCAl=-: DATE, DRAWN BY, , i CHECKED BY, &. D ~.I~ .:> > z < < ...J co :0 ....- D '(5 ~.... Zl~ :0 _ D - u u PCZ - 99 - Oi 509.80 N.T.5. :2 - 11 - 99 c __u_ _'_.._...__~._.__ 2665.24' CC>UNTY OF S"t\ DIEGC> -P':-If-If-_'.-'-- I:r;y OF CHUJ VISTt., W I[ L...._ I[ . .. . -If-lf--3-- ~ 3998.58' -- -- ',C-:Tt; ROLLING HILLS ..:10~~?:;:;>SUBDIVISION - EXHIBIT A --- ~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING & BUilDING DEPARTMENT . I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCil ON aTY CLERK DATE ~ ~ C9 C.J. ~ .......,. .---0\~r;;... .- 'ZONING MAP 7 ""'''' , (HULA VISTA NORTH h:\homelplanning\::arloslzoning\p::z9901.cdr 2111/99 --~~ ~ ,. r DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH AN 18- HOLE GOLF COURSE ON 509 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF HUNTE PARKWAY WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein, consists of 509 acres at the northern terminus of Hunte Parkway ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on September 14, 1998, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC 99-16) was filed by Dtay Water District ("Developer"); and, WHEREAS, Developer requests permission to construct an IS-hole golf course and associated facilities; and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of an application (PCZ-99-01) to prezone the site A-S Agricultural; and, D. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the Project requires the preparation of an Initial Study. Such study was prepared by the Dtay Water District, a state agency. And based on such study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review. E. Planning Commission Record on CUP Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on March 10, 1999 and voted _ to _ to adopt Resolution No. PCC 99- 16 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for this project, and Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 8 ,. c Resolution No._ Page No.2 PCC 99-16 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; and WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the Project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice support the Project; and, F. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on April 13, 1999, to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to hear public testimony with regard to the same. NOW, TIIEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on March 10, 1999 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for this project has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista City Council. V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis, in addition to all other evidence in the record, that permits the stated findings to be made. '1 ,. c Resolution No._ Page No.3 A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed project at this particular location will provide residents of the neighborhood and the community at large with recreational opportunities at the public golf course and pedestrian/equestrian trail. B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The golf course activity area, clubhouse, driving range and maintenance facilities are located approximately 1,800 to 2,000 ft away from the nearest residential development. In addition, approval of this project includes measures to avoid potential impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Compliance with all applicable conditions codes and regulations will be required prior to issuance of development permits. D. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. Approval of this project, as conditioned is in substantial conformance with City policies and the General Plan. BE IT F1JRTIIER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY APPROVE THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BELOW: VI. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-99-16, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval for the golf course as depicted in plans provided for PCC-99-16 is contingent upon approval of PCZ-99-01 and subsequent annexation of the project site to the City of Chula Vista. I D ., c Resolution No._ Page No.4 2. Prior to obtaining a zoning permit, construct a lO-foot wide, decomposed granite (d.g.) greenbelt/equestrian trail from the northern terminus of Hunte Parkway to the western boundary of the site, along the south side of the SDG&E utility easement (outside the easement). The trail design, construction specifications, signage and final alignment shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building. 3. Prior to obtaining a zoning permit, construct a nine foot tall fence in accordance with a fencing plan approved by the Design Review Committee, along the south side of the access roadway, extending from the entrance to the end of the fairway/green of hole number one. 4. Prior to obtaining any grading permits, grant the City a 15-foot wide easement or easements for a greenbelt/equestrian trail along the south property line, western edge of the golf course, and south side of the existing SDG&E easement, ending at the western property line of the site. Exact location and alignment shall be determined and approved by the Director of Building and Planning. 5. Prior to obtaining any grading permits, the landscaping plan shall be modified to include a row of eucalyptus trees along the entire eastern border of the driving range. The size, number and spacing of the trees shall be approved by the City's landscape architect. 6. Prior to obtaining a zoning permit, a minimum of 108 standard size parking spaces (including handicap spaces) must be constructed according to City standards, and must be maintained at all times. 7. Upon issuance of a zoning permit, the golf course shall be permitted to operate between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., with the driving range lit. The driving range shall be graded and recessed in accordance with the preliminary grading plans prepared by the project's civil engineer. The driving range lights shall be constructed, installed and aimed in accordance with the City-approved lighting plan and Point Illumination Study dated August 25, 1998 by Lithonia Lighting, using LE.S. standards. The City may periodically measure the driving range lighting levels to assure compliance with this condition. If the driving range lighting exceeds the lighting levels, applicant shall have thirty (30) days to bring the lighting into compliance with this condition. If compliance has not been achieved within such period oftime, night operations (from dusk until 10:00 p.m.) of the driving range shall cease until compliance is achieved. 8. Prior to obtaining a zoning permit, the project shall meet all conditions of approval by the Design Review Committee (file DRC-99-30). 9. Prior to performing any work in the City's right-of-way, a construction permit from the City's Engineering Department must be obtained. II I Resolution No._ Page No.5 10. Prior to obtaining any grading permits, submit to, and obtain approval from the City Engineer for, a detailed study prepared by a licensed engineer that identifies impacts to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer. 11. Grading plans, addressing detailed soils and drainage analysis, shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. 12. Project shall comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program. 13. Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all suggested mitigation measures pertaining to the project that are identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all Appendices for the Otay Water District Golf Course. Any such measures not satisfied by a specific condition of this Resolution or by the project design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. Modification of the sequence of mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building, should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. Timing is of the essence for implementation of all mitigation measures. 14. Prior to obtaining a zoning permit, provide and obtain City Engineer approval for runoff detention facilities on the project site, in order to reduce the peak runoff from the golf course to an amount equal to or less than the present 100-year frequency peak runoff. 15. Any change to the operational profIle or expansion of the use shall require approval by the City Council and may result in additional conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. 16. Construct the project as submitted and approved by the City Council, except as modified herein and/or as required by the Municipal Code, and as detailed in the project description. 17. Comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations, permits, City ordinances, standards, and policies except as otherwise provided in this Resolution. VII. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS TO GRANT I. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. 2. A copy of this resolution shall be recorded against the property. 3. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit shall be ground for revocation or modification of permit. /7. Resolution No._ Page No.6 VIII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL Applicant shall execute and have notarized the attached Agreement (Exhibit "B"), indicating the Applicant has read, understands and agrees to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will implement same. IX. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination and file the same with the City Clerk. X. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event the permittee or its assigns challenge that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions, and they determine by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ah initio TillS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CIillLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA TillS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 1999. Presented by Robert Leiter Director of Planning and Building John M. Kaheny City Attorney H,\HOME\PLANNINGlKIM\CITYCNCL\OWD-RES2.WPD (:; ~ . l___ ~ " -~~ SAN MIGUEL - .;:/ BO~g:RY ----- j/~ /~, ~~. ( , f--j n COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~._--"._- , j,l LEGEND IllIIII Habitat Management Area EZ] Usable Area I I Total Area 509 Acres ~ L -- j VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT C HULA LC) PROJECT Otay Water District APPUCANr. . Olay Water District Use Area PROJECT N/O Proctor Valley Rd. near ADDRESS' Hunte Pkwy. SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: / {I NORTH No Scale PCC-99-16 h:lhomelplanning\carlos\locatorsIPCC9916.CDR 2/9/99 PROJECT OESCRIPTlON, PREZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Request: Proposal to prezone 509 acres A-8, Agricultural. and Conditional Use Permit to establish an 18 hole championship golf course. ~ EXHmIT A J' Oiapter 19.20 AGRICULTURAL ZONE Sections: 19.20.010 Purpose and Intent. 19.20.020 Permitted uses. 19.20.030 Accessory uses and buildings. 19.20.040 Conditional uses. 19.20.050 Sign regulations. 19.20.060 Height regulations. 19.20.070 Area. lot width and yard requirements. 19.20.080 Enclosures for an;mal.. 19.20.090 Site pian and architectural approvaL 10.20.100 Off-street parldng. 19.20.110 Floor area per unit. 19.20.120 Off-street parldng-Garages. 19.20.130 Petformance standards. 19.20.010 Purpose and Intent. ~ The pUI]>ose of the agricultural zone is to provide a zone with appropriate uses for areas rural in character, which are undeveloped and not yet ready for urbanization. The zone is intended to preserve in agricultural use land which may be suited for eventual development in urban uses, and which will encourage proper timing for the economical provision of utilities, major streets, and other facilities, so that orderly development will occur. (Ord. 1212 ~1 (pan), 1969; prior code ~33.501(A)). 19.20.020 Permitted uses. Principal permitted uses in the agricultural zone include: A Agriculture, as defined in Section 19.04.010. (See Section 19.58.030 for .processing plants."); B. One single-family dwelling per lot or parcel; C. Public parks. D. Factory-built home/mobile home on any lot subject to the provisions of Sections 19.58.145 and 19.58.530. (Ord. 1941 ~1 (pan), 1981; Ord. 1356 ~1 (pan), 1971; Ord 1212 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.501(B)). 19.20.030 AJ:.cessory uses and buildings. Accessory uses and buildings customarily incidental to any of the above uses permitted in the agriculture zone, subject to the regulations for such as required herein, include: ~ -- 1"1 1137 ATTACHMENT 5 (R 12/91) " A Living quarters of persons regularly employed on the premises and transient labor, maximum of two families; but not including labor camps, labor dwellings, or other accommodations or areas for transient labor. (See Section 19.16.040E for provisions for labor dwellings or camps.); B. Guest houses (See Definitions Section 19.04.106, "guest house"), subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.020D, and not rented or otherwise conducted as a business; C. Customary incidental home occupations, subject to the provisions of Section 19.14.490 of this code; D. Offices incidental and necessary to the conduct of a permitted use; E. Private garages and parking areas subject to the provisions of Sections 19.58.230 and 19.58.280; F. Roadside stand not exceeding four hundred square feet in floor area, for the sale of agricultural products grown on the premises; , G. Public and private noncommercial recreation areas, uses, and facilities, including counrry clubs and swimming pools subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.090; H. Stables and corrals subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.310. (Ord. 2145 ~2 (part), 1986; Ord. 2124 ~3, 1985; Ord. 1364 U (part), 1971; Ord. 13S6 ~1 (parr), 1971; Ord. 1212 ~1 (parr), 1969; Ord. 2124 ~3, 1985; prior code ~33.S01(C)). 19.20.040 Conditioual uses. Conditional uses in the agricultural zone include: A. Poultry farms, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.240; B. Kennels, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.190; C. Riding srables, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.190; D. Guest ranches, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.270; E. Quarrers, accommodations, or areas for transient labor in excess of two families, such as labor dwellings or camps, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.200; F. Elecn-Ie substations and gas regulators, subject to the provisions of Section 1958.140; G. Unclassified uses, see Chapter 19.54; H. Stables and corrals, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.310; I. Hay and feed stores, rerail, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.175; J. Plant nurseries. (Ord. 1604 ~1, 1975; Ord. 1356 fil (parr), 1971; Ord. 1212 fil (Parr), 1969; prior code ~33.501(D)). (R 12191) jp 1138 " '-'C/'.. w'-, SWEETW A TEn Community Planning Group 5 January 1999 , To. Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd Spring Valley, CA 91978 Attn: Michael Coleman Subject: Proposed Golf Course At its regular meeting on 3 November 1998 the Sweetwater Community Planning Group considered the Otay Water District's proposal for a Golf Course to the east of the Sweetwater Planning Area Recognizing that this project will be on land that is in the Chuia Vista Sphere of influence and will be annexed, we welcome the opportunity to offer the following recommendations. 1. The Sweetwater Community Planning Group strongly recommends that a north-south pedestrian/equestrian trail easement be provided to connect the southern Chula Vista developments and "green belt" to the preserve to the north. This trail is a necessary addition to the existing and planned trails in both Chula Vista and the Sweetwater Planning Area. 2. Night lighting on the Golf Course and Driving Range should be prohibited. Allowing intense lighting in an area next to endangered habitat will cause significant negative impact on the wildlife. These recommendations were passed unanimously as a motion with 12 members present and voting. It should also be noted that several members took exception tD the lack of disclaimer that the 'Audubon Signature" designation has nothing to do with The Audubon Society, This should be cleariy stated and there should be some discussion that the Audubon Society hasn't reviewed or commented on the project (unless they actually have and their comments are inciuded in the project description and environmental documentation) ~ ~( GDo- '-/~ John A Hammond Chairperson P.O Box 460, Bonita, California 81808-0460 (7 ATTACHMENT 6 " TI-IE r--ry OF aruu. VISTA DISCLOSURE s::- T'EMENT - ( You arc required 10 file a Stalcmcnl of Disclosure of cenain ownership or' financial Interests. paymenu. or campaign cunlrit>utltJns. on all maner!' which will require discretionar)' action on the pan of the Cil)' Council. Planning Commission. and all other officIal bodi~, The following mformation musl De disclosed: 1. Us! the names of ~JI pcrso05 haVlnE a financial interest in the property which is the suhject of the application or the contract. e.E.. owner, applicant. CDntractor. subcontraclor. malerial supplier. otay Water District 2. If any person' identified pursuanl IC1 (1) above is a corporalion or partnership. lisl the name,<; of all individuals owning more than 10% or the shar~ in lhe corporation or o....ning any partnership inlerC5t in the partnership. NOT APPLICABLE 3. If any person' identified pursuant 10 (I) above is n"n-prafil organizalion or a trust. list the names of any person scMng as director of the non-profit organi..tion or as trUSlee or beneficiary or trUSlor of the trus!. NOT APPLICABLE 4. Have you had more than S250 worlh of businC5S lransacted with any memher of the Ciry starr. Boards. Commissions. Commillee.~. and Council within the pasl twelve months? YC5_ No..lL If YC5. please indicatc person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person. including any agents. employees. consultants. or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the Cily in Ihis mailer. Michael Coleman Otay Water District Mark Rowson Latitude 33 Bettv Dehonev P&D MikE' StrndE' A111r1 (;nff Carv Bickler Carv Bickler Design Mitch Phil]iDE' V~n Dyk~ ~ A~~nc. 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregale, contributed more Ihan S 1.000 10 a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Ycs_ No-!,. If yes, stale wbich Councilmember(s): . . . (NOTE: Attach additioaal paIS K~ L~ _ -- I ,_.{, ~ Signalure of contTactor/applicanl Date: SeDtember 8, 1998 ($ Keith Lewinger, GM otay Water District Prinl or type name of conlractor/Bpplicant . hnm. is <kfi/.u1 "'. "A/I)' ill/ii."""". fim, co.pum.<lWp. IDW _n:o /Wac/a/lOl. _1Ui club. fr"""'"' "'F"WuiDl~ clJt1lOll"i"'. - A TT ACHMENT 7 IIUz lIIuJ /11'1 oIhc CDIItll)'. cUy 11114 cow1D')', e,I)' ItUUIIClpIJiU)', ;t.uznCI. Of olJu:r poJlliCtJ1lUbdlWliDtL, M,QrJ)' l1Iher,-cup Of' CDltlbilflllJDI. I