Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 1998/03/25 AGENDA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Chula Vista, California 7:00 p.m. Wednesdav. March 25. 1998 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-98-25; Amendments to Chapters 19.04 (Definitions) and 19.48 (P-C Planned Community Zone) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities - The EastLake Company and the City of Chula Vista (to be continued to meeting of April 8, 1998) 2, PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-15; An Amendment to the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan to add additional lands in the Proctor Valley Parcel to the area currently designated as the first conveyance (continued from the meeting of March 11, 1998) Agenda -2- March 25, 1998 3, PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-27; Amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan consisting of modification of the Planned Community District Regulations to modify the required sideyard setbacks and allowable floor area ratio in the RS Single Family land use districts - Fieldstone Communities, Inc, 4, Consideration of a Special Planning Commission meeting on May 6, 1998. 5. Update on Council Items. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: p.m, to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 8, 1998 at 7:00 p,m. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who may require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service to request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days in advance for scheduled services and activities, Please contact Diana Argas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) (619) 585-5647, California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item ---1..- Meeting Date 3/25/98 PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-98-25; Amendments to the chapters 19.04, Definitions, and 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone of the Chula Vista Municipal Code pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities - The Eastlake Company and the City of Chula Vista In order to provide time for additional analysis, staff recommends that this item be continued to the April 8, 1998 meeting, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item 2 Meeting Date: March 25. 1998 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 98-15. An amendmentto the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan to add additional lands in the Proctor Valley Parcel to the area currently designated as the first conveyance This item has been continued from the March 11, 1998 Planning Commission hearing in order to allow staff the opportunity to review and analyze the issues brought up by the various developers and interested parties at the public hearing. BACKGROUND: The original staff report has been attached for the Commission's reference. Minutes rrom the public hearing are not yet available, however, based on those in attendance who spoke at the hearing, staff has identified the following issues: 1. Retention of the conveyance schedule indicated in the RMP 2 could result in artificially inflating land prices. 2, Elimination of the conveyance schedule and the priority guidelines outlined in the GDP and RMP 1 and 2 (pages 2 and 3 of March 11 staff report) would allow maximum flexibility for negotiating purchases of open space land with a variety oflandowners. 3, Adding additional high priority lands to the first conveyance would add flexibility for negotiation with additional owners of preserve land. 4 A statement was made at the public hearing regarding the extent of the first priority lands owned by New Millennium Homes in relation to their conveyance obligations. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 98-15 recommending that the City Council approve the applicant's request to amend the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan Conveyance Schedule, further described below as Option I, DISCUSSION OF ISSUES: The following is a response to each ofthe four issues outlined above: There is no empirical evidence that limiting the first conveyance lands to Salt Creek Page 2, Item: L Meeting Date: 3/25/98 Canyon, the vernal pools on Otay Mesa and the proposed 800 additional acres in Proctor Valley would artificially inflate land prices. No transactions have taken place between the Preserve Owner Manager (POM) and property owners of preserve land that would indicate this, With this current amendment, there are three property owners of first conveyance land to negotiate with; Otay Ranch Company, New Millennium Homes and the Estate of Patrick. The Otay Ranch Company and McMillin Companies are the developers of SPA One. Since McMillin Companies owns no open space land within the Preserve, they will be required to pay the In-Lieu Fee. The In-Lieu Fee will be paid to the City and utilized by the Preserve Owner Manager (POM) to purchase first priority lands, The fees will be expended when a large enough amount has been accumulated to purchase a significant portion ofland, As discussed in this proposal, the Otay Ranch Company is proposing to convey land which they own in Proctor Valley to meet their obligation. With these two factors in mind, it does not appear to staff that, at least through the buildout of SPA One, there will be a likelihood of artificially inflating land prices. Additionally staff believes that if the first priority conveyance is eliminated and the guidelines are retained, a cumbersome selection process to detennine appropriate conveyance land could be created, The POM would be required to negotiate each conveyance proposal with developers on a case by case basis and would essentially be required to determine whether or not the land proposed for conveyance met the guidelines, 2. Staff is cognizant of the fact that eliminating the conveyance schedule and the guidelines would allow maximum flexibility for the POM and developers within the Otay Ranch project to negotiate a purchase price with owners of open space land, City staff is concerned that if the priority guidelines are abolished, that biologically sensitive land will not be conveyed early in the process, In a scenario with no guidelines, the POM would essentially be forced to accept any land in the Preserve which was proposed for conveyance, regardless of its biological sensitivity or connectivity with other conveyed open space areas, Additionally, the Wildlife Agencies submitted correspondence expressing their opinion that the priority guidelines are important and should be maintained. Policies within the GDP (Page 376) require the preparation of a conveyance schedule, therefore, deletion of the conveyance schedule would require a GDP amendment. 3. This application proposes that an additional 800 acres be added to the first conveyance parcels, With this addition ofland the acres in the first conveyance is increased from 1,248 to 2,000 The possibility of adding additional land to the first conveyance in the Otay Valley Parcel which meets the priority guidelines was discussed at the meeting, This could potentially expand the first priority lands to approximately 4,000 acres. This would also expand the number of property owners to negotiate with to six (Otay Ranch Company, New Millennium Homes, the Estate of Patrick, Greg Smith, Jewels of Charity, Stephen and Mary Birch Foundation) Staff acknowledges that expansion of the first priority conveyance area to include all those properties that meet the priority guidelines may make sense in the future when developing an overall conveyance plan, It has been discussed that the original conveyance schedule was developed when there was a Page 3, Item: L Meeting Date: 3/25/98 single owner of preserve land and a single developer. The originally envisioned conveyance schedule may not be as workable now that there are multiple owners, particularly since some own development land only and some own both preserve and development land. The implementation ofthe In-Lieu Fee is one mechanism to address this discrepancy This will be before the Planning Commission in the near future, However, the inclusion of additional land to the first priority lands could also address the changing ownership pattern within Otay Ranch. The original concept ofadding an additional 800 acres ofJand within Otay Ranch, which was owned by one of the developers of SPA One and which met the first priority guidelines was originally discussed at the November 12,1997 Executive Committee (See page 4 of March II staff report). All property owners were in attendance at that meeting where it was indicated that the City would be willing to review any application for modifications to the conveyance program outlined in the RMP 2, No applications have been received by any of the property owners in attendance at that meeting. While it might be advisable to add additional areas to the first conveyance lands, staff believes that an analysis and determination must be made as to which lands meet the priority guidelines for first conveyance, This will require close coordination with the County and the Wildlife Agencies. This initial application to amend the RMP 2 Conveyance Schedule is the first of two additional RMP 2 amendments that will be before the Commission in the next several months. The additional RMP 2 amendments are required in order to establish the In-Lieu Fee program, consider modifications to the conveyance formula and to create the ordinance enacting the fee. Staff would recommend that the comprehensive analysis of the conveyance issue be reviewed concurrently with the entire In-lieu fee proposal in the near future, (See Option 1 below). 4 At the March II, 1998 hearing testimony was given that New Millennium Homes would have only 30 acres of excess open space to convey based on ownership and development potential, however, staffs analysis of New Millennium ownership has been calculated as follows: According to information contained in the GDP, New Millennium Homes has a conveyance obligation of 545 I acres to mitigate for development within Village II and Planning Area 18A. New Millennium Homes currently owns 1,06654 acres of first priority conveyance land in Salt Creek Canyon and the vernal pools on Otay Mesa. This leaves an excess of 521 44 acres that would not be required to mitigate for their development and could potentially be for sale. ALTERNATIVES: Staff has identified three options which would be available to the Planning Commission, Option 1: Approve the apDlication, Should the Commission support staff s recommendation as outlined in the March II staff report, a resolution of approval has been attached. The Commission would have the option of recommending approval to the City Council with the additional caveat that staff pursue a further analysis of the overall conveyance issue in the near future. Page 4, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 3/25/98 Staff would recommend that the comprehensive analysis of the conveyance issue be reviewed concurrently with the entire In-lieu fee proposal in the near future. Option 2' Deny the aDDlication, Should the Commission support the testimony that was presented by property owners opposed to the amendment at the March II, 1998 public hearing, the appropriate action for the Commission would be to deny the application, The recommendation of denial would be forwarded to the City Council. In conjunction with the recommendation of denial, the Commission could request that the Council consider the alternatives which were discussed at the March 11 hearing, such as I )eliminating the first conveyance requirement as well as the guidelines or, 2.)adding additIOnal lands to the first conveyance. Further consideration of these options would require additional public noticing and CEQA review as described in Option 3 below, A resolution of denial has been attached should the Planning Commission choose this alternative. Denial of the application would essentially require the applicant to start the amendment process from the beginning, since the existing RMP 2 indicating Salt Creek and the vernal pools on Otay Mesa as the first conveyance parcels would still be in effect. Ootion 3: Consider a new proposal. Should the Planning Commission wish to further consider the issues brought up by the various interested parties at the March ] I meeting, such as I. )expansion of the priority] area to include additional properties or, 2. )deletion of the guidelines and first conveyance requirement, a new application would have to be considered, This new application would be required to be advertised in the newspaper with appropriate noticing to surrounding property owners and would require additional CEQA analysis, as well as review by the County of San Diego and the Wildlife Agencies. Exhibits: March 1], ] 998 Planning Commission Staff Report 2. Correspondence from California State Department ofFish and Game 3 Correspondence from U. S, Fish and Wildlife Service 4. Resolution of Approval 5. Resolution of Denial H :\HOME\PI ANNING\BEV\IN.LIEtT\REPORTS\PC325.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date: March 11. 1998 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 98-] 5: An amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan to add additional lands in the Proctor Valley Parcel to the area currently designated as the first conveyance, The Otay Ranch Company has submitted an amendment to expand the conveyance schedule outlined in the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP 2) to add Open Space Preserve land they currently own in the central Proctor Valley to the first conveyance, The applicant is proposing that this land be conveyed to the Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) with their first final "B" Map which is anticipated to be approved in April 1 998 The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 13 (acquisition of lands for wildlife conservation purposes) and 25(a) (transfers of ownership of interest in land to Preserve Open Space). ISSUES: . Should the conveyance requirement for SPA One be expanded to include lands in the Proctor Valley Parcel? . There are approximately 1248 acres ofland identified as first conveyance priority and SPA One final maps are obligated to convey approximately 1243 acres, . Land proposed to be added to the first conveyance priority is not within the City or the City's current Sphere ofInfluence. . Property owners are in disagreement. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 98-15 recommending that the City Council approve the applicant's request to amend the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan Conveyance Schedule. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None EXHI Brr i. Page 2, Item: _ Meeting Date: 3/11/98 BACKGROUND: The Phase I Resource Management Plan (RMP I) was approved concurrently with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) The goal of the RMP 1 is the establishment of an open space system that will become a permanent management preserve dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the multiple resources present on Otay Ranch, The RMP I identifies the conceptual Open Space Preserve boundaries and required further refinement of those boundaries in the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP 2). The RMP 2 implements the RMP I and was required to be approved concurrently with the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan for development of the first 1,000 acres located within Villages One and Five, The GDP/SRP required the County of San Diego to approve three sections of the RMP 2, which included the Conveyance Schedule, the Funding Plan and the establishment of the POM. These sections were approved by Minute Order of the Board of Supervisors on March 6, 1996, Both RMP I and 2 contain policies which require a total of 11,3 75 acres of private open space land to be conveyed for preservation, The conveyance of open space land is required by the GDP to mitigate the approximately 9,500 acres of development. The conveyance schedule outlined in the RMP 2 provides for the orderly conveyance of open space land to the POM in compliance with the conveyance criteria established in the GDP/SRP (page 376) and the RMP I (pages 97-98 and 125). The RMP I (page 126) indicates that the goal of the conveyance schedule is to "maintain long-term biological diversity and assure the survival and recovery of native species and habitats within the Preserve". The RMP I also indicates that "protection and enhancement of biological resources shall be the primary guiding principle behind development of the conveyance schedule", The RMP 2 identifies the first parcels to be conveyed to the POM based on the approved GDP conveyance criteria and further implements the established guidelines for future conveyances. The required areas of first conveyance are identified as Salt Creek and the vernal pools on the Otay Mesa and are identified as Exhibits 14A and 14 B of the Phase 2 RMP (see Exhibit 1) There are currently 1,248 acres ofland in the first conveyance parcels. These areas were selected to meet the guidelines of the Otay Ranch GDP and the Phase I RMP since they are "keystone" parcels and were considered vulnerable and a high quality resource immediately adjacent to developing areas, The conveyance of land is required concurrently with Final Map approval. The first final map is anticipated in April 1998 Final maps in SPA One will be obligated to convey approximately 1,243 acres ofland to the POM. As indicated above, the RMP I (page 97-98 and 125) outlines guidelines that identifY those areas to be conveyed early in the process, but subsequent to the Salt Creek area being conveyed to the POM. These guidelines are reiterated in the RMP 2 (page 57-58) as follows: , First priority shall be given to conveyance of highest quality resources (such resources may include vernal pools on Otay Mesa, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat in the Salt Creek area, gnatcatcher population areas in the western San Y sidro and central Proctor Valley areas, or potential wetlands restoration areas in the Otay Valley [depending upon the status of regional Page 3, Item: _ Meeting Date: 3/1l/98 park plans and wetlands restoration plans at the time Otay Valley parcels are conveyed]), · First priority shall be given to conveyance of most vulnerable areas (i.e., those most subject to potential or ongoing disturbance) . Conveyance shall occur in an orderly manner beginning with an identified "keystone" parcel (e.g" vernal pool areas, Salt Creek area, Otay Valley, central Proctor Valley, western San Y sidro) and proceed to the next logical block ofland, . Areas with restoration potential shall be conveyed early in order to begin long-term research and restoration activities early in the process (e,g" Otay Valley, vernal pool areas, potential Diegan coastal sage scrub/maritime succulent scrub restoration areas north and south of the Otay Valley). . Cumulative acreage conveyed shall be greater than or equal to the cumulative acreage of the proposed SP AlSpecific Plan development . General guidelines regarding in-kind mitigation and no net loss of wetlands shall be considered in the development of the conveyance schedule, particularly in the context of applicable State and Federal regulations, (It is understood that in-kind mitigation may not always be the preferable approach to achieve the goal of establishing a functioning manageable Preserve.) . Applicable State and Federal regulations regarding protection of sensitive habitat and species shall be followed in the development ofthe conveyance schedule. . The Preserve Owner(s) Manager(s) shall participate in preparation of the conveyance schedule. In addition, the Salt Creek area has been identified for inclusion into a "university" site as depicted on the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, although opportunities for core university facilities will be limited. City of Chula Vista staff and UCSD have been discussing the potential for siting an environmental sciences research institution on the upper site elevations in this area, Negotiations with the Wildlife Agencies are on-going and aimed at identitying developable areas that might be utilized by the institute or other future university facilities. Additionally, a site in the Salt Creek area has been identified in the City Council's "Seven Areas ofImprovement" as the potential site of the "Higher Education Center/Environmental Sciences Institute" Acquisition of the Salt Creek area, therefore, remains a high priority for the City. DISCUSSION: 1. ProDosal The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the conveyance schedule to add approximately 800 acres in the Proctor Valley parcel to the first conveyance. These additional lands are located north and east of the resort site (Village 13), are currently in their ownership and meet the first conveyance Page 4, Item: _ Meeting Date: 3/11/98 criteria established in the GDP and RMP 1. At the time the conveyance plan was adopted, the various Baldwin entities (Otay Ranch L.P" Baldwin Builders, Tiger Development II and Village Properties) owned all of the land within SPA One and most of the land proposed for SPA One conveyance detailed in Exhibits 14A and 14B of the RMP 2 The first conveyance parcels are currently owned by the Estate of Patrick and New Millennium Homes. Strict adherence to the conveyance schedule, as approved in the RMP 2, would require the current owners of SP A One (Otay Ranch Company and McMillin Companies) to acquire land from the two entities (the Estate and New Millennium) who now own open space within the first conveyance area, The McMillin Companies do not own any preserve land within Otay Ranch, therefore, their alternative to land conveyance is to pay the in-lieu fee which is currently being developed, While this option is available to the Otay Ranch Company, they believe it to be an unfair financial burden, particularly since they currently own Preserve land elsewhere on Otay Ranch, The land proposed to be added to the first conveyance complies with the GDP and RMP 1 guidelines since it is part of the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve, is part of a key wildlife corridor, is environmentally sensitive and is immediately adjacent to properties already within the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Otay-Sweetwater Unit which is controlled by public entities. The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Otay-Sweetwater Unit consists of approximately 43,000 acres and will be managed by the U.S Department ofFish and Wildlife. Gnatcatchers have been sited on the land proposed to be added to the first conveyance, with the specific locations having been mapped The land proposed to be conveyed is not located within the City or the City's sphere of influence, but is within the General Plan and GDP area. The specific proposal is attached as Exhibit 2. The amendment to the conveyance schedule will also have to be approved by the County of San Diego, Staff met with County staff regarding this issue on February IS, 1995, They indicated that they would have to review the proposal with the Board of Supervisors Subcommittee for Otay Ranch and provide us with input subsequent to our meeting. Any available updates will be presented to the Commission at the public hearing. 2. Analysis Staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal to amend the conveyance schedule and sought input from other affected parties, Staff has conducted several meetings regarding this issue and the related in- lieu fee proposal with all affected property owners, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use and Parks and Recreation. A. Property Owner Concerns: All Otay Ranch property owners met with the Executive Committee on November 12, 1997 to discuss the proposed amendment to the conveyance schedule, The Executive Committee (formerly known as the Policy Committee) consists of the City Manager and all department heads and was fonned during the processing of the Otay Ranch SPA One to discuss and make decisions on policy issues. During the meeting, the McMillin Companies stated that they would be in favor of eliminating Page 5, Item:_ Meeting Date: 3/11/98 all guidelines governing the acquisition ofland by the POM. It is their opinion that the properties in the preserve have essentially been preserved anyway, due to their open space designation, regardless of the order in which they are conveyed. They believe that forcing priority acquisitions would not benefit the purchasers of open space property and would not provide any incentive for the developer to purchase and convey land over paying the in-lieu fee. Greg Smith, one ofthe property owners on the Otay Ranch, was represented by his attorney at the meeting who indicated that he was in favor of retaining the guidelines, The other property owners have not expressed an opinion. Staff Response: It is staff's opinion that the guidelines are necessary to ensure that the most sensitive areas will be conveyed to the POM early in the process, The Findings of Fact for the SPA One ErR indicate that the first conveyance will contain substantial acreage of upland scrub habitats and populations of California gnatcatchers and cactus wrens, Early conveyance to the POM will result in earlier monitoring and maintenance of habitat and species. B, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game Concerns The Wildlife Agencies both commented on the applicant's proposal to amend the conveyance schedule, Both agencies indicated awareness of the change in circumstances ofland ownership on Otay Ranch that would necessitate amendments to the conveyance schedule. The agencies agreed that the amendment to the conveyance schedule was acceptable as long as three provisions were addressed. 1 The guidelines established in the RMP 1 should still be adhered to, and all of the first priority lands should be acquired prior to starting assemblage of the lower priority land regardless of ownership. 2, Observed cattle grazing adjacent to the SR r 25 alignment, which has resulted in degradation of vernal pool habitat, should be ceased. 3. High quality biological resource areas, such as the vernal pools on Otay Mesa and the Salt Creek Canyon should be conveyed into the preserve early Biological resource values are to be maintained by the current landowners until such time as parcels are conveyed to the Preserve OwnerIManager. StaffResoonse: Staff is in agreement with the comments received from the Wildlife Agencies. The guidelines established in the RMP 1 are not being amended and will be retained in order to guide future conveyance of land to the POM. The land proposed for inclusion in the first conveyance is in compliance with the established guidelines. High quality biological resource areas (as noted in #3) Page 6, Item:_ Meeting Date: 3/11/98 are included in the priority guidelines, which will require them to be conveyed earlier in the process than other open space lands, Additionally, City staff has discussed the cattle grazing issue with the applicant. He has indicated that the rancher has been directed to relocate the cattle to a different part of the Ranch. This will occur upon approval of the first final map City staff has also contacted the property owner of the subject vernal pools, New Millennium, to alert them of the problem. 3, Conclusion Staff believes that the proposal to amend the conveyance plan complies with GDP policies and is acceptable for the following reasons, and recommends that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council: 1. The proposal maintains the biologically sensitive Salt Creek area and vernal pools on Otay Mesa as first conveyance parcels and would also allow less sensitive portions of Salt Creek to be utilized for university-related facilities, if desired, 2. The proposal simply adds land to the first conveyance and does not delete any first priority lands. The guidelines for acquisition will remain intact. 3, The lands proposed to be added to the first conveyance parcels are of high biological quality and falls under the priority guidelines identified in the RMP I and 2 (i,e., Central Proctor Valley has been identified as one of the "keystone" parcel and is the site of gnatcatcher populations). Exhibits: 1. Existing Exhibit 14A and 148 of Phase 2 RMP 2. Proposed Conveyance Amendment (new Exhibit 14 ofRlvlP 2) 3 Resolution 98-15 II:\II()ME\PLANNING\BE V\IN-LIEIJ\REPORTS\PC225.DOC , Ii 11 - . , . . . , , , . 1 1 Ott1Y Ranch "age 72 JU"e 4. \ 996 ...:> en ... J<.- ~ f"_. -.,:'- ...... Q ~ C .-;:0 ...... .:::-< ......~ )( ...... ~iJ: ~ I I 1 I , , 1 I I . CJ - '"d ::: o <.J ~ OJ .....rJ:J ,:::., OJ ~ ~ .-0 .!:). .- .... ~..... .,.:p.. ~rn t:J ()tay RJ;J1tCh page 73 June 4. 1996 :....., .....; .' tL,J r~ Dale:2J91'J8 SOUI"tt: Clly of Chula Vista ~EJ ~: ~ -< " < ~ . ~ = e ~ ~ '" ~ . " ~ ~ " '8 ~ -< .IIIJ ~ -< G l . " -< ~ -< . ~ . iI' Ii :> "0 ~ c '" ~g ~DD~ ~ "g " . " ~ <:! .~ 6 ~ . ~ ~ o "j! ~ ] .s :J SPA One Conveyance Areas Exhibit 14 RcnsedVJJM8 , State of California - The Rest s Agency PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME http;f(www.dfg.ca.gov 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 . March 10, 1998 Planning Commission City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan Dear Planning Commissioners: The Department ofFish and Game has reviewed the staff report and proposal for modification of the Dtay Ranch Resource Management Plan. We concur with the proposal by the Dtay Ranch Company to convey lands adjacent to the resort site as part ofthe SPA I commitment. Wc believe the following conditions which are currently included in the RMP should be retained in future versions: . The RMP I (Page 97-98 and 125) and RMP II (pages 57-58) outline the standards and criteria that will implement the conveyance schedule as follows: · First priority shall be given to conveyance of highest quality resources [such resources may include vernal pools on Dtay Mesa, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat in the Salt Creek area, gnatcatcher population areas in the western San Y sidro and central Proctor Valley areas, or potential wetlands restoration areas in the Dtay Valley (depending upon the status of regional park plans and wet!m,':" restoration plans at the time Dtay Valley parcels are conveyed)]. · First priority shall be given to conveyance of the most vulnerable areas (i.e., those most subject to potential or ongoing disturbance). · Conveyance shall occur in an orderly manner beginning with an identified "keystone" parcel (e,g., Vernal pools areas, Salt Creek area, Dtay Valley, central Proctor Valley, western San Ysidro) and proceed to the next logical block of land. , Cc~~ C~C~'1 W~t 5~ 1'l70. eXHIBIT 2.. City of Chula Vista Planning Commissioners March 10, 1998 Page Two · Cumulative acreage conveyed shall be greater than or equal to the cumulative acreage of the proposed SPA/Specific Plan Development. Additionally, we believe the following issues should be incorporated into the RMP reVISIOn: . Other "keystone" and high quality habitat should be considered for immediate conveyance, subject to the guidelines, . Without the requirements of the "first order of conveyance" the majority of the Salt Creek preserve acreage will be conveyed over time with phased planned development by New Millennium Homes. New Millennium's Salt Creek and Otay River Valley preserve acreage approximate required dedication acreage for full build out. " . An interim habitat management and monitoring agreement with New Millennium Homes could be a more cost-effective method of conserving the biological resources in their preserve holdings that are designated open space, but are not yet dedicated. A university building site within the reserve has not been approved by the wildlife agencies. Payment for a potential university site with in-lieu mitigation fees paid by McMillian is not consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP and could result in significant legal liability on the part of McMillian and the City. Purchase and dedication of preserve lands for later use as a development (university) site will preclude issuance of State and Federal endangered species pennits. The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations for this process. Please contact Bill Tippets (619/467-4212) if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, ~/~ Gail 1. Presley NCCP Program Manager . C:\CSERVE\DOWNLOAD\OT A YRNCH,WPD . .... US, FISH . W'ILD1J:P'B ~S_= ~ ~~ ,.... ""s;; ~ 'n'~'~ United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 R" '>-CE('f-n ,E ,~t. MAR 1" 1~\:JJ f., , "", " Ms. Beverly Blessent Associate Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 PLANNING MAR 11 1998 ~'l Subject: Proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 2, Case Number PCM-98-15 Dear Ms. Blessent: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Notice ofPubJic Hearing for the proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 2 (RMP 2), and the accompanying staff report, The amendment to the RMP 2 Preserve Conveyance Plan would add approximately 800 acres in Proctor Valley to the first conveyance for Sectional Planning Area 1 (SPA 1). The Service is aware of the changes in land ownership of the Otay Ranch that has necessitated the proposed amendment. The Service's primary concern is the conveyance of high-quality biological resource areas into the preserve, especially those that are most vulnerable to disturbances, such as Salt Creek and the vernal pools on Otay Mesa, prior to conveying other less-sensitive lands. We agree that the proposed lands in Proctor Valley meet the first conveyance criteria established in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the Resource Management Plan, Phase 1, We are concerned, however, with the statements made in the notice regarding conveyance of Salt Creek with allowance for a university site, Inclusion of a university site within the preserve was never agreed upon by the Service or the California Department ofFish and Game, As you know, negotiated agreements for Otay Ranch are part ofthe Multiple Species C011servation Program (MSCP). Therefore, preserve design criteria outlined in the MSCP documents must be adhered to when assembling the MSCP preserve. Development of a university within Salt Creek would compromise the biological integrity of the preserve and is inconsistent with preserve design criteria. Moreover, development of the university site within Salt Creek would preclude the approval of City ofChula Vista's MSCP Subarea Plan and the issuance of both State and Federal endangered species permits. f-XH\BI"T 3 Ms. Blessent 2 The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. We encourage the City Council to consider and incorporate these comments into your evaluation of this amendment before giving final approval. If you have any questions pertaining to these comments, please contact me at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, Sheryl L. B ett Assistant Field Supervisor . RESOLUTION NO. PCM 98-15 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE OTA Y RANCH PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONVEYANCE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, on October 28, 1993, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the Chula Vista City Council jointly adopted the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP), including the Otay Ranch Phase 1 Resource Management Plan (Phase 1 RMP), governing the development of the 23,000 acre Otay Ranch project, and; WHEREAS, the GDP and Phase 1 RMP require, as a condition of the development ofOtay Ranch, the phased creation of an 11,375 acre Resource Preserve to be owned and operated by a public or quasi-public Preserve Owner/Manage, and; WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch GDP Program ErR and Findings of Fact find that the creation of the 11,375 acre Resource Preserve mitigates identified biological impacts of the Otay Ranch project, including cumulative biological impacts, and; WHEREAS, on March 6, 1996, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Otay Ranch Preserve Conveyance Plan, which identifies specific open space areas within Otay Ranch which must be conveyed to the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager as a condition of the development of the Otay Ranch SPA One, and; WHEREAS, on June 4, 1996, the City of Chula Vista City Council adopted the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (Phase 2 RMP), including a Preserve Conveyance Plan essentially identical to the plan previously adopted by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, and; WHEREAS, a duly verified application, PCM 98-15, for a Miscellaneous Amendment ("Project") was filed with the Chula Vista Planning Department on October 17, 1997 by the Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant") ; and WHEREAS, said application requested an amendment to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 2, Exhibits 14A and 14B, otherwise known as the Conveyance Schedule; and, WHEREAS, circumstances have changed since the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP was adopted in 1993 which impact the Preserve Conveyance Schedule. At the time the GDP/SRP, including the RMP 1 was adopted, the entire Otay Ranch project was controlled by one entity, the Baldwin Company Four years later, when Otay Ranch SPA One is required to convey lands to the preserve, ~xt-tlbrr 4 Otay Ranch is controlled by ten separate owners. Open space and developable lands are not proportionately shared by all owners; and WHEREAS, said application adds additional environmentally sensitive land in central Proctor Valley which meets the GDP and RMP I guidelines to the first order of conveyance; and WHEREAS, the applicant is currently the owner of said land; and WHEREAS, virtually all of the eastern portions ofOtay Ranch have been included in the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Furthermore, the City of San Diego and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have certified the EIR/EIS for the San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP), Including the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plans which incorporate the Otay Ranch preserve system. The County of San Diego has adopted the South County MSCP Subarea Plan including the land plan changes reflected in the agreement between Baldwin entities and the Resource Agencies; and WHEREAS, while the multiplicity of owners seriously complicates the ordered conveyance of preserve properties, the creation of the National Wildlife Refuge and the emergence of the MSCP provide greater opportunities to convey preserve lands in a flexible manner; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a public hearing on said amendment application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p,m on March II, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was continued to March 25, 1998 and was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and determined that the Project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 13 (acquisition oflands for wildlife conservation purposes) and 25 (a) (transfers of ownership of interest in land to Preserve Open Space), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has detennined that the amendment to the Conveyance Schedule of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (i.e., deleting Exhibits l4A and l4B and substituting with Exhibit 14) is consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan regarding the establishment of the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council approve the proposal to amend the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (i.e, delete Exhibits 14A and 14B and insert Exhibit 14), in accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution and that a copy ofthis resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day 25th day of March, 1998 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT ABSTENTIONS Patty Davis, Chair Diana Vargas, Secretary H,\HOME\PLANNING\BEV\IN-LIEU\REPORTS\CONV.RES I I I I I i . . . I I - - I a - I I \ CJ c D 60 <:)<v \.J -0 !:: o u '"" a> ':;00 ,.-. a> ...; ~ .- 0 ;, ;2--< ~~ ::::::r:n \, \ Otay RoJtCh paQe 73 . / . . I I I I I CJ , 1 o Ola)' ~ ~ <1) ,.. ......- ....... r_ -<- ...-; <:) ~ t:- .- ,-.. .;::'-' :;.< -~ ~ '0",,.,.72. ~Bj '0 , z . , c;:~ ~., n -1. ;' j L1 . j j ~ ~ ~ III: 8 g ~ . ~ ! ~ < .[]] ..--......... T . < ; . ,!! < . c ~ ~ ... < Oi E . ~ ~ . , " i a 8- " ~ "C ~ .:! .!i ~ . c > j '" :~ CI) l ti 'e C) ~ " CI) D [] ~ ..... D.te:ZI!J/9I Souree: City ofChula Vista SPA One Conveyance Areas Exhibit 14 R~vised 3113198 RESOLUTION NO. PCM 98-15 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE OTA Y RANCH PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONVEYANCE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, on October 28,1993, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the Chu]a Vista City Council jointly adopted the Otay Ranch General Deve]opment Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP), including the Otay Ranch Phase 1 Resource Management Plan (Phase 1 RMP), governing the development ofthe 23,000 acre Otay Ranch project, and; WHEREAS, the GOP and Phase I RMP require, as a condition of the development ofOtay Ranch, the phased creation of an 11,375 acre Resource Preserve to be owned and operated by a public or quasi-public Preserve Owner/Manage, and, WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch GOP Program EIR and Findings of Fact find that the creation of the 1 ],375 acre Resource Preserve mitigates identified biological impacts of the Otay Ranch project, including cumulative bio]ogical impacts, and, WHEREAS, on March 6, 1996, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Otay Ranch Preserve Conveyance Plan, which identifies specific open space areas within Otay Ranch which must be conveyed to the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager as a condition of the development of the Otay Ranch SPA One, and; WHEREAS, on June 4, 1996, the City of Chula Vista City Council adopted the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (Phase 2 RMP), including a Preserve Conveyance Plan essentially identical to the plan previously adopted by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, and, WHEREAS, a duly verified application, PCM 98-] 5, for a Miscellaneous Amendment ("Project") was filed with the Chu]a Vista Planning Department on October 17, 1997 by the Otay Ranch Company ("App]icant") ; and WHEREAS, said application requested an amendment to the Otay Ranch Resource Management P]an, Phase 2, Exhibits 14A and 14B, otherwise known as the Conveyance Schedule; and, WHEREAS, circumstances have changed since the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP was adopted in 1993 which impact the Preserve Conveyance Schedule, At the time the GOP/SRP, including the RMP I was adopted, the entire Otay Ranch project was controlled by one entity, the Baldwin Company. Four years later, when Otay Ranch SPA One is required to convey lands to the preserve, EXH If?ll 5 Otay Ranch is controlled by ten separate owners, Open space and developable lands are not proportionately shared by all owners; and WHEREAS, said application adds additional environmentally sensitive land in central Proctor Valley which meets the GDP and RMP 1 guidelines to the first order of conveyance; and WHEREAS, the applicant is currently the owner of said land, and WHEREAS, virtually all of the eastern portions ofOtay Ranch have been included in the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Furthermore, the City of San Diego and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have certified the EIR/EIS for the San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP), Including the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plans which incorporate the Otay Ranch preserve system, The County of San Diego has adopted the South County MSCP Subarea Plan including the land plan changes reflected in the agreement between Baldwin entities and the Resource Agencies; and WHEREAS, while the multiplicity of owners seriously complicates the ordered conveyance of preserve properties, the creation of the National Wildlife Refuge and the emergence of the MSCP provide greater opportunities to convey preserve lands in a flexible manner; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a public hearing on said amendment application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p,m. on March 11, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was continued to March 25, 1995 and was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, testimony was heard at the public hearing opposing the amendment and requesting that the Planning Commission consider deleting the priority guidelines from the RMP 2 and/or eliminating the first conveyance parcels; and WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and determined that the Project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 13 (acquisition of lands for wildlife conservation purposes) and 25 (a) (transfers of ownership of interest in land to Preserve Open Space), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has detennined that the amendment to the Conveyance Schedule of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (i,e., deleting Exhibits 14A and 14B and substituting with Exhibit 14) while consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan regarding the establishment of the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve does not pennit adequate flexibility for the property owners and Preserve Owner Manager to establish the Preserve; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council deny the proposal to amend the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (ie., delete Exhibits 14A and ]4B and insert Exhibit ]4), in accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution and that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day 25th day of March, 1998 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Patty Davis, Chair Diana Vargas, Secretary H:\HOME\PLANNING\BEV\IN~LIEU\REPORTS\CONVD.RES PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item ...1;...3 Meeting Date 3/25/98 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-27; Amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan consisting of modification of the Planned Community District Regulations to modify the required sideyard setbacks and allowable floor area ratio in the RS Single Family land use districts- Fieldstone Communities Inc. The applicant proposes to amend the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan for the Sunbow II project (see Attachment I, Locator), The proposed amendments would change the required sideyard setbacks /Tom 13'/3' (minimum total/one side) to 10'/5', and would increase the allowable floor area ratio /Tom 50% to 55% in the RS Single Family land use district. The Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that the project is exempt trom environmental review under CEQA as a Class 5(a) exemption (minor alteration in land use), RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the CounciJ adopt the draft ordinance approving amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan and Planned Community District Regulations to modify the sideyard setbacks and floor area ratio in the RS Single Family land use district. ISSUES: * Proposed amendment would affect 1035 single family lots representing over 90% of the singJe famiJy homes planned in Sunbow II, * Proposed change would allow an additional 300 square feet ofbuiJding area on a typical 6,000 square foot Jot and would be consistent with other Planned Community areas, * Setbacks of 5'/5' are consistent with lots 6000 sq,ft. and lower; 10'/3' setback is typical of7,OOO sq, ft, lots. Page 2, Item ...1.- Meeting Date 3/25/98 DISCUSSION Site Characteristics The project site is the planned community ofSnnbow II. This planned community consists of 601 acres including 1946 dwelling units (single- and multi-family) on 340 acres, 11 acres of commercial and 46 acres of industrial land, an elementary school site, and approximately 200 acres of open space (see Zoning Districts Map, attached). The Sunbow II Tentative Map was originally approved in 1990, and was subsequently extended in 1993, Final maps were approved in 1997 for 330 single family residences within two neighborhoods; these properties were subsequently purchased by the applicant, Fieldstone Communities, Zoning and Land Use Zoning Land Use Site PC (Sunbow II Planned Community) Vacant, grading currently underway for residential North PC (Sunbow I), COP Single Family Residential, Sharp Hospital, and Medical Offices South R-l Single Family, Agricultural Single Family Residential, Landfill West R-l Single Family Greg Rogers Park; Single Family Residential; Schools East PC (Otay Ranch Planned Community) Vacant, future residential Proposal The proposed SPA amendments consist of the modification of the development standards contained in the Planned Community District Regulations. The proposed amendments apply to the RS Single Family land use district, and would change the sideyard setbacks /Tom 10' on one side and 3' on the other to 5' on each side; further, they would increase the maximum floor area ration /Tom 50% to 55%, The applicants have stated that these changes are necessary in order to provide a product that will be competitive with other area developments with respect to both layout and square footage. As noted, the applicant recently purchased an area within Sunbow II designated for approximately 330 single family residences; the applicant thus owns a relatively small portion of the RS zoned lands. However, Ayres Land Company, which owns the balance of the property within Sunbow II, Page 3, Item -L Meeting Date 3/25/98 has indicated concurrence with the proposal (see letter, attached). Analysis The RS land use district within Sunbow II encompasses 258 acres and a total of 1035 single family units, each of which would be subject to the new regulations. Staff has compared the requests with the standards developed for similar land use districts in other planned communities. With respect to the sideyard setbacks, the 5' on each side requested is found in a number of other areas including Rolling Hills Ranch, Eastlake, and Rancho del Rey. The 3' sideyard can present drainage issues, and although the minimum 10' sideyard on one side provides the opportunity for access to the rear, it was established for traditional single family lots developed at 7,000 sq,ft. and at a minimum width of 60', With a minimum lot width of 50' as in the case of Sunbow, meeting the existing setbacks of 10' and 3' results in a house width of 37'. With respect to the proposed increase in the allowable floor area ratio, staff has found that this request is consistent with the allowable floor area ratio in other plauned communities and is in keeping with other development standards, As a reminder, floor area ratio relates to building bulk limit, and is a ratio of the total building square footage (first and second floor combined) to the lot square footage, A 6,000 sq.ft. lot with a floor area ratio of 55% would be allowed a house size of 3,300 sq.ft. including garage, whereas a maximum 50% floor area ratio would allow 3,000 sq,ft. The following chart depicts the permitted floor area ratio in certain other planned communities, RS Land Use District: Sunbow II RDRI RDR II RDR III Rolling Hills (SF3) Minimum lot size 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Minimum average 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 n/a Minimum lot width 50 50 50 50 50 FAR 50% 50% * 55% * 55% * 60% Sideyard Setbacks 13/3 10/5 10/5 10/5 10/5 (minimum total/one side) * May be modified with Site Plan approval It should be noted that standards applicable to Eastlake are similar to those above, and were not presented in this table only because they are formatted differently (that is, they are presented as a maximum building square footage or a maximum lot percentage, whichever is greater), As evidenced by the preceeding chart, the proposed amendments would clearly be consistent with Page 4, Item ...L Meeting Date 3/25/98 the development standards utilized by a number of other planned communities within the City Conclusion The modifications requested would result in a residential product that would be commensurate with other products currently under construction with respect to 1ayout and square footage. Staff sees no negative impacts which could result trom the amendments requested, and therefore recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Sunbow II SPA Plan Planned Community District Regulations, in accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Draft City Council Ordinance 3. Locator 4. Zoning districts map 5, Letter ITom Ayres Land Co, 6, Disclosure Statement PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO, PCM-98-27 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN CONSISTING OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS REGARDING SIDEY ARD SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on January 30,1998 by Fieldstone Communities ("Developer"); and, WHEREAS, said application requests amendments to the Sunbow II Planned Community District Regulations to change the sideyard setbacks from 13'/3' (minimum total/one side) to 10'5', and to increase the allowable floor area ratio /Tom 50% to 55% in the RS Single Family Land Use District; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 5(a) exemption; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the proposed SPA plan amendments and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and it mailing to property owners and tenants within 500 feet ofthe exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p,m., March 25, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving the amendments to the Sunbow II SPA plan Planned Community District Regulations in accordance with the findings contained therein, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 25th day of March, 1998, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Patty Davis, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN CONSISTING OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS REGARDING SIDEYARD SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO WHEREAS, the area ofland which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is known as the planned community of Sunbow II ("Project site"), WHEREAS, on January 30, 1998 Fieldstone Communities ("Developer") filed a Sectional Planning Area plan amendment application with the Planning Department of the City ofChula Vista and requested approval of amendments to the SPA plan's Planned Community District Regulations to change the sideyard setbacks from 13'/3' (minimum total/one side) to 10'/5', and to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 50% to 55% in the RS Single Family Land Use District ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said project on March 25, 1998 and voted ( ) to recommend that the City Council approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said Sectional Planning Area Plan amendment application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place, namely April 14, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the Counci1 Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter c1osed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find and ordain as follows: SECTION I: That the proposed amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area plan are consistent with the development standards utilized in other planned communities, and are based upon sound planning principles, SECTION II: That the proposed amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area plan Planned Community District Regulations to allow sideyard setbacks of 10'/5' (minimum total/one side) and a floor area ratio of 55% in the RS Single Family Land Use District are hereby approved as depicted in Exhibit "B", attached hereto, SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be in fuB force and effect on the thirtieth day /Tom and after its second reading and adoption, Presented by Approved as to fonn by Robert A. Leiter Planning Director John Kaheny City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" OTAY \ RANCH 'y \\. ~ '\', ---- \ \"" \ ' "- '"...., \ ", ,. ",.'-, '\ ''I.----- '\ ''''~.~ -----------Z':--\ ,;~ '.\ ----\ ':.:::::::::: y--- '\~~ I ~ -\ PH LOC ECT ION I) " \ LC!) PROJECT SUNBOW APPUCANT: PROJECT South of Telegraph Canyon Road ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: MISCELLANEOUS Request: NORTH SCALE: ND Scale FILE NUMBER: PCM.98.27 h.\h"mc\nbnn;nn\,.::ulndlnf':;Itnrc:\nr"ma~?7::1 ,..rlr ~!1 n/QR EXHIBIT "B" 2.3 Properly Development Standards A, Genera] Standards: The followmg Property Development Standards shall apply to all land and buildings, other than accessory buildings, permitted in their respective residential land use district The use of the symbol "SP" indicates that the standard is established by the approvaJ of a Site Flan. Dimensions and standards are minimums. Minor vanahons may be permitted subject to site plan or tract map approvaJ providing that the depths are tvpicaJ minimums but may vary slightly with irregular shaped lots and site specific conditions. The parkmg standards for a planned Senior Citizen or "affordable" residential development ma\' be reduced from those specified herem for the distnc\ m which it is located at the ci1scretion of the City Council through the C. Li.P, procedure. 2. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENJ STANDARDS RS RP RM RC VC 1- Lot area (in net 000' s 5.0 3.5 SP SP SP S.F.) WllJ1imum 3. Ivlimmum average 6.0 4.0 Lot width (m feet) 50 40 SP SP SP minimum lVnnimum average 50 45 Lot depth (in feet) 90 70 SP SP SF minimum Lot Coverage 45/50" .50 SP SP SF (percentage) Floor Area Ratio ,W .55 .55 SP SP SP Front yard setback (from Public Sueet R.O.W.): - To direct entrv 15 15 SP SP SP garage - To side entry 10 10 SP SP SP garage (Rev. 12-18-89) 12 4. 5. 6, RS RP RM RC VC -~ D main resIdence 15 10 SP SP SP /, SIde vard setback: a. to acljacent ~ 10/5 10/5 SP SP SP resJdenhaJ lot (min totalj one side) ~. distimce 10 10 SP SP SP between detached TesJdentiaJ units c. to adjacent 10 10 SP SP SP street {comer lot) 8, F-.ear vard setbacl: 15 ' - **"' SP SP SP lJ 9, Building height. 28 28 SP SP SP maximUJ1l**** Accessory bldg., 15 15 SP SP SP maXlIDU1I1 10. Parking spaces per :? (gar.) 2 (gar.) 1.5 sri 1.5 sri unit + 1 +1 1 bdrm 1 bdrm guest on guest on unit 2 unit, 2 street street sp/:? sp/2 bdrm bdrm unit, 2.5 unit, 2.5 sp/3 sp/3 bdrm bdrm unit + unit + . Lots with a gTOSS area of Jess than 8,000 square feet shall have a lot coverage <trea of 50%, lots with a gross area greater than 8,000 square feet shall have a lot coverage area of 45 % . - Refer to Chu1a Vista Municipal Code 19.24.120 (Rev. 12-18-89) 13 LOCATOR , / , , \~\ DTAY \\, RANCH \ \' \,"~' \------- '--",,' , \ / \ \ ,.".,\~. " ',,' " , '\ " \ . \ ','- i '-, '{ , ,\ \,,,--- ----- , . \ ------------\ -k' )\ I,' ECT ION , , \ LC)OCATOR ~~~;k: SUNBOW PROJECT ADDRESS: South of Tele graph Canyon Road NORTH SCAlE: h Ih No ~_L_ FILE NUMBER: . nmClln! . ~ ~"'''ln''\'''::Il'"lnc~\I",...~+,.., , PCM-9B~27 "='\.,....,.,.,OP')7 .., ...-4~ ')1; nlnD PROJECT MISCCRlPTlON: ELLAN Request: EOUS ZONING DISTRICTS MAP . ,-\1 ..-' ,\ ~-' ~- - ,., \ \ "~-';<'; ) --.~-~ -, ~~;..:-~ ".' \ \ ','~'.;.' L~, \ . ~ -". \ " .-\--y : ~-C~,:~:~~~ <,-, ----:-/ ,-^ ',.' " " , I -, -"" .,~ ~ '.-:"',' . ~ -'---. --.-, l / \ , '- GRE<:'RS RoG~ , '.' p/>.RI< ", '.\ , ,,', ')\ ..~ \,~ /; \ -":;:.\ ~ C'_.,,.,. :..~,::\\~ ^ ' . .... ; ':'-. ~ \-\\ -- r_, ~ '.....:r,.;. ...- > , --- :.JC ___'(.,j ,.-:,,-- - . j ,- , ' , i~'-~ , ',/4, '__. '-, -' - -,--'n___ -, - --: ,'.,.' ~ .-~-~..--:-.~-.,-~/ -: .~'-:--:. J~-'." , - " ..... ,". - - ......:--:~.,..., - >: '-..-' - - -- ~.~-,.. .,~. , '<,~:~~ . -' -- -- :..-; ; ,--- ---/ ''-,-,",\'r.>~ ~. :; ,~ .~~)~ BOW 1\ 'fR\C'fS svN l1SE DIS LA~D ..-:, - /~'t~:'-=' . :- ~ c:::=:_ __ ~ / '----- .' ,~ - -', ,\ -- - LETTER - AYRES LAND COMPANY AYRES Land Company 1.;/""" : Ir,.~ ... "- March 9, 1998 ~, \ - , \. - ,. VL<\ FAX 619/691-5171 Ms, Patty Nevins Planning Department CITY OF CHULA VISTA '276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista. CA 91910 RE: SUNBOW Dear Ms, Nevins: This Jetter will certifY that ACI Sunbow, LLC agrees to Fieldstone's request to modifY Planned Community District regulations by modifYing Sunbow's side yard setback to 5/J 0 feet and allowing a 55% floor area ratio. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 619/544-9100. Sincerely, ACJ SUNBOW, LLC, a California limited Iiability company By: AYRES LAND COMPANY, INC., a California corporation By: j0Jf M~ Wi11iam R. Hamlin Principal WRH.lJ 344 "Th cc: Anna Scott / Fieldstone 7511 B Street. Suite 2370 San Dj~o. CA 92101 16191 544-9100 1619, ~ FAX DISCLOSURE STATEMENT --~-. --.- THE :>F CHULA VISTA DISClDSURE ' MENT You arc required to file a Statcment or Disclosure of certain ownership or financial inlerc..<.;ts, payments, or campaign contrihutions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies, The following in[ormalion must bc dIscloscd. 1. List the names of all pcrsons having a financial inlercsl in the property which is the subJecl of the application or the conlract, e,g., owner, applicant, contraclOr, subcontractor, matenal supplier. FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES, INC. 5465 MOREHOUSE DRIVE, SUITE 250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 o If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporal ion or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of Ihc shares in the corporal ion or owning any partnership lnleresl in Ihe partnership, PETER OCHS - FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES. INC. KEITH A. JOHNSON-FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES, INC. 3. If any person' idenlified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organiZ2lion or a Irust, lisl the names of any person serving as director of the non-profil organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. N/A 4. Have you bad more than S2S0 worth of business transacted with any member of the City 5laff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within Ihe past twelve months" Ycs_ No.xx... If yes, please indicate person(s): 5, Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in thIS matter. JIM HANSEN-FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES, INC. ANNA SCOTT-FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES, INC. DAVID DENNIG-FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES, INC. 6, Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contribuled more than SI,CXXJ to a Couneilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes_ No-XX If yes, state which Couneilmember(s): , , , (NOTE: Attach additional pages as n=ry) . , , ,7 (a..9">~ Signature of contractor, 'pplicant Date: JANUARY 29, 1998 ANNA I srnn Print or type name of contractor/applicant *' Persoll is defincd as: "AllY illdil'ld.i.J.al, finn, co.part!lf:rship, joilll \'Gltu.rc. Q.J.SOCatlOlJ.., social clu.b, jrau:ma} organization, corporatlQll.., eslate, trIJ.SI, frceiva, syndicate, !his alia OllY other eOu.IIl)', city alld coww)', Clt)' mLl.IJlcipaliry, disuic!, or utiu:r political SIJ.bdil'isiofl, or all)' olhcr grOLl.p or combinalion acting as a wuL"