HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/02/05 Item 17
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
:$"!~ CITY OF
'- =.-=.- CHUlA VISTA
Item No.: 11
Meeting Date: 2/5/08
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING THE APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT (PCC 07-064), REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (PCC-07-064), AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (PCC-07-064) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
CONCORDIA LUTHERAN CHURCH, PRE-SCHOOL, AND
PRIVATE ELEMENTARYIMIDDLE SCHOOL, LOCATED IN
OTAY RANCH WINDINGWALK VILLAGE 11, AT THE
TERMINUS OF BIRCH ROAD AT DISCOVERY FALLS DRIVE
SUBMITTED BY:
JAMES D. SANDOVAL,
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDIN
REVIEWED BY:
DAVID M. GARCIA, CITY MANAGER
SCOTT TULLOCH, ASSISTANT CITY M
4/5THS VOTE:
~
AGER "";>J
YES NO X
INTRODUCTION
On April 10, 2007, Concordia Lutheran Church and School submitted the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) application for the development of a 5.5-acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
site in the Village II (Windingwalk) of Otay Ranch (see Attachment No. I). The project
consists of a church with a 225-student kindergarten through eighth grade school and a 192-
student pre-school. The proposed development will consist of four buildings: a 19,200-square
foot two-story classroom/fellowship hall; a 12,600-square foot single-story pre-school classroom
building; a 15,100-square foot multi-purpose gymnasium; and a 13,900-square foot church
sanctuary building with a seating capacity of 600 seats. The proposed site plan provides 224
parking spaces for students, parents, church patrons, and 40 full-time employees.
Development of the site plan with the configuration as proposed would require the approval of
the CUP along with an Amendment to the Village II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and a
17-1
Date, Item No.: l:r
Meeting Date: 2/5/08
Page 2 of 11
Revised Tentative Map. This agenda statement addresses the appeal of the denial of the CUP by
the Planning Commission. A separate report has been prepared for the SPA Amendment and
Revised Tentative Map.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council grant the Appeal of CUP (PCC-07-064), reverse the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny CUP (PCC-07-064), and adopt a resolution approving CUP (PCC-
07-064) in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission considered the CUP (PCC-07-064) on November 14, 2007, and the
Planning Commission voted 5-2-0-0 to deny PCC-07-064. Please refer to the discussion below
under Planning Commission record.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed project was
adequately covered in previously adopted Final Second Tier EIR (EIR-OI-02) for the Otay
Ranch General Plan AmendmentsNillage 11 Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map,
and the Addendum to EIR-01-02 approved September 19, 2007 for the associated Village 11
SPA Amendment application (PCM-07-05) and Revised Tentative Map application (PCS-07-02).
Thus, no further environmental review or documentation is necessary.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2006, Brookfield Shea Otay (BSO), the developer of Otay Ranch Windingwalk
Village 11, submitted a SPA Plan and Master Precise Plan (MPP) Amendment and Revised
Tentative Map application. The amendments and revisions propose to relocate the Village 11
Town Square from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northeast comer of Discovery Falls
Drive and Windingwa1k Street. The proposal also includes the relocation of the pedestrian
easement from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northern property boundary of the
proposed CPF site. In addition, consistent with the processing policy, a CUP application by the
proposed user of the CPF -1 site was required prior to further review of the SPA Amendment and
Revised Tentative Map.
Concordia Lutheran Church and School submitted the CUP application on Apri110, 2007. After
the first review of the CUP application, staff met with BSO and the Lutheran Church to assess
their needs and the ability to provide and maintain design elements of the focal point center of
the village core identified in the Village 11 Plan. Several site plan iterations were sketched and
general agreement was reached on how a possible redesign and reconfiguration of the CPF and
Town Square could be designed to maintain the primary vision for this area. Specifically:
17-2
Date, Item No.: l::.r
Meeting Date: 2/5/08
Page 3 of 11
1. That the proposed central plaza serving as the open space focal point view at the
terminus of Birch Road be provided and maintained as a community gathering space, to
serve a similar design and community function as the Town Square would have in the
same location, and
2. That a pedestrian path through the central plaza be provided and maintained as a mid-
block pedestrian connection to the village paseo, to serve a similar design and
community function as the 20-ft. wide public easement would have in the same location.
On July 27, 2007, a revised site plan was submitted incorporating certain modifications to
address the community gathering space and pedestrian connection through the site noted above;
namely, the 70-ft wide plaza shown on the previous CUP application was increased to 90-ft.
clear between arcades of the Pre-School and Fellowship Hall buildings, to align with the l20-ft.
Birch Road right-of-way width and further encourage public access, and the pedestrian
connection was revised to show a mid-block pedestrian connection around the
Sanctuary/Worship Building which could encourage pedestrians to access the village paseo
located along the eastern property boundary through the site.
On November 5, 2007, the Design Review Committee (DRC) preliminarily reviewed the project.
At the meeting, the DRC commented on the appropriateness of proposed pitch roof design of the
gymnasium building in relation to the Irving Gill architecture throughout the complex. The DRC
also requested and the applicant agreed to provide more details regarding colors and materials,
such as stone, as part of the final DRC approval plans.
The DRC also suggested that certain site plan features be enhanced. Staff noted and the
applicant concurred in their presentation that the central plaza could be enhanced with more
landscaping and seating. It was also noted by DRC Chairperson Bringas that the pedestrian
connection from the central plaza to the village paseo, which is not clearly visible from
Discovery Falls Drive, could be improved with more elements such as landscape features and/or
pavement. The DRC approval will be processed once the CUP process is completed.
DISCUSSION
Project Setting
The project site consists of a vacant 5.5l-acre area parcel located at the easterly terminus of
Birch Road in the village core of Winding walk (Village 11). Birch Road terminates into the site
coming from the west, where it T's into Discovery Falls Drive to the east. The project site can
be viewed from Eastlake Parkway and the Otay Ranch Town Center. The site has been rough
graded and is generally flat; however, there is a significant slope to the south down to
Windingwalk Street where the relocated park and the church multi-purpose gymnasium are to be
located.
A single vehicular access to the project site will be provided along Discovery Falls Drive near
the Private Recreational Facility (PRF) site and south of the Exploration Falls Drive roundabout.
17-3
Date, Item No.: \-:j.
Meeting Date: 2/5/08
Page 4 of 11
The driveway is approximately 300-ft. to the north of Birch Road. The applicant proposes to
relocate the recorded 20- ft. public easement that currently exists at the center of the site to the
northern boundary of the property, adjacent to the PRF site. The public easement sidewalk will
connect to the terminus of the Village Paseo, which runs north from Hunte Parkway to the PRF
site.
General Plan, Land Use and Zoning
The General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP describe Village Eleven as a typical residential village
including single-family, multi-family and mixed-uses. The village core provides all of these land
uses, with multi-family and commercial mixed-uses across the street from the CPF-l site. The
CPF-l site is the focal point site at the center of the village core in Village Eleven.
The proposed church, pre-school and elementary/middle school site is shown and listed as a CPF
land use in the PC District Regulations, and the property is zoned CPF-l. All of the CPF
permitted uses are subject to a Design Review approval by the DRC and a CUP approval by the
Planning Commission.
The current surrounding land use designations, zoning and land uses are:
North:
Private Recreational Facility (PRF), Pool Clubhouse and Rose Garden
South:
Multi-Family Neighborhood R-18 "Clover" by Shea Homes
East:
Chula Vista Elementary School District Site (S-l)
West:
Birch Road Terminus, Live-Work Storefront Commercial (MU-l - "The
Marketplace") and Three Multi-Family Neighborhoods (Combined R-24
and R-25- "Saguaro," "Agave" and "Aristata").
Project Description
The proposal is for a 13,900-sq. ft. church sanctuary building with a seating capacity of 600 seats
to be located directly behind a central plaza, which will serve as the architectural and landmark
focal point of the CPF site at the terminus of Birch Road. The project also includes a 225-
student K - 8 elementary/middle school and 192-student pre-school. Dual school and church
buildings consist of a 19,200-sq. ft. two-story classroom/fellowship hall to the north of the
central plaza, and a 12,600-sq. ft. single story pre-school classroom building to the south of the
central plaza. A 15,1 OO-sq. ft. multi-purpose gymnasium is proposed to be located in the
southeast comer of the CPF site along Windingwalk Street, east of the relocated Town Square
(P-4) located at the comer of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Street (See Attachment
No.2).
A 224-space parking lot is primarily located in the northeast quadrant of the site, and the parking
17-4
Date, Item No.: l:t
Meeting Date: 2/5/08
Page 5 of 11
field essentially fills out the remainder of the site behind the pre-school building, the worship
center and the gymnasium building adjacent to the Village Paseo and the Chula Vista Elementary
School District Site (S-l).
According to the project description, there are five different program activities that can occur
within the four different buildings with the following primary hours of operation:
Saturdav Sundav Mondav Tuesdav Wednesdav Thursdav Fridav
Sanctuary: 4pm-12pm 6:30am- 7pm- 9pm 7pm- 9pm 7pm- 7pm- 7pm-
1:30om 9pm 9nm 9nm
Pre-School: Closed Closed 6am-7pm 6am-7pm 6am- 6am- 6am-
70m 70m 70m
Fellowship Hall: 9am- 8am- 8am-lOpm 8am- 8am- 8am- 8am-
(K-8 School) 9pm 8pm IOpm IOpm IOpm IOpm
K-8 School: Closed Closed 8am- 8am- 8am- 8am- 8am-
3 :30om 3 :30om 3 :30om 3:30nm 3 :30om
Gymnasium: 9am- 9am- 6am- 6am- 6am- 6am- 6am-
90m 90m 90m 90m 9pm 90m 9nm
The traffic study report concluded that special events such as holiday services, and rehearsals for
special events such as weddings, funerals, etc. are occasional and typically occur during off-peak
hours and therefore do not need to be evaluated for weekly scheduling. A parking analysis has
been prepared as part of this traffic study report.
The traffic report concludes that the 224-space parking lot will exceed the needs of the project
site for a church, pre-school and elementary/middle school. The traffic report determined that
there is a typical weekend demand of 171 spaces and a typical weekday demand of 124 spaces,
provided the primary hours of operation are adhered to and maintained. The greatest parking
need is for the worship center on weekends and the school on weekdays. These uses do not
occur simultaneously so there would be adequate parking for typical church functions.
Staff Analysis
The following issues were specifically evaluated in the context of the proposed proj ect and
associated CUP findings:
Site Plan
The site layout is similar to the conceptual illustrations provided in the original Village II SPA
Plan Village Design Plan and Village Core Master Precise Plan, where community purpose
buildings were shown surrounding a town square park.
The church/school campus, consisting of four buildings totaling 60,800-sq. ft. of gross floor area,
arranges itself around a central plaza and relocates the Town Square to the comer of the site at
the intersection of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Street. While the multi-purpose
gymnasiillll is visible from Windingwalk, there is no pedestrian access to the site along
17-5
Date, Item No.:~
Meeting Date: 2/5/08
Page 6 of 11
Windingwalk Street except from the Village Paseo. The Village 11 Design Plan and MPP had
envisioned a vehicular and pedestrian connection to the CPF-1 site from Windingwalk Street.
The grade of the site slopes downward from north to south across the CPF site. The majority of
the down slope of the CPF site is taken up entirely along Windingwalk Way, as well as on the
north and east sides of the Town Square comer park. By relocating the Town Square to the
comer, the applicant eliminates any slope impacts on the CPF site, so that the proposed central
plaza, courtyards and arcades between the four campus buildings can create flat "outdoor room"
open space areas.
There are no specific design standards established by the Village 11 SPA Plan PC District
Regulations or the Zoning Code for outdoor playground areas for pre-schools or private
elementary schools. The site plan shows a playground on the north side of the pre-school
building designed to meet the required size and dimension imposed by state regulations. There is
also a small grass area between the gymnasium and the Village Paseo that could be used by
elementary/middle school students.
Specific building height and setback zoning standards are specified for the CPF site in the
Planned Community (PC) District Regulations, but may be modified by design review. All
buildings meet the 35-ft. height and 15-ft. setback recommended without requesting any
deviation. The sanctuary building would have a steeple element that reaches 45-ft. in height,
which is permitted as an architectural feature. The two-story classroom building/fellowship hall
and the multi-purpose gymnasium are 35-ft. tall. The one-story pre-school building is 22-ft. in
height. The tower elements on each side of the central plaza are 35-ft. and 28-ft. tall
respectively.
Architecture
The Village 11 SPA Village Design Plan and the MPP guidelines state that the Irving Gill
architectural theme should influence the architecture of the buildings, utilizing simple massing,
strong window rhythms and patterns, arched entry portals and low slung hip roofs. In addition,
buildings should incorporate massing of larger buildings and shall incorporate vertical elements
such as towers. The building materials used should include colors, forms and textures including
stone in conformance with the Windingwalk Village and Otay Ranch theme.
The conceptual plans and elevations would meet the mandatory site plan elements of the Village
11 SPA Design Plan and MPP, which require architectural focal point and landmark features
such as the proposed raised box arched canopy tower features on the corners of the pre-school
and fellowship hall buildings. The worship center building also proposes a focal point landmark
steeple or tower feature. Arcades located along the building sides serve as pedestrian walkways
and are a typical Irving Gill design feature.
As noted above, the DRC provided a preliminary Design Review on November 5, 2007. A
formal Design Review application has not yet been submitted. Per the preliminary Design
17-6
Date, Item No.: \ 1-
Meeting Date: 2/5/08
Page 7 of 11
Review comments of the CUP plans, the colors and materials, such as stone, to be utilized on the
buildings or arcade elements, and will be further defined when the DRC application is made.
The applicant has agreed to meet or exceed the mandatory site plan elements for providing the
central plaza as an open space accessible to the public and the mid-block pedestrian connection
through the central plaza to the Village Paseo to be exceptional in design along with the
architectural design for their buildings.
Landscaping
A conceptual landscape plan will also be provided as part of the Design Review application to be
submitted. The landscape plan will provide details showing that there is a minimum 10 percent
landscape coverage within the 224 -parking space parking area and overall minimum 15 percent
landscaping for the entire site.
Parking
According to the Village 11 SPA Plan PC District Regulations, parking requirements for CPF
uses are to be determined during design review of the site plan. A project specific traffic study,
that included a parking analysis, was prepared for the project. According to the traffic study, the
224-space parking lot would exceed the typical daily needs of the Church. There is a typical
weekend demand of 171 spaces and a typical weekday demand of 124 spaces. The greatest
parking need is for the worship center on weekends and the school on weekdays. These uses do
not occur simultaneously so there would be adequate parking for typical church functions.
With regard to special events such as holiday services and rehearsals for special events such as
weddings, funerals, etc. the traffic study concluded that special events are occasional and
typically occur during off-peak hours and therefore do not need to be evaluated for weekly
scheduling.
However, staff is requiring as a condition of approval that the applicant be responsible for
providing adequate parking for all special events on the subject property for all uses and hours of
operation that are above and beyond those specified in the primary hours of operation. If it is
determined by the Planning Director that existing on-site parking is insufficient to meet parking
needs during special events, such that the shortfall causes off-site parking impacts, the applicant
will prepare and submit a parking analysis for all future special events and shall take any action
necessary to ensure adequate parking will be provided to the satisfaction of the City.
Planning Commission Record
On November 14, 2007 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the CUP
application, in conjunction with the Village 11 SPA Amendment and Revised Tentative Map,
since the CUP is the implementing project. The CUP application was denied by a vote of 5-2,
17-7
Date, Item No.: 1-=/
Meeting Date: 2/5/08
Page 8 of 11
after which the Planning Commission then considered making their recommendation regarding
the proposed Village 11 SPA Amendment and Revised Tentative Map.
The Planning Commission then denied the SPA Amendment and Revised Tentative Map by a
vote of 6-1, based primarily upon the fact that absent the approval of the CUP application there
was no specific project associated with the proposed Village 11 SPA Amendment and Revised
Tentative Map (See Planning Commission Minutes, Attachment No.3). The Planning
Commission based their decisions on the following:
1. The need to relocate the town square from its current SPA plan configuration at the
center of the site was viewed by members of the Planning Commission as unnecessary in
order to provide a viable site for the proposed Church, Pre-School and
Elementary/Middle School facility.
(a) Based on exhibits provided by community members showing various site plan layouts
for the facility, the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed Church, Pre-
School and Elementary/Middle School facility could be reconfigured around the central
location of the Town Square as originally envisioned in the Village 11 SPA plan.
2. The proposed Church, Pre-School and Elementary/Middle School facility raised a
number of issues that were viewed by members of the Planning Commission as
undesirable and not contributing to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community, such as:
(a) Public Accessibility, Circulation, Traffic, and Parking: Based on testimony and
exhibits provided by community members, the Planning Commission considered that
there were outstanding issues related to public accessibility and use of the central plaza,
circulation through the mid-block pedestrian connection to the Village Paseo, the hours
of operation for ancillary activities beyond the primary uses of the church and schools,
and the effects of these ancillary uses on traffic and parking.
(b) Relocation of the Park Site is not Beneficial to the Community: The Planning
Commission concurred with public testimony and exhibits provided by community
members that the reconfiguration of the Town Square from the focal point center of the
village core to a corner park reduces its visibility and viability as a public access space
and as a component of the village core, and that it generally becomes a less favorable
public use space with a secondary presence within the village core compared to what was
envisioned in the original Village 11 SPA Plan and Village Core Master Plan.
Conditional Use Permit Appeal Application
On November 20, 2007 the CUP applicant filed an appeal application form with the Planning
Department, in compliance with Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) 19.14.110. The code
17-8
Date, Item No.:~
Meeting Date: 2/5/08
Page 9 of 11
states that an applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council
within 10 days after the decision, and shall specify wherein there was an error in the decision by
the Planning Commission. The reason given on the appeal form was that "staff reports and
presentations were unclear and contained errors that negatively influenced the decisions
reached by the Planning Commission. "
Staff requested that the applicant elaborate further as the reason for the appeal. On January 5,
2008 the applicant provided a letter that outlined two primary issues:
(1) Constraints to the Concordia Church site design and operations by imposing a
requirement for a public plaza and public pedestrian path through the center of the
CPF site. The Church is a private facility with a responsibility for safeguarding children
in its care, so it must have the ability to control public access. The Church site plan
provides the mandatory pedestrian connection between the paseo and the CPF site. The
Church will allow the public to access that pedestrian connection and the plaza in front
of the Church, but those facilities should not be described as "public" when they are in
fact, private. The Church has agreed to post planned closures of the plaza and pedestrian
path 24 hours in advance. The proposed SPA Amendment also provides two additional
pedestrian connections in proximity to the CP F site: a public access easement paseo
along the northern boundary of the CPF site and public access through the Town Square.
Staff response to this major issue is that the mandatory site plan elements of the CPF site include
the provision of: (1) "outdoor rooms" such as courtyards, plazas, and arbor walkways, and (2) a
pedestrian connection to the paseo. As noted in the background discussion, prior to making the
CUP application the applicant agreed to provide (1) the central plaza as the open space focal
point view at the terminus Birch Road as a community gathering space accessible to the public,
and (2) the pedestrian path through the central plaza to the village paseo as a pedestrian path
accessible to the public.
Reference to these "outdoor rooms" may be described as either "public access" open space,
which is the language used in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) for public or
privately owned open space within a village core, or they may be described, as the applicant
prefers, as a "community gathering space." Upon further discussions with the applicant the
terms that acknowledges the CPF -1 site as private property with some provisions for the public
to use is "open space accessible to the public" and "pedestrian connections accessible to the
public."
In addition, the CUP application relies upon the approval of the proposed Village II SPA
Amendment and Revised Tentative Map applications, where the required findings within the
resolutions for each of these application refers to the aforementioned mandatory site plan
elements as public access open space and as a publicly accessible pedestrian connection to the
paseo. Staff and the applicant have agreed to refer to these spaces as "open space accessible to
the public" and "pedestrian connections accessible to the public."
17-9
Date, Item No.: \-=1-
Meeting Date: 2/5/08
Page 10 of 11
Also, as noted above, the church may close the privately held central plaza and pedestrian path
for special events by posting 24-hour notice in a manner acceptable to the community, such as on
a central plaza message board. The church will be providing a 20-1'1. recorded public easement
on the northern boundary of their property that includes a paved and landscaped sidewalk
connection to the Village Paseo, and that the Town Square Park (P-4) to the south of the central
plaza will provide another 8-ft. wide meandering sidewalk through the town square park to the
Village Paseo, resulting in three pedestrian connections beyond the public walkways along
Discovery Falls Drive.
(2) Miscellaneous and unnecessary conditions including revisions to SPA graphics,
widening of sidewalks, and off-site erosion control.
A two-page summary of proposed revisions was attached to the appeal clarification letter,
outlining proposed changes the applicant felt should be made to the staff reports, resolutions, and
conditions for approval based on these two primary issues. Staff has included a summary
response to each request in response t9 each of these proposed changes highlighted after each
request (See Attachment No.4).
CONCLUSION
The proposed project will implement the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan, the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the Village II SPA Plan and the Village II MPP. Staff
recommends the City Council grant the appeal of the CUP, reverse the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the CUP, and approve the CUP, provided City Council has previously
considered and approved the Village 11 SPA Plan Amendment, Master Precise Plan
Amendment, the Revised Tentative Map, and the related Parcel Map, which combined would
allow for the reconfiguration of the CPF-l site and the relocation of the Town Square Park (P-4).
As the validity of this CUP is dependent on the prior approval of the Village 11 SPA Plan
Amendment and Revised Tentative Map, if the SPA Amendment and Revised Tentative Map
were not approved, the approval of the CUP would not be permissible.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings
within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this action.
FISCAL IMP ACT
The proposed project will not have an impact on the City's General Fund, and there are no fiscal
impacts to the City coming from the preparation of the reports and resolutions for these
discretionary applications, as all costs are covered by their respective deposit accounts.
17-10
Date, Item No.: \-::j-
Meeting Date: 2/5/08
Page 11 of 11
ATTACHMENTS
1. Locator Map
2. Existing/Proposed Village Core Site Plan Map
3. Minutes of the November 14,2007 Planning Commission Public Hearing
4. Appeal Letter and Summary of Proposed Revisions, including the Staff Response
5. Application Documents with Disclosure Statements
6. Site Plans/Floor PlanslElevations
Prepared by: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner, Planning & Building Department
J: IPlanninglHAROLDIPCC-07-064 _ CC _ Report. doc
J:\AttorneylDavidMiAgenda StatementsIPCC-07-064 CC Report CUP DRAFT21 02-05-08.doc
- - -
17-11
/
CHULA VISTA PLANNING
LOCATOR ~~~~T: Brookfield Shea LLC.
C)=
No Scale
AND
BUILDING
DEPARTMENT
NORTH
ALE NUMBER:
PCM-07 -05
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
MISCELLANEOUS
Project Description: Revised TM to allow the relocation of the P-2 Park site
to the Southwest comer of Winding Walk 51. & DisooveryFa11s Dr. The lot
acreages for both the CPF-2 site and the P-2 site remain the same
P-2 = 1.0 acres, CPF-2 = 5.5 acres).
Related cases: PCs.<l7-ll2
PROJECT North of Windingwalk Sl. &
ADDRESS: South of Explorations Falls Dr
J:\planning\carlos\locators\pcm-0705.cdr 10.10.06
,A;rACHM
a.
co
"'O~
Q) c:
> co
0-
; . 0..
a: -
. a.Q)
~I ~,~-
~:~<C~W;
~'~ ,C)'G):,,,
;\' ~= c: '- .
ilq! -- O.
='U" _ ,,... ---
~ Il, i,(/) (.)
~3;i 1--' .
. o~~ fl~j ~r
;. CO
,.........,
C,-_
"....-..-
>
---:fF:--
A Tr4cHMeA.f;3
MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
6:00 p.m.
November 14, 2007
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California
CALL TO ORDER: 6:04:17 PM
Members Present:
Tripp, Felber, Moctezuma, Vinson, Bensoussan, Clayton,
Speth man
ROLL CALL I MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Tripp
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MSC (Spethman/Felber) (7-0) to approve minutes of November 7, 2007 as submitted.
Motion carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
No public input.
PUBLIC HEARINGS I ACTION ITEMS:
1. Public Hearing:
PCM 07-05; Consideration of amendments to portions
of the Otay Ranch Village Eleven Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan and Village Core Master Precise Plan
to allow for the relocation and reconfiguration of the
Town Square from the easterly terminus of Birch Road
to the northeast corner of Discovery Falls Drive and
Windingwalk Way.
PCS 07-02; Consideration of revisions to the Otay
Ranch Village Eleven Tentative Subdivision Map: 1)
relocating the Town Square from the easterly terminus
of Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery
Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way, and; 2) relocating
the pedestrian easement to the village paseo from
across the center of the CPF-1 site to the northern
property line adjacent to the Private Recreational
Facility (PRF) site. Applicant: Brookfield, Shea Otay,
LP.
17-15
Minutes ofthe Planning Commission - 2 -
November 14, 2007
2. Public Hearing:
PCC 07-64; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit
for the development of the Concordia Lutheran Church
Private Elementary/Middle School and Pre-School in
the Village of Windingwalk (Village 11), located at the
easterly terminus of Birch Road and Discovery Falls
Drive.
6:10:18 PM Harold Phelps, Project Manager stated that staff would like to present items 1
and 2 in a combined fashion, but with the clarification that the Commission would be voting
on each item separately.
Mr. Phelps reported that item #1 is a proposal by Brookfield, Shea Otay, LP to amend the
Village 11 SPA Plan, Village Core Master Precise Plan and revise the Tentative Subdivision
Map in order to relocate and reconfigure the Town Square from the easterly terminus of
Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way; and
relocate the pedestrian easement to the northern property line adjacent to the Private
Recreational Facility (PRF) site.
The SPA Amendment requires a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council
prior to their final approval. Without approval of the SPA Amendment, consideration of the
Conditional Use Permit (Item #2) cannot move forward.
Item #2 is consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Concordia Lutheran Church to
construct a 13,900 sf sanctuary with a seating capacity of 600 seats to be located behind a
central plaza. The project also includes a 225 student K-8 Elementary/Middle School and
192-student preschool. The complex would be built on a reconfigured 5.5 acre site located
at the center of the Village Core of Windingwalk Village 11. The CUP requires City Council
approval of the SPA Amendment.
Mr. Phelps noted that representatives for the developer and the church met privately with
the residents that submitted the three letters of opposition that are attached to the staff
report. A total of 12 residents corresponded with the City regarding these two items; staff
encouraged the applicant to hold a neighborhood community meeting. The Planning
Commission public hearing would be the forum to receive all of the public comments
regarding these two items.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
recommending that the City Council approve the draft Village 11 SPA Amendment
Resolution and the Revised Tentative Map Resolution as they apply to; 1.) relocation of the
Town Square from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery
Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way, and 2.) relocation of the pedestrian easement to the
Village Paseo from across the center of the CPF-1 site to the northern property line adjacent
to the PRF site; and
That the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCC 07-64 including the required
findings for approval and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Commission Questions:
6:23:24 PM Cmr. Spethman noted that the application for the CUP did not go through a
formal Design Review process and the DRC was presented only with a conceptual
17-16
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 3 -
November 14, 2007
preliminary review. Additionally, the applicant does not own the property; in his opinion, the
proposal is speculative.
6:25:47 PM Cmr. Felber asked what would happen if the City Council approves the SPA
Amendment and the sale of the property to the church does not take place; would the SPA
Amendment with the new configuration revert back to the original SPA configuration?
6:27:35 PM David Miller responded that should the sale fall through before the Council's
consideration of the SPA Amendment, the amendment would not be necessary; should it
happen after Council's approval of the SPA Amendment, it would remain at the revised
configuration.
Cmr. Vinson asked if there had been discussions about fitting the church's compound
around the existing configuration without the necessity to move the town square.
Mr. Donaghe responded that they discussed it adnauseam and the applicant determined
that it didn't work for them in the present configuration.
6:30:24 PM David Poole, with Brookfield Shea Otay, developer of Windingwalk and owners
of the 6.5 vacant property, stated they have been looking for the right kind of user to fill a
CPF role in the community; they believe they've found the right match in Concordia
Lutheran Church.
Mr. Poole further stated that they have worked arduously with the church and staff, and are
delighted to finally be able to be before the Planning Commission to present their proposal.
Mr. Poole pointed out, however, that there are four points in the Conditions of Approval that
they are in disagreement with staff; they are:
1. Whether or not the plaza in front of the church is the church's plaza or a public plaza
2. Whether or not the pathway through the church is controlled by the church for its own
safety and protection, or is it controlled by the City
3. The hours of operation for the church facility, and
4. Tentative Map conditions that have nothing to do with this project
6:33:36 PM Pastor Richard Schmidt, Concordia Lutheran Church, 267 E. Oxford Street,
stated that their church and school at the Oxford site is an established institution meeting
the needs and providing a myriad of services to the community, as well as excellence in
education, for over 45 years; their congregation is vested in this project and are excited
about the future of the church and school.
6:36:39 PM The design team, Tony Mansur and Jim Culk, Architect and Landscape
Architect gave an overview of the design and layout of the project as presented in the staff
report.
6:56:18 PM Cmr. Vinson asked for clarification regarding a statement on mandatory
conditions related to the distance and location of the parking area.
Mr. Mansur responded that his comments reflect a policy recommendation preferring that
parking be hidden behind the buildings.
17-17
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 4 -
November 14, 2007
Scott Donaghe further clarified that there are policies in the Otay Ranch GDP
recommending that parking be situated behind buildings and that buildings be brought up to
the street to create a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere.
6:59:34 PM Cmr. Moctezuma asked if this is not approved, when would the park be
constructed. She also asked for clarification on the 48 hour notice posting of the closure of
the private pathway going through the campus.
Mr. Poole responded that whether or not the SPA Amendment is approved, the construction
of the park would move forward.
David Miller added that the connection from Birch Road leading to the school is a feature
that the applicant feels is essential; the issue becomes what kind of access will the City
have. The property will be owned and operated by the church; minus an easement or any
kind of formal property right, except for conditions of approval, the City has no control,
therefore, the City has asked that they post a 48-hour notice informing the public that they
have to take an alternative route to the school.
Crnr. Moctezuma inquired if moving the town square is not approved, will Brookfield Shea
continue the process of trying to fit Concordia Church into that area.
Mr. Poole responded that if the town-square is not moved, the church's plan does not work
for that site, therefore, other permitted uses i.e. a social service provider, a Boys & Girls
Club would be considered for that site.
7:03:35 PM Cmr. Bensoussan asked if the parking lot will be exclusively for the church and
school or would it be available to park users.
Mr. Poole responded that the park and recreational facility that is privately owned and
operated by the Master Homeowners Association will be opened to the public. There have
been talks about negotiating a parking agreement between the church and the HOA's
facilities in which if either organization has a big event that requires overflow parking, they
could use each other's parking lot.
7:08:20 PM Cmr. Felber asked for clarification from the applicant on their disagreement with
staffs recommendation on the four issues previously mentioned.
7: 11 :00 PM Mr. Poole responded that upon completion of the church construction, the plaza
becomes a private piece of property owned and operated by the church. With the exception
of the school facility, the church has no fences, therefore, free and open access is
encouraged and available to the public. Under the proposed condition, the church cannot
use the plaza for its own use i.e. for a wedding or school activity, without a 48-hour notice to
the City. The same argument applies to the paseo; it is staff's position that it needs to
remain open at all times. The applicant does not agree with staffs position.
The church provided a broad spectrum of hours of operation throughout the week based on
normal activities of any church, i.e. daycare, recovery groups, choir and band practice, etc.
The City's condition locks down, to the minute, the hours that each building can be used;
any deviation outside of the structured hours of operation would require an application to
revise the CUP.
17-18
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 5 -
November 14,2007
Cmr. Felber asked what would be considered reasonable hours of operation that the church
could live with.
Mr. Poole responded that it would be 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m.
Lastly, Mr. Poole stated that relative to the Tentative Map, there are some ambiguous
conditions having to do with traffic calming measures in an area that is located 1.5 miles
away from the church; what effect would the church have at that distance away.
7: 18:55 PM Scott Donaghe responded to the hours of operation are strictly tied to parking
requirements. If the applicant wants extended hours from 6:00 a.m .to 11:00 p.m., their
parking requirements would be substantially greater than what they are capable of providing
because the uses they described could potentially all occur concurrently.
Mr. Donaghe pointed out that with respect to the TM conditions, its important to remember
that there are two applicants; one is Brookfield Shea, the developer of Village 11, requesting
a SPA Plan Amendment. The church is requesting a CUP. The conditions are put on to the
TM and SPA Amendment, therefore, they are applicable to Brookfield Shea.
Mr. Miller stated that with regard to the plaza/paseo access, although these would be
located on private property, staff is of the opinion that as a pedestrian-oriented community
the public needs to be accommodated rather than a private entity. Therefore, the access
from Birch Rd. to the paseo should remain as a direct access regardless of whose control its
under.
7:29:06 PM Public Hearing Opened
Robert Decant yielded his time to Pastor Schmidt.
7:29:20 PM Pastor Schmidt stated that they simply wish to continue serving the community
and operating as they have for the past 45 years at their present location.
7:30:54 PM Cmr. Vinson asked Pastor Schmidt if the proposed reconfiguration of the site is
not approved, would the church then withdraw their plans in it's totality.
Pastor Schmidt responded that without the relocation of the park, the site will not work for
them with their proposed program, therefore, they would have to withdraw their application.
7:31:48 PM Joann Carson, 57 Milan Ct., Chula Vista stated that as a former Planning
Commissioner, this project is of the caliber that any community would desire. As a member
of the Board of Directors of the Concordia Church, she is confident in reassuring the
Commission that the church will provide safety and security, especially in areas close to the
school. She urged the Commission's support for the project.
7:33:32 PM Diza Zaiser, 2521 Coyote Ridge Terrace, Chula Vista stated that she lives near
the project site and is eagerly anticipating the opening of such a facility because, foremost,
is her desire to educate her children in a Christian environment that is dedicated to
excellence in education. She urged the Commission's support of the project.
7:37:29 PM Norm Llanes, 65 East Prospect St., Chula Vista, member of Concordia Church,
retired Police Officer and presently manager of a large security firm, stated that with respect
17-19
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 6-
November 14, 2007
to security, the church's proposed configuration of buildings will offer optimal security for all
of its patrons. He urged the Commission's support of the project.
7:38:43 PM Bill Darnell, Darnell & Associates, 1146 Front Street, Ste. 300, San Diego,
stated he prepared the Traffic Study for this project and generated the hours of operation
chart as a tool to help him analyze the trip generation and parking requirements. He noted
the importance of remaining flexible on the hours of operation because of the myriad of
services and activities that occur in any given church, and also to be mindful that all of these
activities do not occur concurrently.
7:54:22 PM Mr. Poole echoed Mr. Darnell's comments and restated their willingness to
continue talks with the HOA to working out a parking agreement where there would be
reciprocity in the use of each other's parking lot at times when either one is having a large
gathering, i.e. a wedding, or an Easter or Christmas Eve service.
7:56:05 PM Cmr. Felber stated that in his opinion, with respect to the hours of operation, the
Planning Commission has two options to consider. One is to consider the hours of
operation as they appear now in staff's report; the other is to extend the hours of operation
as requested by the applicant and to continue the public hearing in order to allow time to
conduct further traffic, parking and environmental analysis.
Scott Donaghe stated that Cmr. Felber's comments are valid and also suggested that the
Commission could make a determination on the SPA Amendment tonight and continue the
CUP component to allow time for further analysis as suggested by Cmr. Felber.
Cmr. Felber stated that given that churches are a benefit to the community, the argument
could be made to try to be as flexible as possible, within reason due to restraints and
regulations that need to be complied with. Perhaps the applicant would consider limiting the
number of buildings that can be used concurrently or limit the number of people at any given
time.
8:00:31 PM Jerry Sanders, 2178 Diamondback Ct. #29, Chula Vista stated that he bought a
premium lot at the corner of Discovery Falls and Birch Rd., and that Shea Homes disclosed
information about the town square and future plans for a church. What he didn't bargain for
was a reconfiguration of the location of the town-square and church. Under this proposal,
his view is compromised and would now be facing a large-scale church building. He
opposes the SPA Amendment and CUP and urged the Commission to vote against it.
8:04:35 PM Arlo Stuessy, 2178 Diamondback, stated that at the time they purchased their
home they were informed about the future construction of a church; what they weren't told
was that they were planning to build a compound with multipurpose buildings; had he known
that, he would not have purchased his home. The traffic impacts will be substantial and will
compromise his quality of life. He urged the Commission to vote against it.
8:07:02 PM Holly Kimmel, 2178 Diamondback Ct. #30, stated that she is extremely
disappointed that the town-square at the end of Birch Rd. may be relocated to the southeast
corner of Discovery Falls Dr. Having a view of the town-square from Birch Rd. was a selling
enticement used by Shea Homes, and the view of the town-square was a factor in the
decision to purchase her home. The massive scale of the buildings will also obstruct the
view of the mountains. The paseo would be considered the church's private property and as
such could be closed at any time by the church; this is unacceptable to her. She firmly
17-20
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 7 -
November 14, 2007
believes this information was withheld from the residents of Seguaro, Agave and
Windingwalk. Ms. Kimmel distributed a handout of exhibits wherein she reconfigured the
proposed church complex buildings utilizing the original location of the paseo and
townsquare at the end of Birch Rd. She urged the Commission to vote against it.
8:12:32 PM Tom Diccacio, 1662 Tree Song Lane, stated he spent a substantial amount of
time researching the area and reading the fine print on the contracts and promotional packet
that the builder provides prospective buyers. Going through these materials he concluded
that it is filled with misinformation and withheld information as to location of certain
amenities, in particular, the town-square, paseo, and location of the future Lutheran Church.
He urged the Commission to vote against it.
8:20:00 PM Mr. Poole presented to the Commission with a copy of a disclosure form that
each of the buyers present tonight signed. The disclosure form contains a statement that
reads, "... the seller does not guarantee that any views that any owner may have enjoyed will
not be impaired or obstructed in the future by changes to other property." Additionally, it
discloses that, "...the townsquare may be relocated."
8:25:36 PM Close Public Hearing.
Commission Discussion:
8:25:56 PM Cmr. Tripp stated that with respect to the CUP, he would like to read the four
findings that the Commission is called to make to assist in their deliberation of this
application.
David Miller stated that with respect to the order of their deliberation on the two items, it
would be his recommendation that the Planning Commission deliberate first on the SPA
Amendment and then proceed to the CUP; absent the SPA Amendment, the CUP cannot be
permitted and taking them out of order would be presupposing the outcome of the other
item.
Cmr. Tripp stated that after reading the reports and hearing testimony, it is his opinion that
that the SPA Amendment is being made in order to accommodate the church's needs; he
expressed concern with public perception and the message that that is sending.
Mr. Miller restated that these are two separate issues. The SPA Amendment is not
specifically intended for the church, but could be for any other CPF use, including a church.
If the church falls through, another CPF use could be considered. His recommendation,
again, would be to decide whether or not there is a SPA Plan Amendment that can be
approved, and then consider whether or not there is a CUP that meets all of the approval
standards.
Cmr. Felber stated that for discussion purposes, not presupposing the vote on the CUP, his
understanding behind Chair Tripp's desire to take the items out of order is that if the CUP
were to be denied, then the SPA Amendment would not be necessitated.
Chair Tripp responded affirmatively and proceeded to deliberation on Item #2 reading into
the record the four findings that the Commission must make when deliberating on an
approval or disapproval of the project.
17-21
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 8 -
November 14, 2007
Cmr. Bensoussan stated that she is uncomfortable with the whole project based on the fact
that the Commission is being asked to render a recommendation to the City Council on an
amendment that would change an entire community. Furthermore, the proposal has not
gone through the formal Design Review process and all they've been presented with is a
preliminary review with rendering of what the buildings would look like; this is all speculative
and she can't fully support it.
Cmr. Moctezuma stated that she too is having trouble with this and is unprepared to make
the necessary findings for the well-being of the community or not detrimental to the
neighbors, to move a town-square for the sake of just moving it.
Cmr. Spethman stated that he doesn't dislike the project, however, there are a lot of
uncertainties behind it such as the applicant not currently owning the property. He would
also be more comfortable with it had it gone through Design Review. There is disagreement
with staff over easements, public open space, access, hours of operation and parking; this is
a lot to overlook.
Cmr. Vinson echoed the same concerns and recommended that staff go back to the drawing
board with the applicant try to come to agreement on some these issues.
Chair Tripp stated he doesn't agree with sending them back to the drawing board. In his
opinion, this is a fundamental land use issue; is relocating a church in a public use site
appropriate. He further stated that he empathizes with the church's position because as a
non-profit they need to be good stewards of their finances and understandably they wouldn't
want to invest a lot of money on architectural plans when they are taking the risk of a denial.
Cmr. Felber stated his preference would be to have a view of the town-square looking down
Birch Rd., however, it also has its cons with only one side of the square facing the street.
The advantage to it being on the corner is that it gives you two points of access. A view of
the church looking down Birch Rd. would most likely be attractive given the Irvin Gill
architecture that is proposed. Furthermore. although he empathizes with the owners
concerns about their views being compromised, the contracts clearly states that those sites
could be relocated and it didn't provide any guarantees of views. Additionally, assuming this
is approved, he would be supportive of not requiring a 48 hr. notice to the City, but that the
church post the notice 48 hrs. in advance.
Cmr. Tripp stated that if the CUP is approved for use by a private entity, in his opinion, they
should be granted full management of their property and would favor getting rid of the
easement and 48 hr. posting requirements.
MSC (Vinson/Bensoussan) (4-3) that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use
Permit PCC 07-64. Motion carried with Cmrs. Felber, Clayton and Spethman voting
against the motion.
Cmr. Speth man stated that he misunderstood the motion and didn't cast his vote
accordingly, therefore, he asked for a reconsideration of the motion.
MSC (Vinson/Bensoussan) (7-0) that the Planning Commission open up for
reconsideration the previous motion. Motion carried.
17-22
Minutes of the Planning Commission - 9 -
November 14, 2007
MSC (Vinson/Bensoussan) (5-2) that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use
Permit PCC 07-64. Motion carried with Cmrs. Felber and Clayton voting against it.
1. Public Hearing: PCM 07-05; Consideration of amendments to portions of the Otay
Ranch Village Eleven Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and
Village Core Master Precise Plan to allow for the relocation and
reconfiguration of the Town Square from the easterly terminus of
Birch Road to the northeast corner of Discovery Falls Drive and
Windingwalk Way.
PCS 07-02; Consideration of revisions to the otay Ranch Village
Eleven Tentative Subdivision Map: 1) relocating the Town Square
from the easterly terminus of Birch Road to the northeast corner of
Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Way, and; 2) relocating the
pedestrian easement to the village paseo from across the center of
the CPF-1 site to the northern property line adjacent to the Private
Recreational Facility (PRF) site. Applicant: Brookfield, Shea Otay,
LP.
Public Hearing Opened and Closed.
Commission Discussion:
Cmr. Felber stated that at this point he will not be supporting the SPA Amendment based on
the fact that he prefers the current configuration, however, his consideration of a future
Amendment would be made solely on the merit of need to change it and the benefit that it
would bring to the community.
MSC (Felber/Moctezuma) (6-1) that the Planning Commission deny the SPA Plan
Amendment (PCM 07-05 and PCS 07-02). Motion carried with Cmr. Clayton voting
against it.
3. Information Item:
Information update on the Southwest Communities
Strengthening Strategies.
Sarah Johnson gave an overview of the purpose and creation of the SWCSS, being an
interdepartmental partnership effort to improve City relationships with the community, better
understanding community priorities and to leverage resources for a positive change in
Southwest Chula Vista, the area defined in the General Plan boundaries as being south of L
Street and west of 1-805.
4. Special Order of Business:
Selection of a Planning Commission representative to
the Growth Management Oversight Commission.
MSC (Bensoussan/Spethman) (7-0) nominating Cmr. Clayton to continue serving as
the Planning Commission representative to the GMOC. Motion carried.
17-23
Minutes of the Planning Commission . 10 .
November 14, 2007
Commission Comments:
Cmr. Felber reported that there will be a joint workshop of the CVRC and RAC at the John
Lippitt Center on December 6; as the Planning Commission representative to the RAC, he
extended an invitation to the Planning Commission to attend the meeting or to forward through
him any comments or concerns.
Cmr. Vinson stated that in theory the intent behind the creation of the CVRC was to streamline
redevelopment; in his opinion, it has done the opposite. Furthermore, he doesn't see the need
for the continued existence of the RAC now that the CVRC has been reorganized and the
politics has been somewhat removed from the makeup of its members.
Cmr. Spethman echoed Cmr. Vinson's comments and noted that the intent behind the creation
of the RAC was to be an advisory body to the CVRC. Under the former makeup of the CVRC,
the RAC appeared to be conducting more business than the CVRC. Cmr. Spethman stated he
was looking forward to going to the meeting and voicing his opinion.
Cmr. Moctezuma stated she looks forward to attending this meeting and relaying a concern that
has been brought to her attention with regard to dissatisfaction that the RAC is engaging in
design review issues when their role and expertise are not one of being a design review
committee.
Cmr. Bensoussan invited members of the Planning Commission to review the documents that
were given to the RAC members delineating their mission statement wherein design review is a
significant component of it. Furthermore, she noted for the record comments that have been
made by the CVRC Chair and members of the City Council where they indicated that the only
part of the process that has been working is the RAC.
Chair Tripp expressed his frustration with the amount of time it takes to process projects in the
redevelopment areas. The exact cause as to why this happens is not completely clear; it could
be driven by a number of reasons, i.e. process-oriented, politically-oriented, or community
groups who oppose change.
Chair Tripp stated it would be his desire to direct staff to docket on a future Planning
Commission agenda a discussion to clarify the role and scope of responsibility of the Design
Review Committee. The Commission concurred with this directive.
Adjourned to a regular Planning Commission meeting on November 28,2007.
Submitted by
Diana Vargas
Secretary to the Planning Commission
17-24
p. I ann i n g
NOV 2 0 2007
.A tI/kH .1/[ ~ A./ T "f
Building Department
Planning Division I Development Processing
&
CI1Y OF
CHUlA VISTA
-.
d/a)
~
APPEAL APPLICATION FORM
Appeal the decisioh.oHl1e:..
o Zoning Administrator
o Design Review Committee
J( Planning Commission
Application Information
~~~ l
Appellant: Conr.DJl2:iLd. LvtheraV\ Churc Yj
.>.....1 5vh.od I
Phone No. (019) q ~ ~ (() 0(\0
Home Address:
Business Address: ;(67 z: CJrc..fJld Srve-e.+
Project Address: CpF'-l sr-k Ovt WlY!1vY1'Jv.a.[l 1?lvch 1Z:1}- D\5C.,vt'^f ~l~ 'Drive
Project Description: CDn di-fi::V1al Uf;G Permr:f
(Example: zone change, variance, conditional use permit, design review, etc.)
Please use the space below to provide a response to the decision you are appealing. Attach
additional sheets, if necessary.
~-/t€ftP
/ I /;). DID 7
Date I I
----------------------------------------------------
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the:
o Planning Commission
o City Council on
Planning Commission Secretary
City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue \
Chula Vista
I California I 91910
17-25
(619) 691-5101
Teresa Barker, ASLA
Planning & Landscape Architecture
January 5, 2008
Harold Phelps
City of Chula Vista Planning & Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: ViUage Eleven SPA Amendment & Concordia Church CUP Reports and Conditions of
Approval
Dear Harold,
You have requested this letter describing the revisions we have proposed to the staff reports and
conditions of approval for the SPA and Master Precise Plan Amendment, TM, and Concordia CUP. In
general, we believe those documents contained inaccuracies and confusing descriptions of our proposed
project. We are also concerned that some of the conditions would compromise our ability to create a
functional Community Purpose Facility (CPF) and Town Square. The major issues we have are:
I. Constraints to the Concordia Church site design and operations by imposing a requirement for
a public plaza and public pedestrian path through the center of the CPF site. The Church is a
private facility with a responsibility for safeguarding children in its care, so it must have the ability to
control public access. The Church site plan provides the mandatory pedestrian connection between
the paseo and the CPF site. The Church will allow the public to access that pedestrian connection and
the plaza in front of the Church, but those facilities should not be described as "public" when they are
in fact, private. The Church has agreed to post planned closures of the plaza and pedestrian path 24
hours in advance. The proposed SPA Amendment also provides two additional pedestrian
connections in proximity to the CPF site: a public access easement paseo along the northern
boundary of the CPF site and public access through the Town Square.
2. Miscellaneous and unnecessary conditions inclnding revisions to SPA graphics, widening of
sidewalks, and off-site erosion control.
Although the strike-out/underline documents we provided may appear difficult to review, I believe they
provide the easiest method to compare text. I have provided a summary of our proposed revisions to the
documents in the attached pages.
Please do not hesitate to call with any questions about our proposed revisions. We are available to meet to
discuss this at your convenience.
Yours Truly,
Terry Barker
1249 Myrtle Avenue, San Diego, California 92103
(619) 501-9157/fax (619) 692-9201 e-mail:terrybarker@cox.net
17-26
Summary of Proposed Revisions, January 4, 2008
Response to Maior Issue #1:
Mandatory site plan elements of the CPF site include the provision of: (1) "outdoor rooms"
such as courtyards, plazas, and arbor walkways, and (2) a pedestrian connection to the paseo.
As noted in the background discussion, prior to making the CUP application the applicant
agreed to provide (1) the central plaza as the open space focal point view at the terminus Birch
Road as a community gathering space accessible to the public, and (2) the pedestrian path
through the central plaza to the village paseo as a pedestrian path accessible to the public.
Reference to these "outdoor rooms" may be described as either "public access" open space,
which is the language used in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) for public or
privately owned open space within a village core, or they may be described, as the applicant
prefers, as a "community gathering space." However, staff believes the best description that
acknowledges the CPF -1 site as private property with some provisions for the public the use
certain open space a pedestrian oriented features is "open space accessible to the public" and
"pedestrian connections accessible to the public."
In addition, the CUP application relies upon the approval of the proposed Village 11 SPA
Amendment and Revised Tentative Map applications, where the required findings within the
resolutions for each of these application refers to the aforementioned mandatory site plan
elements as public access open space and as a publicly accessible pedestrian connection to the
paseo. These descriptions can be acceptably changed to "open space accessible to the public"
and "pedestrian connections accessible to the public," but it is the view of staff that the
description cannot exclude the word public as in the requested "community gathering space"
and "pedestrian connection to paseo for the surrounding community."
Also, as noted above, the church may close the privately held central plaza and pedestrian path
for special events by posting 24-hour notice in a manner acceptable to the community, such as
on a central plaza message board. It is also understood by staff that the church will be
providing a 20-ft. recorded public easement on the northern boundary of their property that
includes a paved and landscaped sidewalk connection to the paseo, and that the Town Square
Park (P-4) to the south of the central plaza will provide another 8-ft. wide meandering sidewalk
through the town square park to the Village Paseo.
Planning Commission Agenda Statement
Village Eleven SPA Amendment PCM-0705 and Revised TM PCS-0702
. The use of "mandatory" should only be used when referencing the Village Core Master Precise
Plan Mandatory Site Plan Elements. Our proposed project conforms to the SPA land use
requirements and the Village Eleven Design Plan design "guidelines" that should not be
described as "mandatory." For example, there is no "mandatory publicly accessible space"
requirement in any of the SPA documents. A number of the site planning requests made by Staff
are subjective interpretations of design guidelines and should not be characterized as mandatory
requirements. The proposed project provides all the mandatory site plan elements required by the
Village Core Master Precise Plan. Mandatory "outdoor rooms" such as the central plaza
should be described as either "public access" Open Space per the Otay Ranch GDP, or
"open space accessible to the public." While the SPA does not specifically state that a
central plaza be a "mandatory public space," it was agreed upon as noted in the
background section of the staff reports for accepting the SPA amendment/revised TM
application as well as in the staff findings for supporting a SPA amendment/revised TM to
relocate the town square that the applicant would provide these spaces as either a "public
access space" or "open space accessible to the public."
. The text suggests that a public access through the CPF is a requirement, but the Village Core
Master Precise Plan Mandatory element requires a "pedestrian connection to the paseo." There is
Page 1
17-27
Summary of Proposed Revisions, January 4, 2008
no requirement that it be "public" or go ..through'" the site. The "Pedestrian Connection to the
Village Paseo" is specifically stated as a mandatory site element, and it was agreed upon as
noted in the background section of the staff reports for accepting the SPA
amendment/revised TM application as well as in the staff findings for supporting a SPA
amendment/revised TM that a pedestrian connection would be provided that visually and
physically led pedestrians through the site from Discovery Falls Drive at the entrance to the
central plaza and to the Village Paseo. It was always presumed by staff that the pedestrian
connection would be "public" so that the surrounding community, such as children walking
to the elementary school, could walk "through" the site.
. The use of the term "public" should not be applied to the plaza, pedestrian path or other facilities
located within the Church's private property. Descriptions of the plaza and pedestrian path could
include "accessible to the community with some limitations." The use of the term "public" is
in conformance with language found in the Otay Ranch GDP, which notes that even a Town
Square that is on privately owned BOA can be called out as "public access space." The
central plaza and pedestrian connection to the paseo need to be described as "open space
accessible to the public" and "pedestrian connections accessible to the public."
Resolution - Village Eleven SPA Amendment PCM-07-05
. The descriptions of the pedestrian connections are somewhat confusing. There are inaccurate
descriptions of a "public" pedestrian connection "across" the Church site. See Draft Resolution
Revisions.
. The plaza in front of the Church meets the Village Core Master Precise Plan mandatory
requirement for the provision of a "village landmark." The plaza is private property and should
not be described as a "public access open space." See Draft Resolution Revisions.
. The findings should more clearly describe the proposed project's conformance with the SPA. The
proposed amendment maintains two primary land uses in the center of the village core and
maintains all the mandatory elements of the Village Core Master Precise Plan. See Draft
Resolution Revisions.
. Condition I should not require a pedestrian connection "across" the CPF site. (Please review
recommended revision). See Draft Resolution Revisions.
. Condition 2 should not refer to a "public access open space." See Draft Resolution Revisions.
. Conditions 3-5 regarding changes to graphics in the SPA, Design Plan and Village Core Master
Precise Plan should be eliminated. We have provided all the necessary text and graphics revisions
in "Exhibit A" requested by the Planning Department. Many of the requested revisions are to add
references to the "public pedestrian access across" the CPF site. Also, many of the revisions
would add a level of detail that was never included in the SPA graphics. See Draft Resolution
Revisions.
. Engineering's condition regarding the widening of the sidewalks ofWindingwalk Street and
Discovery Falls Drive is a concern since the sidewalks, streetlights and landscaping are already in
place. As discussed with Scott Donague, the sidewalks can only be widened approximately one-
foot. See Draft Resolution Revisions.
Resolution - Tentative Map - 07-02
. Findings I and 2 - The text is confusing, please review proposed revision. See Draft Resolution
Revisions.
. Condition 7 - The location of the driveway of R-24/25 is located to the north of the CPF site, at
the approximate alignment of the PRF site, so this condition cannot be met. See Draft Resolution
Revisions.
. Condition 25 - The School (S-2) map has been recorded. See Draft Resolution Revisions.
. Condition 26 - Plans to correct erosion were submitted to the City Engineering Department in
September 2007 and when approved, will be implemented by the developer. See Draft
Resolution Revisions.
Page 2
17-28
Summary of Proposed Revisions, January 4, 2008
o Condition 27 - The condItion is too open-ended and not specific. The master developer will
implement a traffic calming measure on Wmdmgwalk Street adjacent to the neighborhood park
(P-l) when specified by the City Engmeer. See Draft Resolution Revisions.
o Condition 33 - The condition to locate a "pedestrian connection open to the public at all
times with certain limited exceptions, across the center of the CPF site from the village
pathway on Discovery Falls Drive to the Village II Pedestrian Paseo at the same location
of the previously recorded 20 foot easement" is an unacceptable constraint to the site
design and function of the Church. Appropriate text is "a pedestrian connection
accessible to the public between the plaza at the terminus of Birch Road and the Village
II Pedestrian Paseo." This revision will allow flexibility in site design and enable the
Church to control public access through its property. See Draft Resolution Revisions.
Planning Commission Agenda Statement
Concordia CUP PCC-07-064
o Throughout the report the descriptions of the project are confusing and should be simplified and
more clearly described. Draft revisions under review.
o The pedestrian access in the proposed development should be clearly described as (I) a new
extension of the Dublic access Daseo from its terminus at the PRF site to Discovery Falls Drive,
(2) relocation of the village pathway to the Town Square and (3) provision of the Village Core
Master Precise Plan mandatory pedestrian connection between the CPF site and the paseo. As
requested by the City, the pedestrian connection to the paseo in the CPF site will extend to the
Church plaza that fronts on Discovery Falls Drive. The pedestrian connection will be accessible
to the Dublic and integrated into the Church site plan, not a separately designed path. Draft
revisions under review.
o The minutes of the DRC hearing should be reviewed. We do not concur with the description of
DRC comments presented in the staff report. Draft revisions under review.
o The term "comer park" is inaccurate and should be "Town Square." Draft revisions under
review.
o The description of the traffic study and parking requirements is confusing and suggests there may
not be adequate parking. The City Traffic Engineers have accepted the findings of the project
traffic study. The traffic study determined there is more than adequate parking for peak hours and
special events. Traffic Stndy Report Letter Revisions Received 1/11.08.
o The limitation on the hours of operation proposed by staff would limit the Church's ability to
conduct typical daily activities and the limitations are not substantiated by the traffic study.
Traffic Study Report Letter Revisions Received 1/11.08.
o The discussion ofthe Church's existing Oxford Street property is confusing and perhaps
irrelevant. The statement that the Village Eleven developer (Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC)
will develop the Oxford Street site with residences is not correct. On December 18,
2007, the Planning Commission unanimously approved on consent a 24-lot residential
development for the Oxford Street property. Draft revisions under review.
Resolution - Concordia CUP - PCC-07-064
Planning & Building Department Conditions:
o Condition D constrains the hours of operation for the Church and is in conflict with the findings
of the project traffic study. Traffic Study Report Letter Revisions Received 1/11.08.
o Condition E limits the Church's ability to regulate public access within their private property and
incorrectly describes the Church plaza as public open space. See Draft Resolution Revisions.
o Condition F constrains the Church site design with an inappropriate public access path
through the center of the site and limits the Church's ability to control public access
within their private property. See Draft Resolution Revisions.
o Engineering Conditions
o Condition FF incorrectly refers to a "blanket" easement. See Draft Resolution Revisions.
Page 3
17-29
Summary of Proposed Revisions, January 4, 2008
. Conditions II requirement for additIOnal right-or-way along Wmdmgwalk Street for an
"adequate" width sidewalk is arduous, and unnecessary. The promenade streetscape (trees,
sidewalk and streetlights) have already been constructed m conformance with the SPA and
Village Core Master Precise Plan mandatory elements. The master developer can widen the
sidewalk by approximately one foot within the existing right-of-way and implemented streetscape
as a condition of the SPNfM Amendment. See Draft Resolution Revisions.
. Condition JJ requirement to provide distinguishing pavement for a pedestrian path through the
Church site is an unnecessary constraint on the Church site and landscape design. See Draft
Resolution Revisions.
Page 4
17-30
\
Ad4eH-Me.A.Ji S
Plann ng & Building Department
Planning Division
mY Of
CHUlA VISfA
APPLICATION · DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING . TYPE A
Part 1
T e of Review Re uested
t;i?J' Conditional Use Permit
o Design Review
o Variance
o Special Use Permit (redevelopment area only)
o Misc.
A Ii cation Information
Applicant Name CoI'lCo!t-1?11>r L.1>1tt~~~ aH)~ ~(? Sc..ftoo-
Applicant Address 2(,7 ~, t?XfY~p 0;;.'1' C,1-l1JL-A VISTA CA '1!j11
Contact Name P~12- fll?tlAP,fi:.l-lMIt::'!" Phone (PIG! - l-f<2.Z-, (it:; OCP
Applicant's Interest in Property Of applicant is not the owner, the owner's authorization signature at the end of this form is required
to process this request.) 0 Own 0 Rent li1l Other: WIl-l.- Ov:.LN TNJ >71 ~, Cft
Architect/Agent: MP.N?otl~ AP.CH-ITS-"ru,z,f.. Cdj2.f Address: 75"11 01%;,12.L..1,J p,c. $(jr1"1:. "I '1Z-12-1
Contact Name: i<1\.J-( MI'.N,>""U/C.. Phone: r;1J'O'~.I?oOJ ~~"t. <;~~'p..2..1 ~
Primary contact is: 0 Applicant \61 Architect/Agent Email of primary contact: JW\ a vi $'''' ((fi
M oM"",r.. ....~hd~.(.+l/r~.. ca N\
General Project Description (all types)
Project Name: c..1-lt:df4?IA ~J'ntt-ft.AIJ .c.H vU-r1 ~~L-Prooosed Use: l..-1)fl-ttrLAU CI-lLW-l.1-/- t=G~l
General Description of Proposed Project: H.<?!1SI-+1 ( &-c,Jn.~, ~"( L-r!1'-Di-h:>?l? E:;t?U C-ATl..,J . Ii-lO...v'<l'T-I~
'foOl7\..trl- t-lrJrA~I'f CA~t, fO,rJ\.IC-ATl"""AL.. ~1'rt?~r--1 Y I A~~ MUL-ff-t"iJf'4'"".s.~ C-E.Jnr"-
Has this project received pre-application review comments? ~ Yes (Date:) 7.:z. ,- O(p 0 No
Subject Property Information lall types)
Location/Street Address: OI$?OVfJl.t. fA.....-4- 1?~\v1l / ~1(Z"i+ (l--rJ/ WIIJt:'IH"T,,.JAl..i"- ST.
Assessor's Parcel #: V '1 ~ ~ (j, 10 ,1- z.. Total Acreage t:j./fi I Redevelopment Area (if applicable): N / A
General Plan Designation: I'll \A.lL Zone DesignationP(;.C- P f' I
Planned Community (if applicable): V \..LA f.-
Current land Use: C('F- - V'A"-A'1J'l Within Montgomery Specific Plan? DYes No
Proposed Project (all types)
Type of use proposed: D Residential O' Commercial
Landscape Coverage (% of lot): 3&7..
o Industrial ~Other: l>l >' TI flJ. fi",/-l ^""
Building Coverage (% of lot): 20.. 't 1..
276 Fourth Avenue \ Chula Vista I California
17-31
91910
/6191691-5101
form 320
RevS.03
Pg1/2
~\ft.
-(1-
-
APPLICATION · DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING . TYPE A
Part 2
01V Of
CHUIA VISTA
Residential Praject Summary
Type of dwelling unit(s):
Dwelling units:
l-if fit
N umber of lots:
PROPOSED
EXISTING
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3+ Bedroom
TOTAL
Density (DU/acre):
Maximum building height:
Minimum lot size:
Average lot size:
Parking Spaces:
Required by code: Provided:
Type of parking (i.e. size; whether covered, etc.):
Open space description (acres each of private, common, and landscaping);
Non-Residential Project Summary
Gross floor area: (pO, f}OO Proposed: GO, ~(1"
Hours of operation (days & hours): V'M)l't. S
"/0
Existing:
........
If I 1/
Building Height: VI'#-I'(','" ~ -0
Anticipated number of employees:
Number and ages of students/children (if applicable):
Porking Spaces:
Required by code: Provided:
Type of parking (i.e. size: whether covered, etc.):
Maximum number of employees at anyone time: ? 0
Pf.~ I "12- Seating capacity: 7A'\C-1li'At1-'f
j<:- & ~'2-'7
1';S.
:z; I "::Jf^ ~() k4>
. (;f)<J
yI1 A;\( ,
s""~s. ..,..
'J /rC-C-ft. sS \& I< >r 1'lU--..>.
Print applicant name:
",,1U.~~
Authorization
Applicant Signature:
Date:
",""'" ,,"," --::A~1.7 f'~ 9'lU!Jrrf:
OwnerSlgnature':~ Date: ~ 7,15;-
.Note: Proof of ownership may be required. letter of consent may be provided in lieu of signature.
276 Fourth Avenue
(hula Vista 1 ~_~~Iifornia
91910
(619) 691-5101
FormJ20
RevS.OJ
Pg2/2.
plann ng & Building Department
Planning Division I Deveiopment Processing
CI1Y OF
CHULA VISTA
. APPLICATION APPENDIX A
Project Description & Justification
Project Name: COfJC.of2-t?IA- WJ.ffI"~ q ~iZ-Ci+ I>JJI? .5 c.t+oO.....
Applicant Name: Co? tJ ~QIZ-DU.., L-\Jfl.+t:.f?-P,tJ. ?-~L.I~ At-lD s.c.i+oOL.-
Please fully describe the proposed project, any and all constnuction that may be accomplished as a result of approval of
this project, and the project's benefits to yourself, the property, the neighborhood, and'the City of Chula vista. Include any
details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may include any
background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use
an addendum sheet if necessary,
For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "findings" as listed in the Application Procedural
Guide.
"?t-i- ArrA-c.HM~t-J'r-
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista I California
17-33
91910
(619) 691-5101
APPLICATION APPENDIX A - Attachment
Proposed project is located in the village core of Otay Ranch Village II. Property is 5.51 acres and zoned
CPF (community proposed facility). Project shall consist of a courtyard, approximately 5,000 SF to be
aligned on the axis of Birch Road. Surrounding the courtyard are three buildings; Building A is a 12,600
SF preschool; Building B is a 13,900 SF worship center; Building C is a two-story, 19,600 SF fellowship
hall and educational facility. A fourth building, a two-story 15,100 SF multi-purpose building, is located
directly east of the proposed Town Square. The project represents an ideal use for which the Specific
Plan was intended.
The worship center includes a sanctuary of maximum occupancy of 600 people. A small chapel and
columbarium shall be part of this building.
The early childhood education center consists of 8 classrooms, each with a maximum capacity of 24
children, including toddlers and infant care, and an attached playground.
The fellowship hall shall consist of an area for small assemblies of up to 200 people. Also included is
classroom space for a Lutheran elementary school/academy. Up to nine classrooms each with a
maximum capacity of 25 children is proposed.
The mutti-purpose building shall function as a fitness area, youth programs and accommodate other
community activities.
The parking provided consists of 231 standard stalls and 7 accessible for a total of 238 stalls. The
proposed uses of the buildings shall not occur simuttaneously. Additional parking shall be available from
the adjacent recreation center. Project may be constructed in phases.
The required findings are as follows:
1. That the proposed use at the particular 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 contributes to the general well being or the neighborhood on multiple
levels.
2. 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 injuriqus to
property or improvements in the vicinity;
In fact, the proposed use shall contribute to the health and well being of the persons residing
in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this code
for such use;
The proposed use shall comply with regulation and condition agreed upon through the CUP
process.
4. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the general plan of the City
or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The granting of this conditional use permit shall comply with the general plan of the City and
of the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
END OF ATTACHMENT
17-34
Apr 04 07 02:16p
OFFICE
619-422-6620
p.3
~Ht,..
-.-
~-
- ~
Planning
& B u i I din 9 D e par I men I Planning
Division" Development Processing
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
APPlICATlON APPENDIX I
Disclosure Statement
Pursulimt ~ Council Policy 101~1. prior to any actio~ upon matters that wi.1I require discretionary action by the Council, Plannin
CommissIOn and all other offiCIal bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial inleres~
payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must b
disclosed: -
1. Ust the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Concordia Lutheran Church and School
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with a
$2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity. .
None
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving
as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. .
Board of Directors: James Magnuson, Michael Rodemeyer, Amber Gilnam, Carol Magnuson, William Whitt,
JoAnn Carson, A.Nann Uanes, Dick Chase, Jr., Cheri Whitt, Ooralee Radlchel, Rev. Richard Schmidt
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represenl you before the City in this matter.
Rev. Richard Schmidt; Conley Robinson; Mansour Architects: Rick Enginnering; Good and Roberts
Construction Company; Brookfield Development Corporation; May Co. Consulting.
5. Has any person" associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official- of the City of Chula
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes NoX--
No
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official"" may have in this contract.
No
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula
Vista City Council? No X 'Yes If yes, which Council member?
No
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
17-35
04/04/9007 WRn 14'47 fTY/RY NO 7~.4?1 IdJnn::\
J.pr 04 07 02:16p
OFFICE
619-422-6620
pA
.1/
\'1
A
/!
, .~.
".'_0.
I :.'~.
"~i.
.
.~\-~
~f'1-
0: _
P I a n n- i n g
& Building Department
Planning Division I Development Processing
cnY Of
CHULA V1SfA
APPLfCATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent v8Jue) 10 an offiCial*" of the CitY ofChula Vista in the
~: twe~o <J( months? (ThIs InclL/des being a source of Income, money to retJre a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
If Yes, which oftidaJ- and what was the nature of Item provided?
. Date:
4/'1/07
I ,
. .
Signa u~ of Contractor/Applicant
~. 1?lcharJ S";,,,.{.cl+ ~~ (O,~lif~ Printor
type namll of Contractor/Applicant Cflvvd1 <VI1. School
Person Is deflned _ as: any individual, finn, co-partnership, Joint venture; association, social Club, fraternal
organi;z:atlon, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndlcate; any other county, city, municipalitY, district, or other
polltlcal subdivision, -or any other jJroup or combination acting _as .a unit,
pflidal Includes, but is not Dmlled to: Mayor, Councll member, Planning Commissioner, Memeer of a board,
commission, or rommlttee of the CIty, employee, or st'!ff members, .
-
....
1276 Fo~fth.,~J\;'.e j~b~.la.VJ.>.ta:' j..craliI.o.rni.a .j '..9.1930 ...1 .1.5~9JJi9J'<5101
17-36
ftlt/nill?On7 WRTl 111-"7 r'T'Y/UY NO 7'4.491 r.:1Jon4
Oct 17 0.7 05:10p
OFFICE
619-422-$620
p.2
P I ann
n g
& Building
Planning Division
Department
Developmenl Processing
01Y Of
CHULA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX C
Development Permit Processing Agreement
Penni! Applicant:
Applicant's Address:
Type of Pennl!:
Agreement Date:
Deposit Amount:
Con cord,,,, {, 1t-hen1" Ch, Jrrch
-=< ;;. 7 f' ()x +Ani SF
{-hut.... VIm.
CA ql'/rI
J
This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corpOf'ation ("City") and the
forenamed applicant for a development perrott ("Applicant"), effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above, is made
with reference to the following faels:
Whereas, Applicant has applied to the City for a permit of the type aforareferenced ("Perml!") which the City has
required to be obtained as a condition to permitting Applicant to develop a parcel of property; and,
Whereas, the CIty will incur expenses in order to process said permit through the various departmants and before
the various boards and commiss;ons of the City '''Processing Services.): and.
Whereas the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection with
providing ttJe.Processing Services;
Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutuai promises 'herein contained, as follows:
1. Applicant's Duty to Pay.
Applicant shall pay all of City's expenses incurred In providing Processing Services related 10 Applicant's Penni!, Incuding
all of City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of Applicant shall be referred to herein as "Applicant's
Duty to Pay."
1.1. Applicanfs Deposit Duty.
As partial performance of Applicanfs Duty to Pay, Applicant shall deposit the amount aforereferenced ("Deposil").
1.1.1. City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services against
Applicant's Deposit. tf, after the cO!1clusion of processing Applicant's Pennit, any portion of the
Depostt remains, City shall return said balance to Applicant without interest thareon. It, during the
processing of Applicant's Perm~, the amount 01 the Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminently
likely to become exhausted in the opinion of the e City, upon notice of same. by City, Applicant
shall forthwith provide such additional deposit as City shaN calculate as reasonably necessary to
continua Processing Services. The duty of Applicanl to initially deposit and 10 supplement said
deposit as herein required shall be known as "Applicant's Depostt Duty".
2. City's Duty.
City shall. upon the condition that Applicant is no in breach of Applicants Duty to Payor Applicant's Deposit Duty,
use good faith to provkfe processing services in relation to Applicant's Permit application.
2.1. City shall have no liability hereunder to Applicant fer the failure to process Applicant's Permit application, or
for failure to process AppUcant's Pennit within the time frame requested by Applicant or estimated by City.
276 Founh A.venue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
17-37 .~.- ....- -- -- .-
Oct 1707 05;11p
OFFICE
619-422-6620
p.3
p I ann
n g
& Building Department
Planning Division I DeveJopment Processing
OlY OF
CHULA ViSTA
Development Permit Processing Agreement - Page 2
2.2. By execution of this agreement Applicant shall have no right to the Permit for which AppRcant has appl1ed.
City shall use its discretion in valuaUng Appflcanfs Perm~ Application without regard to Applicant's promise to pay for the
Processing Servrces. or the e><ecution of the Agreement.
3. Remedies.
3.1. Suspension of Processing
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equ~, the C~ has
lt1e righlto suspend andlor withhold the processing of the Perm~ which Is the subject matter of this Agreement, as wef! as
lt1e Permit which may be the subject matter of any other Permit which Applicant has before the City.
3.2. Civil Collection
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equ~, the C~y has
lt1e right 10 collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action, and upon instituting IllIgation to collect
same. the prevalling party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
4. Miscellaneous.
4.1 Notices.
AIr notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in
writing. All notices, demands Bnd requests 10 be sent 10 any party sMB be deemed to have been property given or served
if perscnally served or depos~ed in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or
certified, with return receipt requested at the addresses identffied adjacent to the Signatures of the parties represented.
4.2 Governing LawNenue.
This Agreement shall be govemed by and construed in accordance with lt1e laws of lt1e state of California.
Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shali be brought only in the federal or state co..-ts located in San
Diego County, Slale of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this
Agreement, and performance herel.mder, shaH be the Cily of Chula Vista.
4.3. Multiple Signatories.
If there are multiple signatories to this agreement on behatf of Applicant, each of such signatories shall be
joinUy and severally liable for the performance of Appficant's dutie&J:!erein set forth.
4.4. Signatory Authority.
This signatory to lhls agreement hereby warrants and represents that he Is the duly designated agent for lt1e
Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Applicant Signatory
shall be personaily liable for Applicant's Duly to Pay and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event he has not been
authorized to execute this Agreement by Applicanl
4.5 Hold Harmless.
Applicanl shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless lhe City, its elected and appointed officers and
employees, from and against any claims, suits. actions or proceedings, judicial or administrative, for writs, orders.
injunction or other relief. damages, Uability, cost and expense [Including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising aut of
City's actions in processing or issuing Applicant's Permit, or in exercising any discretion related thereto including but not
limited to the giving of proper environmental review, the holding of public hearings, the extension of due process rights,
except only for those daims, suits, actions or proceedings arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the
City, its officers, or employees known 10, but not objected 10, by the Applicant. Applicanl's Indemnification shall include
any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents. or empfoyees in
defending against such claims, whether the same' proceed to judgement or not. Further, Applicant. at its awn expense,
shaJl, upon written request by the City. defend any such surt or action brought agaInst the City, its officers, agents, or
employees. Applicant's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the
276. fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(019) 091-5101
17-38 1n/17/')(H\7 wvn 17.117 Pf'YJOY Mn 77""111 r.:hnt\'l
Oct 17 07 05:11 p
OFFICE
619-422-6620
pA
p I ann
n g
& 8uild'ing Department
Planning Division I Development Processing
cnv Of
CHUlA VISTA
Development Permit Processing Agreement - Page 3
Applicant. At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such
participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation imposed by this condition.
4.6 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures.
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement against the City unless a claim has first been
presented In writing and filed with the City of COOla Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from lime to time be amended, the
provisions 01 which are Incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used
by the Cily in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City
for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the tenns of this Agreement.
Now therefore, the parties hereto. having read and understood the terms and conditions of this agreement. do
hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto.
Dated:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
By:
Dated:
iD-O--O 7
Cot'] <:<.Ydl~ Lvl-hemn Ch~
~~::: ~ ~ 5f,
c: I \//-<./71. "11 "Ill
"~-7~
276 Fourth Avenue
ChuJ<J Vi~tcl
California
91910
!&191691-5101
17-39 lO/17/?nn7 WRn 17-47 fTY/RX NO 77:\41 Idr004
Planning
B u i I d j, n g 0 e par t men t
Planning Division I Development Processing
For Office Use Only
Case No. IS-
Dpst. Amnt.
Receipt No.
Date Rec'd.
Accepted by
Project No. FA-
Dpst. No. DO-
CIP No.
Related Case No.
&
CIlY Of
CHUIA VISTA
APPLICATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS SITE
PLAN IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-1/2 X II FOLDER
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
City of Chula Vista
Application Form
BACKGROUND
1. projectTitle CuIJCQFtPIA l..u1"Hl>~ G-).ILJfZ....,~ At-Jo '~?i+"'''L-
2. Project Location (Street address or description)
Dt'?L.o\lf.f..T F"t-VS .l?JI.lllli. / r;1J2.~I.t ~- 1,..J.ltJ(.,..J"1 t-J.......I<. '>1'.
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. c;, Lf,. - (; I 0 - '1. ~
3. Brief Project Description ,0 '$ If ~ l.-'
c,. C,.,
AN,;? I-'1JJL.:n - F'l.llE-f",$f.- Wn~Jlt-
4. Name of Applicant C..r-t&"Jt.QIA l-iJf\.l-f.Mtol.
Address ~ q,"1 ~. t:1 X P-dfZ.l) S'T' .
City CHUt..... VI $'-"
5. Name of Pre er/Agent M
Address (l L-IN I I Fax # '1>- 9J;~-":ut Phone ~<;;~ 5 -I~o"l
City ~AI~ Oleli.e> State Cfr . Zip '1'2., 2-1
Relation to Applicant _FI'l-"'J~v-r AIt-"-t+,,..e;..,.r .
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator.
A.
a. Permits or approvals required.
General Plan Amendment
RezonelPrezone
_ Grading Permit
_ Tentative Parcel Map
_ Site Plan & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Permit
_ Design Review AppliCation
_ Tentative Subd. Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OP A
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
_ Specific Plan
L Conditional Use Permit
Varianee
_ Coastal Development
Other Permit
[fProject is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from
tV" to .
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator).
_ Grading Plan
_ Parcel Map
_ Precise Plan
_ Specific Plan
_ Traffic Impact Report
Hazardous Waste Assessment
,.
276 Fourth Avenue
Arch. Elevations
_ Landscape Plans
_ Tentative Subd. Map
_ Improvement Plans
_ Soils Report
_ Geotechnical Report
_ Hydrological Study
_ Biological Study
_ Archaeological Study
Noise Assessment
_ Other Agency Permit
Other
Chula Vista I California
91910
(619) 691-5101
17-40
City of Chula Vista
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Page 2
7.. Indicate other applications for pennits or approvals that are being submitted at this time.
a. Pennits or approval required.
General Plan Amendment
Rezone/Prezone
_ Grading Pennit
_ Tentative Parcel Map
Site Plan & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Pennit
_ Design Review Application
_ Tentative Subd. Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OP A
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
Specific Plan
::x Conditional Use Pennit
_ Variance
_ Coastal Development
_ Other Pennit
B.
PROPOSl'D PROJECT
l. a. Land Area: square footage
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
or acreage G.51
Nor-\. I' _
b.
DoeyJ; project involve the construction of new buildings, or will existing structure be utilized? .
. "7- Al,A..oo rJt-yJ
2.
omplete this section if project is residential or mixed use.
a. Type of development: _ Single-Family _ Two Family _ Multi-Family
Townhouse Condominium
b. Tota ber of structures
c. Maximum' ht of structures
d. Number of Urn . I bedroom
2 bedrooms
3 rooms
4 bedr s
Total Units
e. Gross density (DU/total acres)
f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedicati
g. Estimated project population
h. Estimated sale or rental price range
i. Square footage of structure
j. Percent oflot coverage by buildings or structures
k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
l. Percent of site in road and paved surface
f'l/fr
~ Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use.
.. ~ Type(s) ofland use
t'llt: b.' rarea Heightofstructure(s)
c. Type nstruction used in the structure
d. Describe major acces ints to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties
and streets
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provide
f. Estimated number of employees per shift
Number of shifts Total
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estintate
h.
Estimated number of deliveries per day
----
-------......
276 Fourth Avenue I (hula Vista I California
91910
(619) 691-5101
17 -41
" City of Chula Vista
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Page 3
r.--P'timated range of service area and basis of estimate
~Ip< j.
Type/extent of operations noNft-e osed buildings
Ie. Houn; of operation
L Type of exterior lighting
4.
If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial, coml11et~ this section. (
a. Typeofproject ~V~. MJU...'( ?I~Ic-ottooO t::OUC-ArLOfJ. Ifl<:'. TOI?I1'-'f/,S
+ l>lf/,\>J't> , ~~JJ "'''-1l'...w..,. p.c..."-?tf'\'{, MIJ......n. f'U.l!-fo:sL G ~rt-
b. Typeoffacilitiesprovided W""'$I-lI~ ,U:tJ'f'f"'- 1~,4"'" $1": Plt,-,'S",-""""L- rz..Gc:<> 51"
ff..vlAW$H-''''I4v-/~A?~'''1''~ 1",2-1., ."f/ t<l1>"''''' PUlL""'''!':. 1~,1#qSf.
c. Square feet of enclosed structures ~O,t>OG' S",' ., '
d. Height of struCture(s) - maximum v'''''fl.il~~ - '1~-o
e. Ultimateoccupancyloadofproject U$~S AL-~~'l'f,.- S"'I-iG.1'tJ.fI'lL1' CAr"'I'N'~Ot7
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided -;z.~B
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
h. Additional pr~ect characteristics C&Urt.-r.,.- ~ A-lA ~ L-l(. ';/ rt <-I"\- ,
I'~O.>~"'" !<?~.$ M- f1.~t?,z.op 1"'9 1'>"...11..1 SRJ..I. AIf...'E....
;I(
C. PROJECT CHARACTERJSTICS
1.
Will the project be required to obtain a permit through the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)? -
No .
Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated?' ~f.<:.1 $f.. ~IN '1 /O(1.A 1Mal' t,-
omplete the following: f
a. Exc' trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated?
51'flt..1 p....J..I"1tt (letJ
b. How many cubic yards 0 ill be placed?
c. How ITWch area (sq. ft. or acres) WI aded?
d. What will be the: Maximum deptffof cu
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth offill
Average depth of fill
N~
3.
Describe all energy consuming devices, which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy
used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.)
HVA.e::~UIPt'16oJ1'" _ '1'A':' ..~...t.~G. JJ,.f'tr<- HfJ'.1"t.!t5.. 1:<-l-1~4A'f'O~f
~'" ~ Go, "'.., ov'er-l .
Indicate the amount ofnatura1 open space that is part ofthe project (sq. ft. or acres)
NQ NAflJ.Mi-.ofl!l-l .$.(~ Pte.~~1!:1X - ;;.1'1f'. IS .e,~AO';C>'
4.
5.
Ifthe project will result in any employment opportunities, describe the nature and type of these jobs. -
~Arz.__ &;I"~~~ -n.Ac:..t1'US, /.H7MIMISf1t.A-n",r-l.
,
6.
Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the
project site? 1\.10 .
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista I California I 91910
(619) 691-5101
17-42
" City of Chula Vista
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Page 4
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project?
Na'f Yt., O~(~WIII'-I ~c:>
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or
connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street
widening; extension of gas, electric and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. J'oVL..- /l-f26..- 1i1C1511N""t ,6.~ P(/.?JIOC.? ''"" 1/1 L.,-^~l:.. II.
I"fl-<:'JIE:.::.'f 1.11'-'- COJ"'t ,,-1"" t"' e'>C"lsrllt-l<:1.
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
I.
Geolol!V
Has a geology study been conducted on the property?
(If yes, please attach.)
Has a soils report on the project site been made?
(If yes, please attach.)
'-(H - Ptrt- Afr~"I'::.p tM { >r;.
'"(If$. , f'tr'- Mff'J~1> 11-1 f' <;;.(1'0
2. Hydrolol!V
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? N.o
(If yes, explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No
Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site?
NO
Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake,
reservoir or bay?" N.o
Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? 1-.10
b.
c.
d.
3. Noise
a.
b.
Are there any noise sources in the proje,*,"cinity, which may impact the project site?
Np
Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, single-family
residences)? NP
4.
Biolol!V
a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation? Np
b. Is the proj ect site in a natural or partially natural state? No 0
c. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property?
Yes _ No _ (Please attach a copy.)
Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate location, height, diameter and species of
trees, and which (if any) will be removed by the project. N.or-J '-
d.
276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista I California I 91910
(6191691-5101
17-43
City of Chura Vista
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Page 5
5. Past Use ofthe Land
a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project site?
NO
b. Are there any known paleontological resources?
NO
c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site?
Nt:'
d. What was the land previously used for? A ILl c..Ll '-'I l.! A
I< N. - S; 1$ ~ 'f7 Ot
6. Current Land Use
a; Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. N~I/~
b. Describe aU structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property.
North 1')2.F'- SI 'fl!:..
South f2.f-.~I~rJflA,--'")"l:>l..lK $QI.l"'IL~
East <?? /-t"e"''' "'I 'ft., t-I?'! C41-l ;::'f"~ .:.1' ~J?
West r-1iJ €>I'f~ . Not"'" ~f-l$'f~t?
.
7.
Social
a.
b.
Are there any residents on site? 1'1", If so, how many?
Are there any current employment opportunities on site? N (;/
If so, how many and what type?
8. Please provide any other information, which may assist in the ev\l,luation of the proposed project.
'-
276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista I California
91910
(619) 691.5101
17-44
Apr 1B 07 05:12p
OFFICE
619-422-6620
p.2
CityofChula Vista
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Page 6
E. CERTIFICA nON
I. as owner/owner in escrow*
R,c.ho.vtj SuhmuJt / Sir, p~W
-0v Cov:c(.v-dia. LiJ?WYllJ1 Ch(.~'Z~ a.vJ School
Print name
Or
I. consultant or agent.
Print name
HERBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the S1atements and inforttllUion herein contained are in all respects true
and oornet and thatall known infonnation coneeming the project and its setting'has heen included in this application for a
Preliminary Envirownental Review of possible environmental impact and any enclooures for attaclunents thereto.
Or
Consuftanr or Agent Signature
Da:'/I?/07
""If acting for a corporation. include'capacity and company name.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5tOl
17-45 -
AI7/K-HvVtevV/ (P
8
'~
,..
z
w
l)
"
c;
" Oz
- "'0
"0: "wi'
"z ~ "-- _0
C) - z cr. >w
Z Y:W I- o~
~ OCU 2: ~o
U) 0:::: itz W uu
u. it wQ 0.=10
~ I-~t(~~~
d. w ,UJ Z a:l ~
o ~~5~q~
~ t;Q~a:i~~
...
0@@ee
us
I- 0:
Z <(
2 ~
JJ) ...J ~ n. en
tr: .;( tr a::: W
:) (.) ~ 0 ~
u 0 .... 0 a:
IJ... IJ... W 0 (J)
o ~ ~ a: (!)
~~gg~
z a:. z w cf
~ ~ 3: ~
::~u.. ~ 9 ~ lJ:: ~
.l:! @@@)@)@
Cii
I
UJ U
I-
0; a:
0 "
z I- 0
0 ~ <( ::l
i' <( z 0
0 z UJ UJ
UJ 0: '" '" I
z w in ~ if
I-
Z ;;; '" f2 U
0 0 ~
0 '" 0 UJUJ
z b 0: "'''' Z
<( "' 01'5 0 Z
ii' -' 0 0", i'
I- " 0 UJI- 0
"' z 0 "UJ UJ ~
UJ ;z 5 ~UJ z
0 "' ~o: z
UJ if P -I- 0
'" >'" 0
88G8 e w
I
C/) l-
I- ::l
z I-
UJ " z ....J
:2 z i5
UJ 6 '" Z
..J ~ <(
UJ 5 ~ :s
"
'" 0
z " " 0 0
:"i 0: 0: ~ W 0 a..
<( <( -' '"
"- '" '" <( 11: a:
UJ 0 0 0: ill
I- z z ::> z ~
~ " I- "
iii ~ 0 ii' 0
UJ UJ UJ I- en
>- " " I- "'
0:: " ~ I UJ U
0 ~ 0 0
!;;: ~ -' 0: UJ 11
5> 5> " '" z
0 GGG0
z 0
<{
:2 U ,
. "
.~
17-46
~
~
I
"
~~
5!
~
~
ig
w
I
,,~ ~
~
~
z
o
~
~~
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING THE APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT (PCC 07-064), REVERSING THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC-07-064), AND
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC-07-064)
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCORDIA
LUTHERAN CHURCH, PRE-SCHOOL, AND PRIVATE
ELEMENTARYIMIDDLE SCHOOL, LOCATED IN OTAY
RANCH WINDINGWALK VILLAGE 11, AT THE TERMINUS
OF BIRCH ROAD AT DISCOVERY FALLS DRIVE
A. RECITALS
1. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcels, which are the subject matter of this resolution, are
represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and
for the purpose of general description are located at the terminus of Birch Road at
Discovery Falls Drive (Project Site); and
2. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, a duly verified appeal application for the Conditional Use Permit
denied by the Planning Commission on November 14,2007, was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on November 20, 2007 by the Reverend Pastor Richard
Schmidt for Concordia Lutheran Church (Applicant); and
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit was filed \
with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April 10, 2007, by the Reverend
Pastor Richard Schmidt for Concordia Lutheran Church (Applicant); and
3. Project Description; Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, said Applicant requests permission to construct a Church Sanctuary,
Private Pre-School and ElementarylMiddle School facility at property located at the
terminus of Birch Road at Discovery Falls Drive (APN 643-610-22-00 or any successor)
by way ofa Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has
determined that the proposed project was adequately covered in previously adopted Final
Second Tier EIR (EIR-OI-02) for the Otay Ranch General Plan Amendments/Village 11
J:\Attorney\RESO\CUPIPCC-07-064_CUP _CC_Reso_Draft CUP DRAFT2_02-0S.0S.dO, 7 _ 4 9
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 2
Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map, and the Addendum to EIR-01-02
approved September 19,2007. Thus, no further environmental review or documentation
is necessary; and
4. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Planning Commission for
consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing
to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the
property, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on November 14,2007, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No.
PCC-07-064; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after considering all evidence and
testimony presented recommended by a vote of 5-2-0-0 to deny the Conditional Use
Permit (PCC-07-024); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after considering all evidence and
testimony presented also recommended by a vote of 6-1-0-0 that the City of Chula Vista
City Council deny the associated Village 11 SPA Amendment (PCM-07-05) and Revised
Tentative Map (PCS-0702); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, on November 20, 2007, filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission's denial of the Conditional Use Permit with the Planning
Department, requesting that the appeal be forwarded to the City Council for their
consideration at a public hearing; and
5. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City,
and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the appeal of the denial
of the Conditional Use Permit was held before the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista on February 5, 2008, to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and,
J:\Allomey\RESO\CUP\PCC-07-064_CUP _CC_Reso~Drdt CUP DRAFT2_02-0S-0S.dO, 7 - 5 0
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 3
WHEREAS, the approval of this Conditional Use Permit is dependent and
conditioned upon the prior approval of the Amendment to the SPA Plan, Amendment of
the Master Precise Plan, and Revised Tentative Map and associated Parcel Map
(Amendments), since the CUP would not be permissible at the desired location absent
such Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Addendum and FEIR 01-02
before making a decision on this project, and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista after considering all
evidence and testimony presented voted X-X-X-X to reverse the Planning Commission's
denial of the Conditional Use Permit and approved the Conditional Use Permit (PCC-07-
064) based on the findings and in accordance with the conditions listed below.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine, and order as follows:
B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
Record of the proceedings of the Planning Commission at their public hearing on
November 14, 2007, including their vote upon Planning Commission Resolution No.
PCC-07-064 recommending denial, along with any relevant comments, have been
provided to the City Council and are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision
makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
C. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
Based on the evidence and in light of the record presented, including the Addendum and
FElR, the City Council concurs with the opinion of the Environmental Review
Coordinator, and finds that there is substantial evidence justifying the decision not to
prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required
pursuant to the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC 19.14.080) for the issuance of
conditional use permits and sets forth hereunder, the required findings and the evidentiary
basis that permits the stated finding to be made.
I. That the proposed use at this 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.
J:lAttomey\RESo\CUP\PCC-07.064_CUP _CC_Reso_Dralt CUP DRAFT2_02-0S-0S.d'1 7 - 5 1
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 4
The proposed Church, Pre-School and Elementary/Middle School facility is a
desirable land use that provides an eleemosynary religious and educational facility
that will contribute to the general well being of the Windingwalk Village 11
neighborhood, the Otay Ranch community, and the South Bay region.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed Church, Pre-School and Elementary/Middle School facility will not
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 use is subject to conditions that will provide the necessary controls and
maintenance of the facilities such that there will be remedies should the activities
on the site become 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 .
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the code for such use.
The proposed Church, Pre-School and Elementary/Middle School facility will be
developed and maintained in compliance with the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (GDP), the Windingwalk Village 11 Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan Planned Community (PC) District Regulations, and the Zoning Code
for requirements not included in the SPA Plan as provided for all Planned
Community (PC) zoned properties in accordance with the Municipal Code. The
conditions of approval require compliance with all applicable codes and
regulations on an on-going basis for use of the facilities on the proposed project
site.
4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The Windingwalk Village 11 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan specifically
required the Conditional Use Permit process to be utilized in order to provide the
necessary controls over the Church, Pre-School and Elementary/Middle School
facility, and to ensure compliance with the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan (GDP) and the City ofChula Vista General Plan.
E. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-07-064 subject to the
following conditions whereby the Applicant shall:
J:\Altomey\RESO\CUP\PCC-07-064_CUP _CC_Reso_Dralt CUP DRAFT2_02-0S.0S.cto, 7 - 52
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 5
1. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use
of the subject property in reliance on this approval, the applicant shall fulfill to the
satisfaction of the City, the following requirements:
a. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon the City
Council approval of the Village 11 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
Amendment and Revised Tentative Map allowing for the relocation and
reconfiguration of the P-4 Park (Town Square) and the relocation of the
Pedestrian Easement. Absent such approval, this CUP shall be deemed to
be automatically revoked and to be of no force and effect ab initio.
b. A Design Review permit application shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Design Review Committee prior to the acceptance of any
building permit construction documents. No building permits can be
issued prior to approval of the Design Review application by the Design
Review Committee.
c. All plans and elevations submitted for building permits shall be in
conformance with the final set of entitlement design plans and elevations
provided for review and approval by the Design Review Committee. The
plans and elevations submitted for review by the Design Review
Committee shall be in substantial conformity to the conceptual plans and
elevations approved by the City Council. Any changes to the final set of
approved entitlement design plans and elevations will require review and
approval by the Director of Planning and Building for substantial
conformance to the Design Review Committee approval and/or
modification to this Conditional Use Permit.
d. In order to prevent any overlap between the maximum capacity uses for
the church, pre-school and elementary school facility, as discussed in the
staff report, traffic study report, and as outlined in the project table below,
the following are the primary hours of operation that shall apply to the
project:
Saturda Sunda Tuesda Wednesda Thursda Frida
Sanctuary: 4pm- 6:30am- 7pm- 7pm- 7pm- 7pm-
12 m 1:30 m 9 m 9m 9 m 9 m
Pre-School: Closed Closed 6am-7pm 6am- 6am- 6am- 6am-
7 m 7 m 7m 7 m
Fellowship 9am- 8am- 8am- 8am- 8am- 8am- 8am-
Hall: 9pm 8pm lOpm lOpm lOpm lOpm 10pm
K-8 School: Closed Closed 8am-
3:30 m
Gymnasium: 9am- 9am- 6am-
9 m 9m 9 m
J:\Altomey\RESO\CUP\PCC-07-064_CU? _CC_Rcso_Drafl CUP DRAm_02-lJ5-0S.dO, 7 - 5 3
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 6
This project table is adopted along with the record set of plans with the
conditional use permit file. Any changes to the approved hours of
operation will require review and approval by the Director of Planning and
Building for substantial conformance to this conditional use permit, or
modification to this conditional use permit.
As identified in the traffic study report, special events such as holiday
services, and rehearsals for special events such as weddings, funerals, etc.
are ancillary or occasional in nature and therefore do not need to be
evaluated for weekly scheduling.
The applicant shall be responsible for providing adequate on-site parking
for all special events on the subject property for all uses and hours of
operation that are above and beyond those specified in the Primary Hours
of Operation. If, at any time during the term of the Conditional Use
Permit, it is determined by the Director of Planning and Building that
existing parking is insufficient to meet parking needs during such special
events and the shortfall causes off-site parking impacts, the applicant shall
prepare and submit a parking analysis for all future special events and
shall take any action necessary to ensure adequate parking is provided to
the satisfaction ofthe Director of Planning and Building.
e. The Applicant shall ensure that the central plaza, a village core focal point,
shall be maintained as an open space accessible to the public. The
applicant shall work with surrounding homeowners and the Windingwalk
Homeowner Association on an agreed upon method for posting notice 24
hours in advance of any church programs or sponsored functions that
would inhibit use of the central plaza as an open space accessible to the
public.
f. The Applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, a
pedestrian connection to the Village Paseo, which shall be open and
accessible to the public at all times, with certain limited exceptions. This
pedestrian path shall provide a direct connection from the Village Pathway
on Discovery Falls Drive to the west to the Village II Pedestrian Paseo to
the east through the approximate center of the central plaza to the
satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. The Applicant shall
make all good faith efforts to establish a consensus among surrounding
homeowners and the Windingwalk Homeowner Association for a method
of posting notice 24 hours in advance of any church programs or
sponsored functions that would inhibit use of the pedestrian connection
through the approximate center of the CPF-I site to the Village Paseo.
J:lAttomey\RESO\CUP\PCC-07.Q64_CUP _CC_Reso_Dral"t CUP DRAFTI_02-0S-0S.d, 7 -5 4
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 7
g. The Applicant, as part of the required design review permit, shall provide
additional visual and aesthetic treatment to the pedestrian connection from
the Village Pathway on Discovery Falls Drive to the west to the Village 11
Pedestrian Paseo to the east through the provision of landscape and/or
paving features to the satisfaction of the Design Review Committee.
h. The Applicant shall be required to maintain a high level of supervision
over the church, pre-school and elementary/middle school when patrons or
students are outside building facilities. Supervision shall be conducted by
at least two school staff when students are in the outdoor areas of the site.
In addition, the Pastor shall designate a staff person to meet periodically
with Windingwalk Homeowners Association and with neighborhood
residents surrounding the church and school property, to discuss and
remedy any issues that may arise.
1. The Applicant shall provide planting and irrigation plans. All planting
excluding the hydro-seed mix turf groundcover shall be on permanent
irrigation systems. Provide planting and irrigation plans in conformance
with the conditions of approval for review and approval by the Director of
General Services, Engineering, Planning and Building prior to issuance of
building permit. In addition, a water management plan shall be required in
conjunction with the planting and irrigation plans for each phase for
review and approval by the Director of General Services, Engineering,
Planning and Building prior to issuance of building permit.
J. The Applicant shall provide comply with all requirements of the Building
Division prior to the issuance of building permits to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and Building.
k. The Applicant shall provide a graffiti resistant treatment that shall be
specified for all wall and building surfaces. This shall be noted on any
building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, the
project shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code regarding graffiti control.
1. The Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan for the facility showing that
the proposed lighting to be shielded to remove any glare from adjacent
properties shall be maintained in conformance with Section 17.28.020 of
the Municipal Code.
Environmental Section Conditions:
m. The Applicant shall implement to the satisfaction of the City
Environmental Review Coordinator all pertinent mitigation measures
identified in the Otay Ranch Village 11 Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
J:\Atlomey\RESO\CUP\PCC-07-064_CUP_CC_Reso_Draft.CUP DRAFT2_02-05-08.dOC1 7 -5 5
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 8
Plan Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report EIR 01-02, and for
the Otay Ranch General Plan Amendments/Village 11 Sectional Planning
Area Plan and Tentative Map, and the Addendum to EIR-OI-02 approved
September 19, 2007.
Resource Recycling and Conservation Coordinator Condition:
n. The Applicant shall provide trash enclosures, bins, or carts that meet
design specifications prior to the issuance of building permits and to the
satisfaction of the City Conservation Coordinator. The locations and
orientation of storage bins and dumpsters must be pre-approved by the
City franchise trash hauling company. Provide sufficient space for
designated recyclables. A shared paper/cardboard bin, along with food and
beverage container cart with other storage may be permitted. A
commercial trash enclosure large enough for solid waste, mixed paper, and
a cart for food and beverage containers must be provided to meet the
minimum 50 percent recycling requirement. Contact the City
Conservation Coordinator at 691-5122.
Fire Department Conditions:
o. The Applicant shall provide comply with all requirements of the Fire
Department that shall be noted in conditions incorporated into the Notice
of Decision approval of the Design Review permit. All conditions shall be
satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits and to the satisfaction of
the Fire Marshal.
Police Department Conditions:
p. The Applicant shall obtain a security survey from the Crime Prevention
Unit of the Police Department prior to the issuance of building permits and
to the satisfaction of the Crime Prevention Unit. Specific
recommendations shall be provided for access control, surveillance
detection, and police response. In addition, training of management and
employees in security procedures and crime prevention shall coincide with
the commencement of operations. The Crime Prevention Unit should be
contacted at 691-5127 for more information.
Engineering Division Conditions:
q. The Applicant shall prior to issuance of building permits pay all required
fees for sewer capacity and connections, development impact for public
facilities, and traffic signal fees as defined in the development checklist to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
J:\Atlorney\RESO\CUP\PCC-07-064_CU? _CC_Reso_Draft CUP DRAFT2~02'05-08.do, 7 - 56
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 9
r. The Applicant shall develop the project in compliance with all
requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board NPDES General
Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP
shall specify and address both construction and post-construction,
structural and non-structural pollution prevention and control measures for
the operation and maintenance of such measures. The SWPPP will include
short and long term funding sources and parties responsible for
implementation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
s. The Applicant shall provide a complete and accurate Notice of Intent
(NO!) must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. A
copy will be provided and filed with the City when received. Further, a
copy of the NO! from SWRCB showing the permit number for this project
shall also be filed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
t. The Applicant project is considered a priority development project subject
to NPDES Municipal Permit Order No. 2001-01 and R-9-2007-0001, and
the proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Numeric Sizing Criteria.
The applicant shall complete the applicable forms and comply with the
Storm Water Management Manual's requirements to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
u. The Applicant shall provide a water quality study is required to identify
potential storm water pollutants generated at the project site during the
post-development phase of the project and to identify/propose appropriate
structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
minimize discharge of such pollutants to the maximum extent practicable
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
v. The Applicant shall comply with the January 24, 2007, the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the new NPDES
Municipal Permit, Order No. R-9-2007-0001, for the San Diego Region.
As a result, there may be additional requirements, depending on when the
development takes place and the building permits are applied for to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. Prior to use or occupancy of the property in reliance on this approval, the
following requirements shall be met to the satisfaction of the City:
a. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the
approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior
materials and colors, landscaping, sign program and grading on file in the
J:\Attamey\RESO\CUP\PCC-07-064_ CUP _CC_Reso_Draft CUP DRAFT2_02-05-08.dOC, 7 _ 5 7
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 10
Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Title 19, and the
Village II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan.
b. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced
thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director.
c. All landscape and hardscape improvements shall be installed in
accordance with the approved landscape plan to the satisfaction of the
Director of General Services, Engineering, Planning and Building.
d. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC
condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately
screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls,
berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
e. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted
equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound
buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning
Director. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the
building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director. Details shall be included in building plans.
f. Provide a fire extinguisher per 3,000-sq. ft. or every 75-ft. of travel
distance, with a minimum rating of 2A-IOBC, or the convenience store
must include a fire sprinkler system. A fire flow of 3,000 gallons per
minute for duration of three (3) hours must be provided.
g. The back flow preventor shall be screened from view, and the Fire
Department connection shall not be located with the back flow preventor.
h. This Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire if a building permit is
not issued or the approved use has not commenced within one year from
the date of this approval, unless a written request for an extension is
received prior to the expiration date.
3. The following on-going condition shall apply to the subject property as long as it
relies upon this approval.
a. All buildings, parking and landscaping shall be maintained according to
the approved plans unless modifications are approved by the City of Chula
Vista.
b. Primary hours of operation shall be maintained according to the approved
hours of operation tables unless modifications are approved by the City of
Chula Vista.
J:\AtlomeyIRESQICUP\PCC-07-064_CUP_CC_Reso_Draft CUP DRAFT2_0Z-05-08.dOC1 7 _ 58
Resolution No. 2008-
Page II
c. Fire lanes are to be maintained and have an unobstructed width of not less
than 20- ft. width and 13-1/2- ft. vertical clearance.
d. Applicant shall maintain catch basin filters on site, which shall be
periodically inspected as scheduled by the City of Chula Vista
Engineering Department.
e. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with the Village II
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Title 19 of the Municipal Code, and
all other applicable Federal, State and City Ordinances in effect at the time
of building permit issuance.
f. This Conditional Use Permit permit shall be subject to any and all new,
modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to
advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or
welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the
Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard
with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved
right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permit
tee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the
normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically
recover.
g. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect,
defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees,
agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, injury,
including personal injury, dismemberment or death, losses, damages,
demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees
(collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising out of or related to,
directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this
conditional use permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit
or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with
the use contemplated herein. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their
agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this conditional use
permit where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with
this provision is an express condition of this conditional use permit and
this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's
successors and assigns.
E. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
90-day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or
other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution
and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020 (a) and
failure to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack,
J:\Attomey\RESO\CUP\PCC-07-064_CUP _CC_Reso_Draft CUP DRAFf2_02-0S-0S.dOC1 7 _ 59
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 12
review, set aside, void or annul imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other
exactions, which have been given notice similar to this, nor does it revive challenges to
any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has previously expired.
F. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have
each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution,
this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the
sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this
recorded document will be filed within ten days of recordation with the City Clerk. The
filing shall indicate the property owners/applicant's desire that the project, and the
corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in
abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office
and known as Document No.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Applicant Representative
Date
G. 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 that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined
by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this
resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further
force and effect ab initio.
Jim Sandoval
Planning and Building Director
Presented by:
J:\Attomey\RESO\CUP\PCC-07-064_CUP _CC_Reso_Draft CUP DRAFT2_02-05-0S.dOC1 7 - 6 0
AGENDA NO.
~\~
:~~-:
~,~...,;;:
- - -
ClW OF
CHUlA VISTA
Memorandum
Department: of' Planning and Building
Subject:
Tuesday February 5, 2008
Honorable Mayor and City Council
David R. Garcia, City Manager
Scott Tulloch, Assistant City Man !
James D. Sandoval, Planning and uilding Director ;) OS .~
Harold Phelps, Project Planner ~
Comments Received from Residents ofWindingwalk Items No. 16 and No. 17
Date:
To:
Via:
From:
The Windingwalk Community has requested that the following correspondence from surrounding
residents be entered into the record for persons who may not be able to be in attendance in time for
the 4:00 p.m. City Council meeting:
1. William and Jennifer Thompson, resident of "Saguaro" by Shea Homes (Neighborhood R-
24/25, __ ' opposed to Town Square relocation, concerned
about size and scale of the church complex, expected view of park and mountains beyond.
2. Moises Montana, resident of "Agave" by Shea Homes (Neighborhood R-24/25, . I
, opposed to Town Square relocation, expected view of park with pavilion.
3. Brian and Maria Knoll, resident of "Cottage Lane" by Brookfield Homes (Neighborhood
R-20/21/22, 1 j J I t ~ 1, opposed to relocation of the Town Square; would no longer
serve as focal point community space if relocated to the comer of Discovery Falls Drive and
Windingwalk Street.
4: Nenfta DeLa Cruz, resident of "Trellis" by Brookfield HOmes (NeighborhOod R-16),\vould
like the Town Square to stay as originally planned.
5. Marc and Grace Torio, residents of "Saguaro" by Shea Homes (Neighborhood R-24/25),
opposed to Town Square relocation, concerned about size and scale of the church complex,
expected view of park and mountains, concerned about pedestrian access through CPF site.
6. Deborah Powell, resident of "Agave" by Shea Homes (Neighborhood R-24/25, fi r b.J-
~U. _, l~, voicemail concern about limited pedestrian access through the CPF site to
the Village Paseo, opposed to Town Square relocation.
7. Rick Rosetti, resident of "Saguaro" by Shea Homes (Neighborhood R-24/25, -
voicemail in opposition to the Town Square relocation.
8. Carlos Smith, resident of "Agave" by Shea Homes (Neighborhood R-24/25,
voicemailin opposition to the Town Square relocation.
Attachments:
1. William and Jennifer Thompson Fax
2. Moises Montana E-Mail
3. Brian and Maria Knoll E-Mail
4. Nenita De La Cruz Fax
5. Grace and Marc Tario E-Mail
FEB. 5 200n 1: 30AM-ICE, OSAC, SAOSIDRO
February 4, 2008
Reference: CASE FILES - (pCM-07-0S), (pCS-07-02), (PCC-07-()64)
The City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
Attention: Harold Phelps, Project Planner
Planning and Building Department
Building 300, Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear City of Chula Vista Planning Commission,
NO.8019 P2
We have received the Notice of Public Hearing by the City Council and unfortunately are unable to
attend the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, February 5, 2008. We would therefore like to take this
opportunity to respectfully voice our concerns with the proposal. Our prima:ry concern is our family's
quality of life as Chula Vista residents. We have two small children and are concerned that movement
of the Town Square Park, with its natural family-friendly setting, further away from our community will
detract from the level of comfort that we have become accustomed to over the past year as Chula Vista
residents. We are concerned that the placement of the large-scale church complex directly across from
our home will p(esent a dangerous situation for our family due to a pronounced increase in vehicular
traffic during the hours of opeI1ltion, which we understand to be everyday of the week for the bulk of
each day.
We are also concerned about the sheer magnitude of the church complex, a fact which was never
disclosed to us at the time of the purchase of our home, and its impact on the aesthetics and functionality
of our community . We were originally drawn to the community of Saguaro because of the carefully
chosen layout and balanced mix of retail, residential and natural space and we feel like the original
impression of the comnlunity would be compromised if the church complex is built in front of our home.
It is our opinion that building the church complex closer to the retail space currently being developed on
the Southeast comer of Birch Road and Eastlake Parkway, will have less of an impact on the current and
future residents of the Windingwalk community.
We know this will not only have an impact on our way oflife, but could also adversely affect our
property values. We paid a premium for our location and would be greatly disappointed to have our
premium view of the scenic rnoWltain range replaced with several substantial church buildings. We
hope that you will consider our reservations as citizens of Chula Vista and Windingwalk in regards to
this matter.
Respe2~
~a:nand.Je
Pag~ 1 of 1
Harold Phelps
From: moises montana
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:40 AM
To: Harold Phelps
Subject: Otay Ranch Windingwalk Village 11 SPA Plan Amendment PCM-07-05 Revised Tentative Map PCS-07-02
Dear Mr Phelps,
I am not able to attend this evenings public hearing regarding Otay Ranch Windingwalk Village II SPA Plan
Amendment PCM-07-05 and Revised Tentative Map PCS-07-02 but would like my voice heard. I am a resident
of the Agave at Windingwalk community. I live just North of Birch Road and East of Eastlake Parkway. I am
opposed to the amendments. When I come home after my 30 mile commute I look forward to coming down
Birch to see a nice pavilion with a nice mountain back drop. That is what I bought into a year ago when I
moved into this community.
I attended the first hour or so of the last Public Hearing and was only able to hear the comments ofthose for this
amendment. Everything I heard was very deceitful. The comments were from people who do not live in the
immediate community. They were people who may very well use the new church facilities but don't live in the
immediate community and were just trying to deceive the board. From a resident who lives in the community
and who paid for a park and pavilion at the end of Birch, I oppose the amendments.
Moises Montana
Resident of Agave @ Windingwalk
02/05/2008
Page 1 of 1
Harold Phelps
From: Brian Knoll--'-'
Sent: Thursday, January 31,20085:43 PM
To: Harold Phelps
Subject: Town Square ParklWinding Walk Community
Dear Mr. Phelps:
We have heen keeping track ofthe turn of events in regards to the Town Square Park and its possible relocation in our immediate
community .
Please note that we as community homeowners would like very much your help in keeping the location of the Town Square Park at it's
originally planned location at the terminus of Birch Road and Discovery Falls Drive. We do not like the idea of moving the park from
it's originally intended focal point in our community to the comer of Discovery Falls Drive and Windingwalk Street.
We appreciate your help.
Brian and Maria Knoll
Chula Vista CA 91915
02/05/2008
. 619477 3747
NCHA
12:28:18
11 ~14.2007
1/1
November 14, 2007
Harold Phelps
City of Chula Vista Planning & Bldg Dept
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Phelps:
Per my telephone call, [ would like the Town Square to stay as originally planned.
Respectfully,
~
NENITA DELACRUZ
Page 1 of2
Harold Phelps
From: GraceandMarc
Sent: Wednesday, November 14,200711:56 AM
To: Harold Phelps
Subject: Re: Relocation of Windingwalk Town Square
Hello Mr. Phelps,
My name is Grace Torio. My husband previously sent you an e-mail regarding our concerns of the planned
relocation of the 4-building Lutheran Church. I wanted to add that the proposed move of the Lutheran church to
the end of Birch Road would cause additional traffic to cross through what is supposed to be a 'family-friendly'
community.
Currently, there is construction going on to erect a mini-mall area on the right side of Birch Road, that will
contain a supermarket and other business facilities. Once these are up and running, traffic flow will increase to
the area. Erecting the 4-building Lutheran Church down the street would add to that already increased traffic
flow.
If the 4-building Lutheran Church was erected in it's originally planned location, traffic would flow much better
since there is a roundabout. This would help keep the already narrow and busy streets around the homes
available to walkers, joggers, etc.
Thank you again for your time and kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Marc & Grace Torio
On Nov 14,2007 11 :42 AM, GraceandMar
Greetings Mr. Phelps,
ote:
Thank you for returning my call regarding the planned relocation of the Windingwalk Townsquare. As
I requested I wanted to convey my wife and I opinions concerning the Windingwalk Town Square matter as we
are unable to attend the 6pm Public Hearing this evening.
Our wish would be for the Chula Vista planning commission to revert back to the original plan for the 4-
I building compound and keep the Town Square at the end of Birch Road.
'I Weare concerned that the sanctuary would obstruct the beautiful view of mountains to the east. Weare also
, concerned with road accessibility around the paseo area if the existing plan was approved. From our
understanding of the public notice the church compound would be a private property amenity and could close
the paseo crossing the church plaza at anytime as they see fit.
Thank you in advance for listen to our viewpoints concerning our community. Please reply back to this e-
mail as confirmation of receipt.
Sincerely,
Grace and Marc Torio
Chula Vista, Ca
11/14/2007
tD :;o~
....
0
0 CD --
cc ::s
~
c.
""'" Q) --
-.
CD a.::s
-
c. __ CC
0 ::s ~
""C ::r CC Q)
i CD -
"'tJ~
tn D)
CD 0- ., 0
::::J ....-a 0
.... "'C 0
Q) D) ....
.... ,<0 0 3
-.
0 " en
::::J 10 3
"TI S- It/) Q)
CD OCD -s::
c- o go~ ....::s
..,
c :r o __
Q) c ....
-< - O!!. :;0'<
0'1 Q) 0 0 !.:;o
N < ~ (")
-.
0 tn (") D) o CD
0 lit o ~ (') en
co
0 .... 0 Q) --
c.~ .....Q.
-.
~ -. CD CD
D)c-
0 1'< ~::s
0 c o rot
c .... ~ en
::::J ::r
n CD ::s 0
-.
- D1 (no
~ .c ::s
0 s:: (')
::r Q) ~
c ., ::s
.... CD en
(")
::r
-
...
N
01 ~
C/)
c
3
3
Q)
-<
o
-
:J'"
CD
...,
()
o
::J
::::n
(C
c
D3
-
o'
::J
en
w '"
r-t
o 0
(") =E
S:::J
oC/)
::J..c
c
Q)
...,
CD
I
"1J
...,
o
"'C
o
en
CD
a.
)>
a.
a.
~
o
::J
Q)
"Tl
Q)
(")
-
en
....Jo.
r-t
o 0
(") =E
S:::J
o C/)"
::J ..c "
c
Q)
ro
I
o
:J.
(C
::J
Q)
)>
CC
CD
::s
c.
S>>
i
~
a.
iiiIliIiiHc-
~
CI
I
,:...-:'
w
;:u~
o a
!.::r
.
Q.or-cl;'
CD -'1>> CD_
"'::sen-
en '< Q. _. Q.
cS' I>> 3 cg 3
::s"s>> I I>>
" ... .... ...
"'~::r~
o CD-
~a3g~
Q.OCDI>>c::
oO."tt.~
cS' 3 g g (I)
-. 3 I>> ~
::s c - _. C
!!.j"'O~1>>
(") -;:;: 2. -. CiJ
o'<::sj..
3 ...(")
3 I>> 0
C a 3
j 3
-. "c
... CD::s
'< '<-.
~
o
i-
(')
~ 8it
CD ....
< ~
"'l'I
-I
o
~
~
en
..a
s::
r>>
..,
CD
I
o
I'"
-.
cc
-.
~
r>>
-
r-
r>>
~
c.
3
r>>
..,
~
r-
o
o
r>>
....
\ o.
~
~
~
a.
....
::J
CI
I
;:
"'0
sa>>
*
4-
i~
-
~
. . . .
1\J(j)'I
. . . 00.., 0 -. 'It.
W 0 a. v,
OO'"(O-....J01-....J=RWa.tt'
Z (1) -' r+ (1) -
:::rO 0 0 1I!:!,;(1):J"
'-<W ~W W I\J II a._ui'
<M-=~ 00"
c::. -. w CIJ CIJ -Efl 0-'
<01 I 10,,!:l.:JW"
:::r .., W -....J 0 r+ en
W W () 0 < = I\J 0 -.
r-t :J 0 -. W CIJ r+ .., 0 0
ClJa.3!e.:Jr+0:J:J....
0'""'0 0'" ~ a. 0 0 ~ !:a. m
(1) W -. 0'" W () - ><
(1) .., :J _. = :::r ~ 0'" -.
:J 2S: !:a. ,~CIJ 3 c ~ S. en
:J _. __ - oJ r+ ..
.., <C 0 W I 0-'
{g :J"J' <-6 3 cS
o 0 W -.
;::1. ;::o!e. Q.<
(1) :::r (1) W W ~
a. (1) ""C :::r ::::s
? 0 =0-
W o' CIJ S'
(il (1) CQ
o ~
_:J S>>
-
~
'tJ
S>>
...
~
. .
.
CIJ
C
CIJ
"'0
o'
o'
c
CIJ
...
~r
...1
~
\
~ \
..--
=
a.
5,.
co
~
.....
:lIl"
." ...
l>> f
~
I
~
c.
c.
-.
....
-.
o
~
m
-
'"T1
m
(")
....
tA
-
"
o
::::s
..
-.
::::s
c
CD
0-
-
o
< 0
CD:::T
i =.
:::TD)
!..<
3 (ii"
z -. ,...
o ::s D)
<C2.0
CD '< ;::;:
3-,'<
C".!. ."
CDCD-
-, (') D)
....a"",,::S
CD ::s
~ c. -.
.. ::s
N ,... CC
g;o
~" 0
a 3
" 3
o -.
"" ""
D) !.
-0
o ::s
::s
..
o
'"
)>
0.
0.
-.
~
-.
o
::J
Q)
-
"TI
Q)
n
~
tn
~ W I\) ......:e
:TOS:;!8g~~;
(1) (1) (1) -. 3 c: c: _
'< Ci (1) en 3 .., ~ en -.
::T- =- 0 a.~_
00 ~s.c:::r(1)C: C
-"'C co CD ~ -. < 0
a. (1) -0, ;:;: en _0 - 0
.., 0 .., '< a. c:
W -. .., ::;' .- Z (1) m m
o en - 0 ~ _ ,,,
- ::T = O. v#
- ~ (1) (1) -I (1) (1) Z
::To .., c: 0) -~ 0
(1) 3 m 0 a. 0'-6.
01 0 -. - (1) 3 a -I
::r: = a. 0) en 0 ~ _
o cE ~ () co' < 3 ~
)> - ;:;: ~ (1) (1) -
~ ~"f ,.!.,."'C ~ '<
0"< .., ::TO)-O
o ~ (1) (1).., 0) C
0) ..a 3 ",.-
.., Q) c: -- ""'-. ..
Coco (1) (1) c:
en (1) en - en
(1)~ - g =
0) a. (1) 0) :::n
_0) a. _ 0)
~ 0" () "'C S[
(1) 00(1)
o 3 ::;0 0
~ 3 - ..,
en c: S.
CD ~ _
;:;: ::r
'< (1)
WI\) .....:e ~
0l,,::e"~:T j
o ::;' (;). 0 a e:
0) a. ::T,S; _. j
.., en (1).... -
a.~en;a::c cc
aOoooo ~
-. .., m !.
cE.g:~g'tA ~
o~g~_ s:
~ = 0) a. CD C>>
0" g CD en. = t/I
~--O),< -
O)o~::::o CD
- "'C (1) C ..,
- .., -I ~.. _
000= ~
-"'C ::e 0 .,.
<Do~~ t/I
en en _ j
-' (1) (J)::T .
a. a...a 0)
~oC:-O r-
_::TO) CD
en 0) .., (1) _
= ~ (1). < _
co . (1) CD
(1) - ..,
. 0 _
- "'C
(1) 0
.., 0
-.
-
'<
. .
)>
c.
c.
-.
.....
-.
o
::J
D)
-
."
D)
(')
.....
en
-
(')
o
j
-
-.
j
c
CD
Q.
-
ift~l. i J'IJ.. J:fJ! 1."111: J'.' . . ..~ 1.- . ' unUru f ~. i~~i!
'.;~ 1t1i'}ll[.,JlP,:, Jl.~IIF i .h, ~ i ~
(fl..,lll'. fJ !;ll'" tf-f riff}!r ~II := 0 I ~
i hI ~It f.HHrU ' rU, tfb': l~inf;~ j r ~
I il.,.tl, l"r. _If If U drH l!r:UI f I ~
tfl 1111.1.'8 I/:" .' I It I lB' [Jrf~ i
r! rh:o '~'~nltll Ili(~! (~tl Ii 'U~o f
\1 \1
-en \1
g::Tg~z 0
s.gccOZ2.
o' - (3 ::;, en 0 '<
::;, a. ::T o.!:t -I C'"
:= Z _. CD c _ CD
o en <. Sl ::T::;'
-IZo.CCDCD
O CD ~ .., ::::!l
C'" ::;,-CD-
CD-IO--enen
"0 Q) CD CD c.: 0
_ _::;'CDCD
Q)0.0< ::;,<
OCD CD 3 ~. - CD - "
en oen-O"'O--
a. _. 0 ::;, .- 0 I -., CD
Q) cg Cii 3 ~ gro 3 s. 'S. 0""
= .4 CD .., - ::r ::1 .
Q) ::T"2::;' Q) ,5" -. CD co 0 .
::;,CD-ji) ::;, C..., ".
0.3~-- 0.::13Q)o::::!'!
3CD'-en 0 _::1 ~
Q)_ 0 0 _acoc.
.., 0 - .... ,,, -.
" 0 -. .... ... <
o Q) p.. 8 ::1::r CD en
o "0 c' a c. ~ ,.... ::r
3 0 en -. 3 (1 '" CD
3:;- -: Q) ,,,::r 0 Q)
c _ 31 0 !::!:; ::1 0
::;,Q) ~ ::T "Q)(1
;::;: ::;, CD C 0 -
'<a. 0 (3 a.~
..,::T -.
Q)r
r
a
-.
-<
.-
11
"
._-
'~
'"'..~: "
f~ '
~t~
. ..,:I
... "S'
g.
~,?6
'=
ilft
f'r
if:,
~" .
~r.5i:' -~
Q l!::;1~ 'r.
_, .....?-!'I\' 1)>'
"",,,. ""'n""
-".,"," ,-,",
~:,,":. ," c:
,.'~' ft.:::o.' ::J
,"', ::--",, .. ':~, c.. __
',. ~., ~ g
~!c.~ _~ :i
"~ . Ji" "< C"
o "J: - C
.go .~.: ~ ~
'01. ~~.. g ~
;1\' "5.': ,.':.,>~;; 2-
,~.:t:~~~~t. '~(~ CD
'-',"'" "','>'
...
)>
c.
c.
-.
....
-.
o
::s
cu
-
'"T1
cu
(')
....
fA
-
n
o
~
...
-.
~
c
CD
c.
-
(')
o
:I
< (')
0-.0
'I a.
:'.....::.:,:........
000.
0....
.1"'"
,e ~o
af
c:i
:1:1
9:(')
:13"
cr.c:
fa
...3"
, ~~'1IIiiiiIiIi
. 0 a..
S
u:a
(I)
.-...-......-.-. 0
c::
....
(')
<0
-::s
loc
'00' 0'"
Q.
. ..., .-.
'.-
c: .
~. e-
. c:
....~
._. ;T
- CD'
::I..
...a.; .,
;.:s
- .(')
.....'T- .:-' "
O"::r
,._ "C:o
:r'=~-:~,~':<,
,_A.
..- ,.
'='I:r
ciS
~Q1N01i · '.
~
.-... -.... ..-.
........ ' .....<
fIIO=:::
...::If""
0(1)0
:I. m :IE
CD -
fII tr::l
- 0 0
c 0
::I 3
Q.CD
I>>
-<
0(")
::I 0
wm::l
fIItr8"n
8'030
_ c -.<
....::1::1 CD
III Q. -. ...
_I>>c
-<i
0"'CIr-
::I c c
'Nz-a !;(")
.tr~CDg
8'0 CD iiJo
::::!.c.,,::IO
III a I>> i:d.
_I>>oc-'
=-1>>
... -. ...
'< ~ "
..
-I
o
~
:1
en
..c
t:
Q)
~
CD
I
."
~
o
"'C
o
tn
CD
c.
::I:
-.
c.
c.
CD
:1
r-
o
n
Q)
....
-.
o
:1
o '9
r- m c:;
Q) _. :J 0
::s (Q en
~~~ -
~ :;!:; ~.'~ ;-
~ ~ iil t. !} ..,
_ (1) 5' (')
b' 6' ~ ~.. 0
33 ~ .g:...~=._. ::::I
u _ //~ \ """~ -"4 ....
.Z . 3 Q. !!!. . ",,"'\ c)"i .'\ "I ce'
""~;-,~:- g . '. ~~;,v \ c
~ g;\- '\'( D1
g I '. . ~l ~\ !:!:
~I( , ~~\rrr\ Ii,' . ~"'~" ~')...~ \ ~ 2
~ .' . ["'IS " ',.,. .' ...
\\ .,to. ~," ,"'t' ,\i\'.\'i, . . '\'\it .,; .... t" . UI
\ " J) fIf ''''V;:",~t:.\\ ~'\: r ' ~ ',j~;) \
, ~ .___ ,;-' .. 0'0'" ,,' 0", ,/
'~ /') (f' 7 /,'...1',,'\ '\ Id \\.,.1 \>, /~..
~\ "",""\ ~'/'v .J' ~'., tt.....lJ:.:;;I' \,''';:\'.l.\:'t ", ,1: /."\/,~,",,.,...
, ,.. ( "....." '0"," \ A.\ \~". . > '-- ;.-<y., ....;;p-
\ . '\ ') ,) 0..:::,#19 ,,,,,->),.."1~1"+:\:"'Y .,/_""",;"C:;;-fY'
,,: ." ." "".R " , ", 'V." /::C1'/' .. ,p-
I~! ~x' \(, \'i/l l~t~\'2o;.~yr
WN
_ .. :-" en en en-
0"C 0 ,g"C-
... I>> "C "'0 ." I>> 0 C I>> 0 c:;
en ... _ I>> (I) :::!... I>> n )> :T
"C ~ o. ~ n:J ; 0 (i; (I) r- -. ... - < x' ,
(1) ~ ~ _. ." )>m~ nii'CD boo,'
n'" ~(1) . IE ~ ::rc~ ,.J
;:. _. 0- cc 9- 0.. ::u a - .
=-~ ~.. _. =II ::rOn c iiiil" .
CD ;:u 0 iil ~ .... C ::r iil n c!: Cl
~~~=~ a i3~;;- ~g=.
3. n 3> IE" '2. = ::r g .!l" ~
en (I) 0..0' n - - ......-
_~ IE ::r ~ "" CD... ii' n c
.""'c o:!
(I) "C C =C :J-
... ii' "C ~ e: Al n -
'< :J:Je: 0
cc 0 ...
en:J Q.
_. ..... Ai.
:J 0 enW
".... .......
:' InO~9d )
I _'tltll
~
.....z
'0
CD ~ "TI 0"2.. ~ ~m
-:ECD-'I>>O
~O~.g::J:E1
I>>_CD,::J::J>
::::!:1>>....OCDcn_
O="t"~o. -
::J CD -. - _.o::I: '
"'C !e. ~ "'C. g fii $I) .'
O........On.-,<
-. ..... -, '" ~ CD CD
::J C CD I _. '-"\""
..... -. ft't. con.. .. y,;:"'li:ll"c'
en - .... .... .'"
. O'_.....::J::J
S' 0..... 0.
<c -, I>> "'C
en "'C::J n.
-0. ....
I\) I>> "'C en
,'<I>> ~
en -,
0' ~
-< ::J
_ <c
I>> I>>
- Cil
I>>
en
~w~
. . .
~
CD
en
-
::J
-
~
CD
o
-,
to'
::J
I>>
'<
-1'
II
-
" .... (')
,-\i \::~ 0
::::I
...
-.
::::I
C
CD
Co
-
~'a"
" e %"", ~
\.y:\ ~
. '.t ...
o
I
i
iJ
i
.
o
o
~
::r
(I)
.,
o
o
::s
......
-.
CC
c:
.,
D)
~
-.
o
::s
tn
~'."'., '0
", ' .....
," :r
CD
.,
eO
10
n~
!....
I -.
c
.,
Q)
.....
-.
o
~
tn
~~'" ~z
_---' 0
0---."TI00-l-l
::e::e CI) a ::1.0 m
CI) 0 ~ "0 ce.::e I
~mCl)I ::J::J)>
(1)=9-~0)CJ)=
CD CI) -. - ,<.0
< ~ ::J "0 "0 C ::I:
0) 0) -. - 0) Q)
_0-....00)....<
o' Em:::' ~ CI) CD
::J a: - c ..... 0) ..
_. -"0 CI) ::J
"O::J 0 ,,,0.0.
0(0....--
-. en "0 ::J 0 "0
3.'--"0)0.00)
~ I\.) '< "0 !.!!. en
I 0) _.CD
en .... 0 0
-0 " ::J -.
-. ::J
-< ~ -
___ ::::r
0) 0) CD
- CD
0)
en
...
...
(J1
CE)
< ::::T c::: Z 0) OJ -0
0) -. < :::3 .., ..,
:::3cg.O) 00.00
a. CD - -t 0 "'0
0) .., CO ..... 0 2S:; 0
::: 0.::::T 0 -. en
en "'0 I CD:::3 CD CD
3 a :::3' "T1 00 a. a.
C'" ::: f!"J :::3
0) 0) -I CD a. en CD
~ ~ ~ ~ 0)' ffi ~
o;:+:< CDrO)O
::J. ,<:::3 :::3 COO
3 0 en en.......... a
CD -..0 ._::::T 0) -.
-. C CD '< co
:::3 .., C
00) O)r..,
COCO :::3r~
0) 0 0 0 O'
~ co 2"0:::3
I~ o.~ 0'" ~ 0
rillll CD ::::T CD Z
en -r-
.g-<
CDC'"
.., CD
:::3
CD
:::::!l
-
en
N
co
..,
o
C
"'0
en
w
--0
o ..,
en ~
~ CD
-:::3
CD
o
o
:::3
:::::!l
co
C
..,
0)
~
o
:::3
'lIP .', "''":-.-'
.......' '. . '\.'
''-.'.'' ....,. ,
\'.' ' ..., ";.
: '."* .,'....1/1..
\\c\ ~ '
IIi'!,
" r_
IV
ErS'
il'l
!1f
tl
l,r
tl;~t
...
N
N
~
0).....:::0
V:::3~CD
0.30
.., Z r -. 0
mo ~~33
en en a. en
0~30CD
:::3 C -:::3
o$l~OJo.
C ,,_......
303 000
O-_::::T"
<~ CD
CD CD :T:::Oo CD
_:::3 CD 0) "'0
CD::::T ~. 0 a. :T
o 0 ~
-1:::3 30)~
~~ 300
:::3 :::3 C m ~
en..... :::3 -. :::3
0) ;:+: co
..0 ~- '< :::3 en
C ...... 1..0
0) C -I c
.., en ::::T 0)
CD ~ CD'"
.- - CD
0)' 3
C'" CD~
CD " .....
o 0 ffi
.., 0
0)
OZ
o 0
3 <
3 CD
_. 3
enC'"
~. CD
o ..,
:::3 ~
o ~~
< N
CDo
~ 0
::::T~""'-J
CDO
3::::T
-. C
:::3_
co 0)
'<<
.., -.
.CD ~
co' 0)
$lo
CD;:+:
0.'<
.....-0
::::T _
CD 0)
"'0 :::3
.., :::3
o -.
"'0 :::3
OCO
~l
1m
....
o
.~
en
o
C
:::3
a.
-0
o
:::3
.....
en
c
3
3
S>>
~
o
.....
:e
-.
~
c.
-.
~
CC
~
S>>
-
"
o
o
3
3
c
~
-.
~
::u
CD
fA
-.
C.
CD
~
..
-
fA
o
o
~
(')
CD
..,
~
fA
_""""~I .a..:
T.2.{i
.."
,
,
..
r~
~~!'V :-"Z
Ii 0
!!.to-noo........
Cb 0 Cb..., :::!.o m
~ ~ g .g 19.::E I
g: r:-> ~ So iil Cf)::J ;!:
_t.nl-ti- -
_ _ -. - ,<.0 ::J:
"8 ~ ~"2."'Q. ~ III
_. ..., 0 I>> ..., <
::JO"Cb^::JCbCD
-[:;I>>'::J ..
!II -. [:; Cb I>>
0- 0'"0 0- ::J
:;-...,1>>_0-
~ "'Q. 5. g -g
I>> ~"O a l<<
- 1>>(5"0
2 ~::J-.
< :i' ::J
Cb co ~
!e. I>> Cb
Cil
I>>
CII
OJ
i
~
!
...
...
-'\i'
:~i
. "";.... .: ...-
:;"b; .' -:,.
1;: "
<.:-:J
eeeee>
Iii !I ,I,
i ~~. 6
of .im ~iill
o 1\ lz _
i ~ . ;;;
21 '" I g
~ 0 Z
l!!
.;W
.
\'\'
-'"
C/J~
<' ~
\-'~
<;l"
~
Vi
,
<5
-a
o
r+
::T
CD
""'I
o
o
::s
~
-.
CC
c:
""'I
D)
r+
-.
o
::s
t/)
I
"TI
c:
-
-
'"tJ
D)
CC
CD
"WN .....Z
- , 0
' . .
-I
CDm-nOO-lm
CD g. ~ a ca' 2 I
< ~ - -0 -. <
III 0,::::1::::1>
!:!:Nllo~cn=
g ~ .!.. _=ll -<.a ::r:
o::::l-o-oCIll
-o~ III -. _ III <
0,< 01ll....C11
-. <il" ::::I CD ..
:a.glllc::::llll
en -. _ _ CD ::::I
. c:o""c.c.
-..... III _
tE -0 5. g -g
enlll-ollllG
la'<IllB-O
~::::I -,
-. ::::I
::::I _
(Q ~
III CD
<il
III
en
...
....
o
~
en
-
lD
a
=r
~
III
Q.
',",' ,
.. "',
~Cl .
. ~o
'.i-~j~i+1
~Q
.~.,.
-e.~
~ e' *%
\ri~
~'.I'
e eeEre
I nlll
!l~ II i
~ ! oJ i
.~ <)
..
;a
\'\'" III
---'
C/>~
\ '-~~
~
~
~
~
~
o
...
::r
C'D
..,
o
o
~
-h
-.
cc
s::
..,
Q)
...
-.
o
~
en
I
"T1
s::
-
-
"tJ
Q)
cc
C'D
-
(")
o
~
,..
-.
~
c
CD
c.
-
Jio,WN
. . .
......z
's
CDOJ"Og~m
CD 0 CD a <c. ~ I
< ~ ::JO -c :::;. _ ....
Ql~ I ~~_
!:!:N~O!!!.(J)=
o I ~~ .0 :r:
::J l/l .!... ~ C
-cQ ::J "2. "2. Ql ~
O-<;QlOQlCDCD
-. CD 7\ ::J . .
;a.gQlC::JQl
l/l -. -0, -c CD ::J
. 0:0 a.a.
-. ..... Ql --c
::J-C::JOQl
lCl/l",a.Ol/l
"'-c eCD
e'<QlCro
~::J -.
-. ::J
::J _
lC =r
Ql CD
CD
Ql
l/l
5"
~
CD
~
!!
~
::r
~
..
c.
...
<II
e eeee
IUil'
P~ni
:; lIt
i '0
l1I
;:
~,II
~~
1-.~
is""
"l:!..
~
VI
("\:>
~
o
-0
o
....
:T
CD
..,
o
o
:1
-..
-.
fa
s::
D1
....
-.
o
:1
tn
I
."
s::
-
-
'"tJ
S>>
fa
CD
-
(')
o
::J
-
-.
::J
C
CD
a.
-
o
....
::T
CD
..,
o
o
~
.....
--
..! cc
.. s:
e e0e& DJ
~ g
~ 'TI
s:
\\',:--11 =
Gn<'"-> "'tJ
\-\ Q)
<;:i CC
~ CD
~~!'V :-"~
-t
<1lOl"TIOQ-tm
CD 0 <1l a US' ~ I
< :T :;, -0 -. :;, )to
~"'~6~CJ)=
o ch I _=I: ,<..c :I:
:;'o::i"-o-oclll
~. -< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:;,c:r<1l':;'1>>
-CI>>C<1l:;,
fJI c: 0--0 a. a.
-. ~ I>> --0
:;'-0:;'01>>
(Q-a.oen
en 1>>-0 1>><1l
1>>'< I>> l::!:o
- 0
X-:;' -'
-. :;,
:;, -
(Q ::r
I>> <1l
CD
I>>
en
...
...
0-
:E
<1l
!a.
lJJ
....
a
::::r
11
l>>
Q.
VI
,
<::>
-0
-
(')
o
=
~
-.
=
c
CD
c.
-
.....z
:I"~!" . 0
-t
"Oo-tm
!!. ~ CD .., <5' ~ I
CD< - :::J ~ -. :::J ....
::rO';':::J ,
~NCDO~cn=
-. , a. =: -.a ....
OUl'_'<C....
:::J 0- ::i""'2."'Q. III ~
-0-, III 0 III "'CD CD
Q. "< .., " ::J . .
:::JO"lllc:::J1ll
lil' 5. _ -0 CDa. :::Ja.
. a. 0
-..., III --0
c5"'Q.a~3l
UlIll-o_CD
Ill'< III c5"o
- ~:::J-.
~ ~. i
!e. III
ill
III
Ul
...
....
,..
o ,. ~~,:.~.
.: '~~~t!\ t~.~: ts~(\
o \. ~ i '<:..:' ,"',:!. .~
.. · lD - " 0 'va,
'J..Q; \i. CIl .
- "0' ;(1) '1l!.
... "0 ;\a
t<1
.'"
..-
-lib
'oli('!. ._ -
e €>E>€>€)
I it ~ I i
n s ~ t
i fin
~
;;l
\\,'~ II
~~
~~
~
~
VI
,
~
o
....
::r
C'D
..,
o
o
~
.....
-.
(Q
c
..,
D>>
....
-.
o
~
en
I
"
c
-
-
'"C
D>>
(Q
C'D
-
~
o
::s
..
-.
::s
c
CD
Q.
-