HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 1998/01/14
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
7:00 p.m.
Wednesdav. January 14. 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.
ACTION ITEM:
PCM-98-23; Density Bonus for Trolley Terrace - South
Bay Community Services
2.
PUBLIC HEARING;
PCM-98-02; Proposal to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One
Planned Community District Regulations Part III, Section
II, Table III-3 to allow market flexibility in detenTIining the
provision of Hollywood Driveways - Otay Ranch Company
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCS-98-02; Tentative Subdivision Map for the EastLake
Greens Parcel R-16, Chula Vista Tract 98-02, involving 60
single family and 3 open space lots on 10.89 acres located
on the north side of South Greensview Drive west of Hunte
Parkway - The EastLake Company
Agenda
-2-
January 14, 1998
4.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCS-98-03; Tentative Subdivision Map for the EastLake
Greens Parcel R-lO, Chula Vista Tract 98-03, involving
231 single family and 5 open space lots on 34.28 acres
located on the south side of South Greensview Drive west
of Hunte Parkway - The EastLake Company
5. Update on Council Items
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
p.m. to the Dinner Workshop Meeting of January 21, 1998, at
5:30 p.m. in Conference Room 5, and to the Regular Planning
Commission on Wednesday, January 28, 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
meetinKS and five days in advance for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Argas
for specitic 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: 01/14/98
ITEM TITLE:
Action Item: PCM-98-23 - Density Bonus for Trolley Terrace Townhomes
- South Bay Community Services
Resolution No. PCM-98-23 - A Resolution of the City of Chula Vista
Planning Commission recommending that the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Chula Vista grant a density bonus to South Bay Community
Services to allow the construction of a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling
units for the residential development located at 750 Ada Street
Resolution No. _ - A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Chula Vista granting a density bonus to South Bay Community
Services to allow the construction of a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling
units for a residential project proposed to be located at 750 Ada street
As part of their project to establish an 18-unit affordable housing project in the vicinity of the
Palomar Station Trolley Stop, South Bay Community Services is requesting the State-allowed
density bonus. The density bonus must be approved by the Redevelopment Agency, after a
recommendation from the Planning Commission. State law does not require a public hearing in
order for a recommendation to be given or for a final decision to be made by the Redevelopment
Agency on the density bonus.
The Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the subject density bonus is exempt from
environmental review pursuant to Section 21080.14 of the Public Resources Code.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend that the Redevelopment
Agency approve the request for a density bonus pursuant to the attached draft Redevelopment
Agency Resolution of Approval.
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The Project Site is located at the northwest corner of Ada Street and Industrial Boulevard.
generally across the street from the Palomar Trolley Stop. The parcels are, at present, vacant,
but were previously occupied by detached single family dwellings. The general area is
characterized by transitioning housing types with a mixture of detached single family dwellings.
Page No.2, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 01/14/98
2. General Plan Zonin~ and Land Use
West
General Plan
Res.Low/Med (3-6 du/ac)
Res.Low/Med (3-6 du/ac)
Res. Low/Med (3-6 du/ac)
Open Space &
Public/Q public
Res. Low/Med (3-6 du/ac)
Zoninii:
R-2P
R-2P
R-2P
Land Use
Vacant
Residential
Residential
Site
North
South
East
S-94 (County) Trolley Stop/SDG&E ROW
R-2P Residential
3. Proposal
The Applicant, South Bay Community Services. is applying for a State- and City-allowed density
bonus permitted under provisions found in Planning and Zoning Law. Section 65915 and the
Housing Element. Brietly, the State allows 25 % increase is allowed over the maximum density
for affordable housing projects, whereas the General Plan allows a bonus generally equal to the
number of low and moderate income housing units provided by the developer (pg. 4-8, Sect. 3).
The overall site is 1.59 acres while the area to be used for residential purposes is 1.23 acres. The
remainder of the project site, located thoward the east, is proposed to be used as a day care
facility.
4. Analysis
Provisions in the General Plan's Housing Element require that "the number of housing units
constituent to a density bonus granted by the City shall generally equal the number of low and
moderate income housing units provided by the developer" (Pg. 4-8, Section 3.3 para. 4). The
Applicant is poposing to construct nine affordable units, and the City is allowing an additional
nine units for a total of 18. In addition. given that the project site is 1.59 acres with a normal
General Plan yield of 9.54 dwellings, the Applicant could have 19.18 dwellings. however, only
18 are being proposed and these are being grouped on the 1.23 acre residential portion of the
project allowed under the provisions of the State law as an incentive, as well as other incentives
as listed below.
This site is ideal for this type of development due to several reasons. There is:
1. Easy freeway access at Palomar Avenue and 1-5.
2. The Palomar Trolley Stop across Industrial Boulevard from the Projec Site.
3. Shopping nearby immediately to the east of the Palomar Trolley Stop.
4. An elementary school approximately 2.000 feet to the north.
5. A day care proposed for the site immediately to the east of the residential development.
Page No.3, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 01/14/98
General Plan Implementation
The Housing Element of the General Plan speaks directly to affordable housing. Goal 1, Section
2.3 calls for the balanced community concept that recognizes that ethnic, social and economic
enclaves, are inconsistent with the democratic principles of our country. The City, therefore,
encourages its citizens and builders to avoid the establishment of ghettoes herein, and to support
the development of neighborhoods which provide housing for people form all economic classes,
racial stocks and age groups. Section 3.3 and most goals listed in that section speak directly to
providing affordable housing types for the entire spectrum of income levels.
In addition, this project implements provisions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Section 6.2. Clustering of Residential Development, is implemented in that the project is clustered
on one portion of the Project Site in order to provide enough space for a day care facility, yet the
development will retain a duplex look in keeping with the R-2 zoning district.
Trolley Terrace Townhomes' Justification for Density Bonus
Affordable housing for large families of low income is a priority need identified in our Housing
Element. In support of the balanced community concept (Section 2.3, para. 1). the proposed
project is a unique and well planned and conforms with the goals of the General Plan's Housing
Element and State law.
Almost all family housing produced in Chula Vista are not truly affordable to large families of low
income. According to the 1990 Census data, 14% of our City's households were large families
of five or more persons with 38 % of them renting. Local social service providers have testified
that large families have the most difficult time finding affordable housing.
Trolley Terrace complies with two top priorities set out in our Consolidated Plan. These two top
priorities are 1) Continue to implement the City's Affordable Housing Program so that more
newly constructed rental and for sale units are made available to low, moderate and middle income
households with high priority given to very low and low income families: and 2) Continue to
support non-profit corporations to develop or rehabilitate rental housing for very low and low
income households. Beyond filling these goals, the project targets large families. which is a
priority need addressed in our Housing Element.
Trolley Terrace is an important inroad to making quality affordable housing available in the older
part of our city and will help revitalize the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, it has strong
community and political support, it is compatible with the neighborhood image and will be a
catalyst for physical improvement and investment in that area. It is consistent with the general
plan and will be a new model for future developments in our City. We have full confidence in
all the players and want to encourage such partnerships to achieve our affordable housing goals.
Page No.4, Item: I
Meeting Date: 01/14/98
Trolley Terrace will facilitate the City's efforts to meet the City's fair share and regional share
of affordable housing units. Implementation of the density bonus on this project will contribute
compliance with housing element law as well as density bonus law.
Basis for Eligibility
Trolley Terrace exceeds the five unit minimum by providing 18 units.
Trolley Terrace will qualify household incomes and set maximum rents according to HUD, TCAC
and HOME requirements for very low income, which all meet the State law requirements.
Trolley Terrace exceeds the required 10% of total units for very low income households or 20%
of total units for lower income households, by providing 100% of the total units for very low
income households.
Trolley Terrace also exceeds the required 30 years of affordability if both density bonus and
additional concessions are granted, by providing 55 years of affordability,
Trolley Terrace has a Disposition and Development Agreement with the City of Chula Vista
binding the property to the affordability covenants if ever sold or transferred,
Additional Incentives Given to Trolley Terrace Townhomes
According to State law, each jurisdiction must specify which of the three following types of
developer incentives will be provided. These three are:
1) Modify Development Standards
Incentive: The City waived development standards for this project by not requiring
implementation of Section 19.26.120 of the Municipal Code which requires a minimum
of 75 % of the parking accommodations in R-2 zoning to be in the form of garages. of
which 50% would be 2 car garages. This requirement was substituted by allow the use of
thirty-six parking spaces under covered carports.
2) Permit Mixed-Use Zoning within Housing Development
Incentive: As mentioned earlier in this report, the overall project includes two components:
Residential and day care, As an additional incentive. the density that would normally have
been allowed on the day care portion of the project is being added to the res idential portion
in order to increase the over unit yield.
Page No.5, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 01114/98
3) Allow Other Regulatory Incentives
Incentive: Under Other Regulatory Incentives the use of public financing is one
permissible inducement. For this project, the City of Chula Vista has contributed
$523,965 in HOME funds in the form of a low interest loan (3 %) payable in 55 years from
residual receipts. The City also provided the funds to buy the land, $372,940. payable in
55 years at 3 % from residual receipts. The total City financial contribution equals
$896,905. This financial incentive contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of
the project.
5. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing. staff has concluded that the Project implements the Land Use and Housing
Elements of General Plan and conforms with State law related to density bonus.
Attachments
t. Commission anu Draft Agency Resolutions
2. Loeator Map
(h :\hom\:\planning\martiltltrollcyIYX23pc_llJ{)
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-98-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANT A DENSITY BONUS TO SOUTH
BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
MAXIMUM OF EIGHTEEN (18) DWELLING UNITS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 750 ADA STREET
WHEREAS, a duly verified application, PCM-98-23, for a density bonus was
filed with the Chula Vista Planning Department on December 18, 1997 by South Bay
Community Services ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, Project property consists of approximately 1.6 acres of land and
is located at 750 Ada Street, Chula Vista (the northwest corner of Ada Street and
Industrial Boulevard) in the City of Chula Vista, as diagrammatically presented on the
area map attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Site"); and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the subject
density bonus is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 21080.14
of the Public Resources Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has provided adequate incentives, as listed
in the staff report on this matter, to the Applicant in order to balance the financial
feasibility of the affordable housing project with the usual amenities found in a
development of this type.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission hereby determines that the density bonus
implements the City of Chula Vista General Plan, that the public necessity,
convenience and general welfare and good zoning practice support the density bonus,
that the approval of a density bonus is consistant with State law related thereto and
that the granting of said density bonus does not adversely affect the order, amenity,
or stability of adjacent land uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the Redevelopmnet Agency adopt a resolution granting the requested density
bonus to allow the construciton of a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units for the
residential project located at 750 Ada Street, Chula Vista.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property
and the Redevelopment Agency.
H :\llOME\PLANNINt ;\M A RTIN\TRO[J ,EY\Q,,\23P('. RES
Resolution No. PCM-98-23
..!:~.fL~.~~.?
"....M....W.....,.......~...~...~........~..w."'............~.w.w.w.....................w.w.......w.....w.w.w.w.w.....w.w...............w.......w....~...w>>....;..w~..;.~..;.~..;.;...;.>..;.;..';...,...,...;.;...;.;...;.....;.;.;."'.,."...."....;.....;.;.:.....;.....:...:.:~.:.,...:w:...;w..;".i'...."w.....w
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of January 1998 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Patty Davis, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
I I :\1 IOME\PLANNINf'i\MARTIN\TROI.l.EYWii23P('. RES
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING A DENSITY BONUS TO SOUTH BAY
COMMUNITY SERVICES TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
MAXIMUM OF EIGHTEEN (18) DWELLING UNITS FOR A RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 750 ADA STREET
A. RECITALS
1. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general
description herein consists of approximately 1.6 acres of land located at
750 Ada Street, Chula Vista ( Project Site ); and
2. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, a duly verified application, PCM-98-23, for a density bonus
was filed with the Chula Vista Planning Department on December 18,
1997 by South Bay Community Services ( Applicant); and
3. Project Description
WHEREAS, said application requested a density bonus to a residential
development project to allow the construction of eighteen (18) dwelling
units ( Project); and
4. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on January
14, 1998 at which time the Planning Commission voted _ to _
adopting Resolution No. PCM-98-23 recommending that the
Redevelopment Agency approve the Project in accordance with this
Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. ; and
WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the
Commission has determined that the Project is consistent with the City
of Chula Vista General Plan and that public necessity, convenience, and
good zoning practice support the amendment, and implements portions
of State related to density bonus and that the granting of said density
h:\hom~\pII1Llllllll! Imartinltrolley\<';X23cc. res
R!:_S.21!d,!.,i,2D"!:::!S~.,:"",,,.,.,.,.,.,,,.,.,.,,,.,,,.,,,'''''''''",''''''''..,.,.,.mm''..m.'''.''''.'''''''''.'''''''.',..W.,.,...W.W,v......'W.'.M."w....,.,..w".'.m.w..'.m.......w.,.....w..m.'._....w.v...~,~.E..~,,!..v?
bonus does not adversely affect the order, amenity. or stability of
adjacent land uses; and
5. Redevelopment Agency Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
considered the density bonus on January 27, 1998 and weighed the
recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
6. Incentives Provided
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has provided adequate incentives, as
listed in the staff report on this matter, to the Applicant in order to
balance the financial feasibility of the affordable housing project with the
usual amenities found in a development of this type.
NOW, THEREFORE the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows:
B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their meeting on this project held on January 14. 1998 and the
minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the
record of this proceeding.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the subject density
bonus is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 21080.14 of
the Public Resources Code.
D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEOA
The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that the environmental
determination of the Environmental Review Coordinator was reached in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista.
h:\home\plallllllll!\maltm\tlolky\':IX23l:<':. n;s
Resolution No.
_..........~.....w.............w.w.......................w...........'~.'.'~.'~.'.'~.'....
................~.............w.w.........~................w....~.w.~.~....~.w.~.
;'.';';'.';';'.';';'.';';'.';';'.~';',",'M';"
.........w...,..,.w.w.,....,.."w.!:,~g~,!.~
E. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDINGS
The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that the density bonus implements
the City of Chula Vista General Plan, that the public necessity, convenience
and general welfare and good zoning practice support the density bonus, that
the approval of a density bonus is consistent with State law related thereto and
that the granting of said density bonus does not adversely affect the order,
amenity, or stability of adjacent land uses.
F. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVAL
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the
requested density bonus and authorizes the construction of a maximum of
eighteen (18) dwelling units at 750 Ada Street, Chula Vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Ken Lee
Director of Planning (Acting)
John Kaheny
City Attorney
h:\hum!.:\pJalUlIIi,I1 Imat1inltrolleylYXlJl:C. rc~
,~
-
--
SF
PROJECT
LOCATION
---.--
\ r-
GEORGANNA
TRAILER PARK
--------- "-
SF
TF
SF SF
TROLLEY TERRACE
TOWNHOMES
SF
ADA STREET
SF --- --,
SF
SF
SF SF
SF
ffip ·
I ~-----,----
SF
"-.
'--,
------------
--.
'---L_
n J_~_
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT Trolley Terrace Townhomes PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: DESIGN REVIEW
PROJECT 750 Ada Street Request: Proposal for an 18 un~ affordable housing
ADDRESS: project In the R.2 (One & Two Family Residence) Zone.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: Density Bonus.
l NORTH No SeaIB DRC-98-14/ PCM-98-23
h:\homB\planning\carlos~ocators\drc9814.cdr 1 (7/98
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
2
Meeting Date: 1/14/98
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM 98-02- Proposal to amend the Otay Ranch SPA
One Planned Community District Regulations Part III, Section II, Tab]e IIl-
3 to allow market tlexibi]ity in determining the provision of Hollywood
Driveways.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Reso]ution 98-02 recommending that the City Council deny
the applicants' request to amend the Hollywood Driveway requirement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None
BACKGROUND:
1. GDP/SPA Approval/Current Planned Community District Re~ulations (PC Re~s)
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) was approved jointly
by the City and County in October ]993. The GDP/SRP describes the Village Concept which
encourages villages designed for people, with inviting pedestrian-accessible public spaces (page
7). The GDP also states that land uses, roads and buildings shall be designed and located to
encourage walking between uses and foster a pedestrian scale (page 95).
The Otay Ranch SPA One Plan was approved by the Chula Vista City Council on June 4, ]996
and implements the goals and principles set forth in the GDP/SRP by encouraging pedestrian
friendly designs such as:
. Alley product types with vehicular access from the rear of the lot off of an alley which
serves to minimize vehicular intrusion onto residential streets
. Landscaped parkways on the mqiority of local residential streets with a 6-foot parkway and
a 4-foot sidewalk
. Paseos which provide separate pedestrian bicycle and cart access
· Hollywood Driveways which limit the width of driveways at the street frontage, provide
a landscaped strip between two ribbons of concrete and place the garage behind the house.
The requirement for Hollywood Driveways in the PC District Regulations for Dtay Ranch SPA
One is contained in a footnote to the setback requirements and originally read as follows:
Page 2, Item: L
Meeting Date: 1114/98
A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 55 feet wide and 105 feet
deep shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a Hollywood driveway.
2. Previous Amendment to PC District Regulations
During the processing of PCS 97-02, the McMillin Companies tentative map for Otay Ranch, they
expressed concern regarding the marketability of the Hollywood Driveway concept. On June 3,
1997 the City Council approved the map along with the following changes to the PC Regulations,
as noted in bold:
A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 60 feet wide by 110 feet
deep (pads) shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a Hollywood Driveway (see
Village Design Plan). However, for Neighborhood R-11 the model homes shall include at least
one model with the option of being sited and constructed with the Hollywood Driveway
concept and the minimmn percentage to be constructed in Neighborhood R-11 shall be
detennined by market conditions.
Essentially, this amendment exempted Neighborhood R-24 (138 lots, of which only 12 met the
criteria for provision of the Hollywood Driveway) from the requirement. The amendment also
required only the provision of a Hollywood Driveway on one of the four models in Neighborhood
R-ll. This results in a maximum of 31 Hollywood Driveways in Neighborhood R-ll.
Additionally, the potential exists that Hollywood Driveways will not be constructed at all if the
developer determines the concept is not marketable.
3. Villal!e Develooment Oril!inal Request
At the June 17, 1997 City Council hearing, the above noted amendments to the PC Regulations
were introduced. At that meeting, representatives of Otay Ranch Company requested that the
same market t1exibility apply to their portion of SPA One and include their portion of the
tentative map. Mr. Aden stated that the tlexibility should not apply to one developer only within
the same project. The City Manager recommended that the ordinance not be amended for Village
Development without analysis by staff. The City Attorney also indicated that there was no
evidence presented during the Council public hearing for SPA wide implementation of the market
t1exibility provisions. The Council determined that the amendment should only apply to
McMillin's property since it is pursuant to their application for an amendment to the SPA One
Plan.
At the meeting, Councilman Rindone requested that staff return to the Council with a report
addressing the lot width criteria for the Hollywood driveways in relation to the 50 foot wide lots
within the older existing neighborhoods in Chula Vista. This report was presented to the City
Council on July 22, 1997 and is attached as Exhibit 7. The report concludes that utilizing a 50
foot wide lot to achieve the Hollywood Driveway would necessitate the creation of a lot deeper
than 110 feet.
Page 3, Item: --'-
Meeting Date: 1/14/98
DISCUSSION:
1. Proposal
The applicant, Otay Ranch Company, is requesting the same market flexibility in relation to the
provision of Hollywood Driveways that was applied to the McMillin project. The applicant's
proposal essentially would apply the same standard that had been previously applied to McMillin's
project on a SPA-wide basis. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the following amendment:
!~.j).'\i~iji\&'iMi'!f~Q%~fifu( g~!'Aj!,;:,~ Gara!!:es for on housing located on lots at least 60 feet wide
by 110 deep (pads) shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a Hollywood
Driveway (see Village Design Plan) as follows: I~'\'~';ii)t,]~i~ffii!'h~i!il~!1~~Jlt1*, The
model homes shall include at least one model with the option of being sited and constructed with
the Hollywood Driveway concept and the minimum percentage to be constructedH\
~igli~6t~,ij~n shall be determined by market conditions.
2. Analysis
The original requirement in the PC District Regulations would have applied to the following
neighborhoods within Otay Ranch Company's portion of SPA One:
VILLAGE ONE
Neighborhood Lot Size # of Lots 30% of Total
R-4 55 x 105' 94 28
R-7 60 x 110' 133 40
R-10 55 x 105' 116 35
SUBTOTAL:
343
103
VILLAGE FIVE
Neighborhood Lot Size # of Lots 30% of Total
R-25 60 x 110' 63 19
R-26 55 x 105' 70 21
R-33 55 x 105' 47 14
R-34 55 x 105' 35 10
R-35 60 x 110' 36 11
SUBTOTAL:
TOTAL:
251
594
75
178
Page 4, Item: ---2-
Meeting Date: 1/14/98
The original SPA Plan requirements would have required a mInImum of 178 Hollywood
Driveways throughout Otay Ranch Company's Tentative Map.
The current proposal would exclude the following neighborhoods from the Hollywood Driveway
requirement: R-4 (94 lots), R-IO (116 lots), R-26 (70 lots), R-23 (47 lots) and R-34 (35 lots).
With the current proposal the maximum number of Hollywood Driveways within the SPA would
be 58 as indicated below:
Neighborhood Lot Size # of Lots 25 % of Total
R-7 60 x 110' 133 33
VILLAGE ONE
Neighborhood Lot Size # of Lots 25 % of Total
R-25 60 x 110' 63 16
R-35 60 x 110' 36 9
VILLAGE FIVE
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
99
232
25
58
It should also be noted that as with the McMillin amendment, if the developer determines that
Hollywood Driveways are not marketable, it is possible that none will be provided.
3. Conclusion
While staff is cognizant of the equity issue between McMillin Companies and the Otay Ranch
Company, there is still a strong concern that the neo-traditional concepts of the GDP and SPA One
Plan are being diluted, before they have an opportunity to be tested. Staff is also concerned with
the fact that it is in the developer's sole discretion to determine the success of the Hollywood
Driveways marketability.
Staff would point out to the Planning Commission that another developer (Pacific Bay Homes) is
voluntarily plotting approximately 20 homes with Hollywood Driveways out of 100 units. They
recently processed a variance application to encroach into the side yard set back to allow for posts
for the driveway entry trellis. They have decided that the street scape provided with this type of
unit is much more pedestrian friendly and prefer that garages not dominate the streetscape. If the
first phase is successful, they have indicated they will plot additional units in the future.
A;\PCl14.DOC
Page 5, Item: ~
Meeting Date: 1/14/98
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Letters from Otay Ranch Company
3. Locator Map
4. Minutes of June 3. 1997 City Council meeting
5. Minutes ofJune 17. 1997 City Council meeting
6 Minutes of July 22, 1997 City Council meeting
7. July 22 City Council Informational Report
8. Map of SPA One Neighborhoods
9. Disclosure Statement
A:\PCl14.DOC
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-98-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE OTAY RANCH PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULA nONS
WHEREAS, a duly verified application, PCM-98-02, for a Miscellaneous Amendment
("Project") was filed with the Chula Vista Planning Department on July 15, 1997 by the Otay Ranch
Company ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, said application requested the amendment of the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations, Part III, Section II, Table III-3 to allow market flexibility in
determining the provision of Hollywood Driveways; and,
WHEREAS, these Planned Community District Regulations are established pursuant to Title
19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 19 48 Planned Community (PC) Zone,
and are applicable to the Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan of the SPA Plan, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a 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 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m. on
January 14, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
said hearing 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 Section 15061 (b) (3)
"General Rule" that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant
effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that the proposed project has no
possibility of having a significant effect on the environment and therefore is not subject to CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the Planning
Commission, the Commission has detennined that the amendment to the Planned Community District
Regulations is not consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan/Subregional Plan regarding the pedestrian orientation described under the Village
Concept; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that
the City Council deny the proposal to amend the Planned Community District Regulations, in
accordance with the attached draft City Council Ordinance and that a copy of this resolution be
transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council.
Resolution No. PCM-98-02
'"" " """_.......'....~--~~...........
p~~~, f/.,~
'~:ll" "''''''''' """""""WIIMII'I!>___.."'.."'""..,,"",....,<tI',....'w"""'_&.:
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of January 1998 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN.
Patty Davis, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
H:\HOME\PLANNING\BEV\9802PC RES
~ '37 10: ~,,;~r1 VILLRGE IE/ELCJPr1t:rn
r'.2/2
"Village
DEVELOPMENT
QWIJIif).' ""uta ph;lnnf'd '~rnmw.l1ltic.r &/n~ 1974
July 3, 1997
Mr. Bob Leiter
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Amendl1renJ to Dtay Ranch Sectional PUz1l1lmg Area One
Plallned Commllllity District ReglllatiollS
Dear Bob:
Village Development would like to request the following amendment to the Planned Conununity
District Regulations for Otay Ranch SPA One. The standards that were recently adopted for
Neighborhood R.l1 should be appropriately applied to all affected parcels within SPA One.
A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 60 feet wide by 110 deep
(Pads) shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a "Hollywood" driveway (see
Village Design Plan). Ii8\.!I!\'BF, far }Jeighee.hl3eQ R 11,. *Ihe model homes shall include at
least one model with the option of being sited and constructed with the "Hollywood" driveway
concept and the minimlml percentage to be constructed in ~Jeigk8BFh.eeQ R 11 shall be
determined by market conditions.
We will follow up with the required deposit and application necessary to achieve the above
amendment.
Sincerely,
VILLA E DEVELOPMENT
.,;."
, \.
"
'.
. ..\.
. . ~.. J':' :. .' ~ ;-,
Kent Aaen
Vice President
/,.,.", ;~~.: '. T
, .
KA:ash
:; ;':'\::::"; ,
'I ""
: '., ~.:: : ~:",..
C:\x.n!\1997/Bob Leiter
07/03/97
r- ~
, '
,
....J
.< "'
1197 S El C;>.tninn Rc:l,I, S\.\ltc 100;. . 5.m Dit!:f!:o, CA 92130
.". :' .~
..'
d'
Tcl. 1j.1 $I~l59-l$lH. 1'11.,., 61 !I-259-1-364.
E)<h ibit. j.
\@@@O0'~ i
'.\ '-~--'----;'II"
\' JUl I 0937 III:,
uL 0ij
Village
DEVELOPMENT
Qllahry nlaslcr r/'lIll7cd C0ll1117UlllflCS Sll1C, j 974
July 8, 1997
;\11-. Rick Rosaler
Planning Department
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Rick:
Enclosed is an application for an amendment to the SPA One Planned Community
District Regulations. The proposed amendment applies the language related to
Hollywood driveways approved by the City Council on June 17, 1997 to the entire SPA
One area.
As we have previously discussed, Village Development needs the flexibility to respond to
market conditions related to the demand for Hollywood driveways on appropriately sized
lots throughout our ownership. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
either me or Kent Aden.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Y1~~
Ranie L. Hunter
Assistant Proj ect Manager
Enclosure
] 1975 El Camillo Real, Suite J O-!- . San D!ego, C':'" "':: 1,0
Td (,19-259-2934' Fax t>lCl-2S9-43h..
:t -I
~
-.
;:>
-"-.,
,Vv-K- )..J.z I i
,,-- ;> '--~
....--.. :. { " '.J
I. I' ,
,-
(f)
AJ
.....
,~
LEGEND \
_ AREA OF AMENOMENT \
\
.
/
CHULA VISTA PLANNING
LOCATOR PROJECT The OIay Ranch, l.P.
e) APPLICANT:
:g~~~. So. of T.C.R. between
. Paseo Ranchero & SR125
SCALE:
No Scale
DEPARTMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
AMENDMENT
NORTH
FILE NUMBER:
PCM-98-02
Request: Amendment to PC (Planned Community) District
Regulations for Hollywood Driveways.
f'xH' ~I-r ~
h:\home\planning\carfos~ocators\pcm9802.cdr 7/31/97
· Emerald Randolf, 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista, Dir or of the C.A.s.T. program. announced that
on June 25, tbey will be baving a CAST Chula Vista Day at t new \\'h,te Canyon Water Park. She sUited that
special coupons worth $5.00 were available. It was their . or fund raiser for the year; they wiJJ get a percentage
of what the Water Park will get for the day.
!\1inute:s
June 3. 1997
P<.!ge 3
1,
,
.,.
.I
· Mary Quartiano. 4080 Hancock Street. .; 4311. San Diego. 91110. representing the Revolting Grandmas.
r~uested that the City Council pass a reso!uti in support of deploying the CalifornIa National Guard troops along
the border regions of San Diego County send it to Governor \Vilson.
· Muriel Watson, 3110 rson Street, Bonita, 91901. Founder of Light Up the Border. sUited that tbere
are a Dumber of families of der Patrol Agents who are now under great jeopardy as a result of intelligence
passed forward that Borde atrol Agents are now prime targds for the drug smugglers. She urged Council to come
up with a resolution t will match those by other cities.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIO"S AND ORDI!\"ANCES
--""T
,
9.A. PUBLIC HEARING POI 97-10: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMEI\'D~fENT TO THE OTAY
RANCH SPA ONE PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 1,]10 ACRES SOUTH OF
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN .PASEO RANCHERO AND THE FUTURE SR-125
ALIGI\'MENT - McMillin has submitted an amendment and lentalive map for the portion of SPA One owned by
WCLF to subdivide 290 acres creating 1.877 residential units in Villages One and Five. The SPA Amendment
proposes deleting Pedestrian Park P-5 and Santa Delphina A venue as a promendale street in Neighhorhood R-II
of Village One. SUlff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 18685 ADOPTING THE THIRD ADDEI\'DU~I TO THE FL"IAL SECOI\'D-TIER
ENVIRONMEI\TAL IMPACT REPORT (FEfR 95-0]) FOR THE OTA Y RANCH SECTION PLANNING
AREA (SPA) OJl.'E PLAN AI\'D APPROVL'\G AN A~rEND~IENT PCM 97-20 TO THE OT A Y RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) O:\'E PLAN. I~IPOSING CONDITIONS ON WHICH INCLUDES
THE OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN. PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
A-"'D SUPPORTING DOCUMEI\TS, PARKS. RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN,
REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGHIENT PLAN AN'D SUPPORTING
PLANS, NON-REI'.'EWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN. RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PLAN, SPA 01\'E AFFORDABLE HOUSLNG PLAN AI\'D THE GEOTECHNICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
B. PUBLIC HEARING PCS 97-02: CONSIDERATION OF A TENT A TlVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
290 ACRES OF THE OTAY RANCH SPA 01\'E, TRACT 97-02, GENERALLY LOCATED OFF THE
SOuTHERN EXTENSION OF OT A Y LAr..TS ROAD SOUTH OF TELEGRAPH CA1\YON ROAD
RESOLUTION 18686 ADOPTL'\G THE THIRD ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL
ENVIRONMEI\TAL IMPACT REPORT FEfR 95-01 (SCH #95021012) AND APPROVING A TENTATI\'E
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PORTIONS OF THE OT A Y RANCH SPA ONE, TRACT 97-02, AND MAKING
I\'ECESSARY F1Jo\'DINGS i
CouDcilmember Moot stated he needed to excuse himsdfbccaus~ this involved McMillin, and they were clients of
bis company.
Rick Rosaler. Senior Plann~r, presenld..! the staff report anu stated that the arrlication hy McMillin has heen
reviewed by sUiff and the Planning Commission ami IS recommended for arrrm'al. The application has heen found
consistent with the SPA Plan e.xcept for the two amt:ndll1~nts which are proposed. The tent<ltivc mar proposes 52?
E.xt\ibi+ 4
Minutt:s
June 3. 1997
Pag::: 4
single family residential lots, 1350 multi family units in the Village 5 core with a ] 0 acre elementary school. 15
acres for parks, 3.3 acres of commercial land us~s, and 8 acres for Community Purpose Faciljti~s.
CouDcilmember RiDdone stated that if SDG&E was proposing to put their utility box under the sidewalk and it
would necessitate an easement b:::hind that for access, why would it not he proposed to he at the other end of the
sidewalk so that the ea..<:;ement would be the parkway.
Cliff Swanson. City Engineer. stated that the existing conditIOn. the way the utilities are put in the trenches right
now, you will s=e on the outer edge und:::r the monolithic sidewalk, is the utility trench. That is where the electrical
and cable TV go. Then they have the transfonner ped~stals hehiml the sidewalk hut still within the strut right-of-
way. In Dormal situations, they also have a street tree t'2Sement there. On this particular project, the utilities will
still be in the trench under the sidewalk. SDG&E is concerned ahout putting the transformer hox within the
park."way because of the proximity to the traffic and the damage that would he done if a car were to hit it. That is
wby SDG&E wants a specific easem-:::nf behind it. The transformers would he put in place with walls around it,
so that tbe property owners would recognize it, and It could share [h<ll common trcnl:h wIth the other utilities and
the easement for the str~t trees.
This being the time and place as advertis~d. the puhllc hearing \....a5 op:::neli. :~ddressin~ Council were::
. Pat Barnes, repres:::nting SDG&E, stated that in some siruations th:::y have undergrounded in the back. For
access, they prefer it to be out in the franchistXl position in th~ City right-of-way. That way the)' do not have to
go through peoples' yards to service the utilities. In this particular sidewalk configuration. the prohlem that SDG&E
is having witb it is that it is pushing them out of their franchise position onto prinlte property requiring them to get
an easement from the prop~rty owners, which in some cases, when it comes to .servicing and maintaining their
package, which is under the sidewalk, they go into the ground (they uo not tear up the sidewalk) hehind it and go
underneath. That is when they would be diggmg into a private property owner's yard.
,
City Council considered the following issues:
. Pedestrian Park P-5: should it he deleted from Neighhorhood R-ll in the SPA One Plan"
Mr. Rosaler stated that the issues involved in the pf(~iect focus on the elimination of Pedestrian Park P-5. Concerns
by McMillin are that they felt in Neighhorhood R-ll that the. lot SIZes were sufficient to provide for the pri\'ate
recreational needs of the neighborhood. In addition, there were neighhorhood parks m P-I and P-2 in this
neigbhorbood to satisfy the Park Plan requirements of the SPA. Park P-5 is a .8 acre park. McMillin's proposal
was to eliminate the park but maintain the pedestrian connection through to the regional trail aCCeSS. In Village
Development's proposal, they included the small pedestrian parks to med the private recre<ltional n~ecls of th~
neighborhood. If the Council agrees \..:ith the <l.pplic<int, then Council should adopt the amendment. If Coune!J
wants to see the Pedestrian Park in the neighhorhood, then Council should deny the amendment and direct that <I.
Pedestrian Park h~ included in the tentative map.
Councilmember Salas asked the following questions: (1) \\'h<lt was the rdationship hdween Park P-5 and P-6.3.
(2) If we wanted to retain Park P-5. woulu it he a puhlic park and would it he maintained hy a homeowners
association or would it he maintained by an open space district. (3) \\'ere there any physical harners or restrictions
between Village Development and \\'est Coast una Fund pr()pati~s which would ill1r~de the ahility of people hemg
able to utilize the parks. (4) \\'hat per,fentage of cr~dit would you he assigning v..'est Coast Lmd Fund or whomever
the next property owner would he if We voted to retain Park P-5.
Mr. Rosaler responded that P-6.3 was in Village 5. Neighhorhond R-Il is in Village]. McMillin is going to put ...
in their portion of P-6.3 and the Paseo which comes down to the village cor~. In Village 5, th~re is a 10 aeft: park
(P-6); there is a 1.7 acre park (P-8) which is the Town Square Park; and there is a 5 acre park (P-7). These are
the puhlic parks. Park P-5 would he a puhlic park [h~tt \vould he maintained hy an Open Space Maint~nance
District. Since th~re are private streets In Village Dt"velopment's portion of Iht: prc~lect and there arc puhllc streets
in Nei!:!hborhood R-II, thert: is no street aCCeSS ~oin~ throll~h. HO\\'t;'\'er. Ihert: is an emer~enc\' a~cess that is also
- - - - - - A_ I
~1inuk:;
June 3. 1997
Pag~ 5
)
"
reqUIred to be 3. pedestrian access hdw~e.n R-10 ~-md R-]]. \Vith tho; Pc:destrian Parks, thc:r~ would he some
restriction since they are private parks and would be ownc::d and maintain:::d hy the residt:nts of tho!'c neighborhoods.
As far as park credits, we do not know at this time hecause the small park criteria hasn't heen Jeveloped. If they
carne in wjth a proposal similar to Village D..:vdopme.nt's, staff wouid prohahly he recommendin~ 50% hecause it
has all of the facilities which are required hy the SPA J Parks Plan. The devdopment of that criteria is on the work
agenda for the Parks and Recreation D~partm~nt in the coming year.
*.
HoJl\wood Drivewavs: should the r:o::quired numher of Hollywood dnvcways he reduced?
Mr. Rosaler St2ted that a Hollywood Driveway in the SPA Plan is a plan Ihat requires an "L" shaped home with
the garage pushw to the back of the unit. In some caSeS. there is a landscaped strip in the middle of the drive or
it can be other decorative material. McMillin was conce.med ahout th:; marketahility of these. Iypes of UDJts and
proposed alternative language to what is in th~ alsting SPA. Staff is concem~d and has addre.ss:;(} the marketability
issue by indicating that the Planning Director, if they can prO\'ide evidence that tho~-.:. typ..:.s of units are 110t
marketab]e. has the ahility to waive the. requirement and r~p!ace it with another desIgn th<l[ is consIstent with the
vilJage design plan.
. Parkv.'a\'s: shou1d residential streds with parkways k used in the applic,mt"s r:::sH,kntlal nej~hhorhoods?
}"1r. Rosabr stated that a Residential Strc:c;t Section A is a str:::d with rarb....,'<lys. 1\1cM d!in has indicated to staff
that the ResidentjaJ Stred Section A is acceplahk to them as lon~ as thl: mJj\'idua! home.owne.r maintains the
park'V.'ay, and there is not a master homeownas associatIOn.
,,"",
. Par"'-v.'av Streets: should a master hOffie.owners asso..:iation he required to maintain the: open space and
1andscaping?
Mr. Rosaler state.d that the Engineering D::.partment helie.\'ecJ that al1 the parkways. mil.lor slopes. and rhe acJditional
landscaping that is in the SPA Plan should be maintained 11)' the home.owners. The conditions of approval have heen
prepared to provide flexibility to allow Council to provicJe: staff direction. \Vhalt:.va cJirection is provided whe.n the
Open Space Maintenanc~ Distri::t is formed, staff will en:->urc that Iho<.;c facilities arc include.d ellha in a
Homeov.'Ders Association or in the Opcn SP<-ICt: M;1Jntenancc District.
Council member Rimlone asktd why would Council want 1.0 include the p:::ucstrian parb....(!}' in with the Homeowners
Association or the Community Facilities District. \,\'hy not ktlve it to hc the: respollsihiJit)' of thc hom~ownt:.T.
Mr. Rosaler stated that would he 1:!cceptahJc to staff. The Planning Commission Wal; conce.rn..:.d ahout common
maintenance of it; that there be uniform mainknance. of the parkways throu~hollt the ne.i~hhorh()od, If thae was
common maintenance that would insure a hdl~r quality of pcJestrian erwironment.
'Mayor Horton er.presse:.d that she had a concern with this and that lh~ P!anning (OI11I11I.<.;"lon':-; recol1lJl1emlatiOn was
most prudent. Not all homeowners treat Iheir lawns equal. The purpche of ha\'lng these promenade> is 10 create
a nicer amhie.nce for the communi I)'. Th~ only WiiY \"/t: \,,'ill ha\'e ,In ;t~~uran':e in u()in~ th(!! is to include: it in the:
common maintenanc~.
This heing the time. and place. as advenis:::.u., the plI\l!iC he.aring WaS opt.'neu. AdJressJng Council Were:
. Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hover Avenue. f',;a(lOnal City. rt:presentin~ M(.:'Millin Compani~s. He. state.cJ that
there was an articJe in the paper whIch que.stione.J the.ir intent anti commitmr:.nt to the. Plan. He wan\~ to present
for the record a list of the documents that gove.m the uesign of the Proje.C! anu that they Were. in compliance of each
and everyone. They do have four issues which ar~ \'ery minor in nature. and th~ inte~rjty of the: Plan is still in
place; they are consistent with the General Plan, the GDP, and the o\'erall Design Plan. He wante.U to assure
Counci1 that they were committe.tl to these Plans. He addres~e.d the. (nur issues:
4<-)..
\1 lnuh:s
1 '
~un:: _"'I,
Peg:: 6
1997
Pedestrian Park P-5: H~ stlikd that they ::-.uprorteu staffs r-.:commenuatllJn as \\.'cll as that of the Parks
and Recreation Commission which is r~commending the elimination of this park. The: total numher of units
will not increase with the elimination of the park. One: of the reasons for th:; elimination of the: park was
really driven by the maintenance issue. Staff is recommending that there he an Open space Maintenance
District fanned for the majntenanc~ of the park. Utilizing an OSMD for th~ maintenance creates a
dilemma which staff has not fully addressed. If only this neighborhood were to be assessw for the
maintenance for this park, th~re would he a feeling of e:xclusivity and the d-.:sire: to preclude anyone else
from accessing that park if they had the maintenance responsihilities. If an OSf\1D Were used that would
be collected from the entire development, there would he a disagreement as to the access, the ability to
walk to, and would create a prohlem in the collation of the fee on the entire project. It creates an inequity
that may create a prohIem in the future:. They hdle\'ed that If the park was d:;termlDed to he an essential
part of the Plan and is to b::: accessihle to all resid:::nts, it should be a puhlic park. 11 should be owned hy
the public and funded by the public.
*
Hollywood Driveways: The Hollywood driveway concepl wnuld apply only 10 Ihe one neighborhood. R-
1 L Tbe HoIIywood driveways have not heen recen!ly us~d in the marketpJClcc, and they were r~juct2.I}(
to accept an absolute requirement for 3D%.. Their prefere:nce: was to let the market dictate the final
percentages. Rather than a prescriptive minimum of 309c, th::)' would initially construct one moeJeJ home
which would he one of four, which would he ~5 9c: using the 30 foot sethack and the HollywooJ driveway
concept and then dcterrrune the marketplace prefcrem'es, If the hOllse was already huilt, then there would
not b~ a removal of that house, so they would not he: ahle to ahanuon that type of product; it would still
be there, but wouJd he ploued at a lesser rercen!a~e. They would prefer to aJar! quickly hy markdpJace
demands as opros~ to heing burdened with a cumhersome: and Ie:n~thy plOcess of coming hack to the Clt)'
to adjust to the market preferences.
Par}..-v.1ay Streets: It was their intent to respe(,;! the wishes of staff anu construct the parkwtI)' as type A
Streets throughout the project. However. it was their preference no! 10 have a Homeowners Association
or an Open Space Maintenance District funding the maintenance of those parkways. It wouJd he their
preference to utilize CC&Rs which the. City has the ahility hut not the: ohllgtitJOn to enforce that would
provide instructions for every homeowner as to the maintenance ohli,gtitions and n~."ponsihiljtie.s.
Master Home.ov."ne.rs Association: Th~)' prefcrre.d to fOfm the contmued use of the OSMD. Their
experience indicates that some home hll)'er~ prefer not to have an HOA. Th~)' have no private faci1Jtles
which nc.cessitate the formation of an HOA.
Mayor Horton asked jf the model that McMiI!in would he hudJin,g wIth the: Holly\\.'()()J dnvt.'ways was more
expensive than the others being proposed.
Me FUkll)'ama responded that they did not k.now yet. It was loo nev.... to kno\..i. The)' have constructed a
compard.ble type. product in one of the.ir other projects. Tht'Y helieve it wIll he acceptahle and prefaahle. They
don't want to h~ tidl to that in this market place. not knowIng what the market prderence.s will he.
CounciImemher Rindone. askdI for a claritication of the comment that he was wd!in~ to huild Type A StrtXts
throughout. But Type A Streets are only in two of the n::i,ghhorhooJs. \Vas that what he mt:ant'!
Me Fu....-uyama responded that they have reconslder-.:J their posltHm. anJ they are cummJ!!in,g 10 doing all Type A
Streets.
Mayor Horton closed the public hearing.
Mayor Horton stated that We have several pJanneu cOlllmunities in th::- Eastern parts of Chub'! Vista. 11 was her
und~rstanding that the developers in those cases have pretty much haJ the OpportllDlty to sdcct which way the)'
would rather go -- an asse.ssment district or HOA.
4...~
Minutes
June3. ]997
Page 7
'\1
,-
I
ML Rosaler state<! that in the past. McMillin in Rancho del Rey h" propose<! OSMD; EastLake has proposed BOA.
Village Development's portion of Village One and Five was proposed to ne mainfained by OSMD. nut when they
went to tbe guarded entrances, then everything r.t.Came pnvalt: so th~y had to have the HOA. So, there has been
a IIUX.
Assistant City Attorney, Anne Moore, sfated that what they negotiated with Sunoow is that they have fhe option of
deciding whether or not they want to form a CFD or an HOA. The devd(Jr~r has indicated that they want to form
a CFD. They art proposing the same thing with SaJt Crt:Xk which is giving them an option of doing a CFD or an
HOA. It was her understanding that Salt Cr""k preferred an HOA. The way they have structured the agreement
with Sunbow and Salt Creek is fhat they have the oplion of deciding one or the other. If they decide they want to
do a CFD that would be subject to Council's approval. If Council decides that they don't want to do a CFD then
they would have to form an HOA. Since that is a future kgislative action, staff cannot guarc:lntr:e that a CFD would
be approved by the Council.
Mayor Horton stated that it wou]d be her rc.comm::nclation in this situation that McMillin should have the option
of going forward with their preferenc~. Sht:: had a conc~m anNH th~ majni~nancc of the parkways. It is easy to
say tbat aIJ tbe homeov.rners will make surt:. this is a wdl maintain=d ara through the CC&Rs. but that is
cumbersome. Personally, she agr~d with the PJannmg Commission to h2V~ this incluckd in a type of assessment
district. She also fdtthe concerns of SDG&E should he oJdressed.
Councilm::rnber Rinclone staled he had major concerns about the dirmnotJOn of P~Jestrian Park P-S, He wou1d lib.~
to see this retained because th~ concept that Council has lar.DTcu U\'er was to maintain the Village concept with
aCcess to pub1ic parks. He was supportivt of tverything ~XCtpt the dJ/llInation of th~ park.
,/)
Councilmember Salas stated that this has b~n a point of clisagrecm~nt net ween staff and the. clc\!doper of VilJage
One. but she felt that when ViJJage Or1e was proposing tht:::sc small r~sid~ntial parks, it was he-cause their idea of
what would be nee-traditional and staff fdl that it would take aW4iY from that. She fdt that this docs retain the sense
of community more than the elimination of the park would do. She was wiJJing (0 give tht= appJicant their request
and Dot put an imposition on them on making a 30% rc:quirement on the Hollywood drivc:ways in Tdum for the
retention of Park P-5.
~
J\.fotion on HolI\'wood Dri"ew3vs:
J\!SC (Horton/Padilla) to adopt for tirst reading an amend!1lent to the PC District R",~ulations in regards 10
Hol1yv.ood Drh'ewa)'s in the langu~e set forth in the starf's report that JJ1irror~ Ml:t\'1iHin's propos;'ll. Motion
approved 4"()-O-1 (Moot abstaining).
J\fotion on Parkway i\1atntenance:
l\ISC (padiUafHorton) to pro,'ide direction on the issue of maintenance for parkways through a Communit)'
Facilit,'" District consistent with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Motion approvt:d 4-0-0-}
(Moot abstaining).
'I\fotion on Pedestrian Park P-5:
MSC (PadillaiHorton) to relain Pedestrian Park P-5 and lea'e the maintenance up to the developer to decide
how they wanted to m:.inwin the park either with '''' HOA or "CFD. Motion approved 4-0-0-1 (Moot
abstaining). .
RESOLUTIONS 1868S, 18686, AND ORDINANCE 2709 OffERED BY MA YOR HORTO:"'l AS AMENDED,
titles read, texts waived.
Councilmemh~r Rindone stated he had concerns wIth the 2::;ro lot line. prnJuct. He thought that this was not
finalized and wou]d have a chance for another rc\'iev.:. S,DCt: thJS \V~S a neW product. ht:: wanttJ to he CiSsurC-d th.tt
A- -4.
.-.
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chambers
Publ]c Services Building
Jl1Ll\lJTES OF A REGULAR JlIEETL,G OF THE CITY COUJ\ClL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday. June 17, 1997
6:00 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Councilmembers:
and Mayor Horton.
Moot, PadiI (arrived at 6:05 p.m.). Rindone. Salas.
ABSENT:
Councllmernhas:
Kaheny; and City Clerk.
ALSO PRESEJ\'T:
City Manager. John D.
Beverly A. Authelet.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE F G J\1mfE1\'T OF SILENCE
3. APPROVAL OF JlfIN1JTES:
Growth Management Oversight
meeting).
29, 1997 (spe.ciaJ jomt medlng witb Planmng Comm.ission and
May 20. ] 997 (regular m""tIng); and May 2J. 1997 (regular
MSC (Moot/Salas) to apprm'e the
approved 3-0-1-1 (Councilmemher
hecause he was not in attendanc .
utes of April 29, 1997; May' 20. 1997; and May 27, 1997. Motion
adilla ahsent and Councilmemher Rindone ahstaining on April 29, 1997
4.
CONSE!\T CALENDAR
(/rOllS pulled: 6 (l1Id ] 2)
BALANCE OE ONSE1\'T CALENDAR OFFERED BY JlIA YOR HORTO!'>. headin~s read, texts waived.
passed and a roved 5-0.
5.
\"RITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Letter frum the Cit)' AUorne)' stating that the Cit), Council did nor mtXt in Closed Se;ssion on 6/10/97.
5 recommende.d that the Idler he fe.ce-Ival anti fiJeJ.
6. ORDINANCE 2709 APPROVLNG AN AJlIENDJ\1E1\T TO THE OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL
PLAA'NING AREA (SPA) 01\10 PLAN1\'ED COJ\1J11U!\ln' DISTRICT REGULATIONS (first re<ldin~) _
McMillin bas subI11ltted an amendment for VilJages One and Five. The SPA Amendment proposes changes to the
Planned Community District regulations concerning design standards in NCJghhorhooJ R-l1 of Village One. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on first readin,g. (Director of Plannmg) Continued from the meeting
of 6/10/97. Jtem was pulled from the Consent Calemlar.
. Kenl Aden, representing VilJage Devdopment. ] 1975 EJ CanlJno Real, Suile 200, San Du,-:go, 92130, staled
that he wrote the planned communJt)' distnct regulations for Ota)' Ranch. and he strongly ~~hibt~J1I500d
Minutes
June 17. 1997
Page 2
driveway concept. There are five parcels within SP A One that meet the criteria under the proposed language. 'What
is a mystery to him is why would Council he adopting a standard that would single out one of tbose five parcels.
If this is a good policy for one of the parcels. then it seems like it would be a good policy for all of the parcels.
He felt the concept to have the Hollywood driveway be market driven was a valid one within the entire SPA. He
requested that the new standard be applied, regardless of ownership, in SPA One.
Councilmember Salas stated that during the discussion on the HolJ.ywood driveways, she wanted to see that concept
because it was an "old/new" look and it really creates a sense of neighborhood rather than the monolithic kind of
houses that we see where the focal point is the gaf'd.ge. 'When she was asking her questions as to why there weren't
more parcels being considered, the response that she got was that this particular parcel was ahout tbe only one tbat
had lots wide enough to support it.
Mr. Aden stated that was correct within the \\-'est Coast Land Fund ownership. There are four additionaJ parcels
that would be within the Village Development ownership which would also meet that criteria. Not on]y the future
hut the present. He believed we will actualJy be the first phase of SP A One developed and in that phase they bave
a parcel that meets the 60 x 110 foot criteria, so the builder that wiJI he huiJdin,g there will he incorporating
Hollywood driveways. What he questions IS why that huiJder will he held to a 30 % standard whereas the future
budder in the West Coast Land Fund property wouJd he held to a market-driven standard. All he was askmg IS that
we apply the market-driven standard across tbe board.
Mayor Horton asked shouldn't we address this issue-hy-issue when the project comes hefore Council.
Mr. Aden responded that he did not helieve so. This is the zomng ordinance that you are amending and the entire
SPA One, including their ownership, is subject to this zoning ordinance, the planned community distnct regulations.
It was not clear to him wby we're singling out a parceJ to exempt from a policy.
Mr. Goss stated that CouDcil was focusing on specific policy and took an action on it. He suggest~ that Instead
of extending that policy to other properties on an ad-hoc hasis, if you have an interest at all in pursumg the i::.sue,
then refer this to staff for further anaJysis to see what the impacts would he on such an extension.
Mr. Rosaler, Senior Planner, stated that there wa..o;;; one neighborhood in Village Devdopment's first phase that
would be affected by this. Staff has had initial discussions with that builder about this concept on his property.
We could have a report back to Council at a mecting in July.
Assistant City Attorney, Ann Moore, stated the reason why this proposaJ applies only to McMillin's property IS
because this is pursuant to their application for an amendment to the SPA One plan. The evidence that was
presented at the last publIc bearing was ha..c;ed upon their project. Ms. Moore clarified her statement hy saying there
was a public bearing held on the ordinance itseJf and evidence was presented hy the planning staff as wdJ as
developers and whoever else wanted to be present to make a presentation regardin,g that ordinance. The.refore., it
could be adopted by Council tonight if they wanted to.
Councilmember Rindone stated that it talks about Hollywood driveways for Jots that are at least 60 fe.d wide. He
su,ggested that staffJook at some of the older nelghhorhoods that have the. HoJJywood driveway on 50 foo! wjde lots
that does have the gamge in the hack. and it does work.
ORDINANCE 2709 OFFERED BY MA YOR HORTON, h""ding r""d. text waived, passed and approved 4-0-
0- I (Moot abstaining).
7.A. RESOLUTION 18679 MAKING FINDIN ON THE PETITION FOR THE OTAY RANCH
Vil..LAGE OJ\'E ASSESSMEKf DISTRICT !\lJJ\1 97-2 - Villa~e Development has formally petitIOned the
Cit)' to use assessment district financing for certa. puhljc improvement to he located in ViJJage One. of the Ota)'
,-\
Minutes
JlIly 22. 1997
Page 3
'..,
prices. This was his main concern that his pap~r work has shown that rnultipJica m of unit p' ices has not aJways
resulted in the submitted hid price. He indicated that a meeting he calleu wit .tll parties involved to look at this.
. Bob Arcjaga, 4113 Sweetwater Road, Bonita, representing RC uscape, stated that they did make several
errors in the addition, but they Were not large amounts in comparison t hat the total hid was. The error that they
did make is in favor of the City, and they were willing to work for at amount. It will not he a nurden for them.
He did not protest the last open space contracts that were suhmi u. They also had addition mistakes.
Councilmemher Moot asked if we could hifurcate Resolutio 8712 and approve Districts 3, 4, and 8 only and then
direct staff to analyze the July 22no Idter from Blue Ski anJ give Councd a rcport hack at whjch time a decision
regarding Open Space Districts 11, 14, 15, and 24 co d he made.
amend the resolution as so stated.
John Kaheny. City Attorney, stateu that staff co
Councilrnernher Salas stated that was acee.
RESOLUTION 18712 AS AMEN TO INCLUDE DISTRICTS 3, 4, AND 8 ONLY OFFERED BY
MAYOR HORTON, he:ldinj( reo ,text waived, passed and apprm'ed 4-0-1 (Padilla ahsent) with staff to
return to Council regarding D' ril.:t~ II, 14, IS. and 24.
.-1
9, RESOLUTlO 18736 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR T INSTALLATION OF MINOR ENHANCEI\IENTS AT FIFTH AVENUE AND "C"
STREET, SECO AVENUE AND CYPRESS STREET, RIVERLA\\'N AVENUE AND KEARNEY
STREET IN T CITY (0735-10-STL-23I) - On 6111/97 sealed hids wcre received, The general scope of the
project involve the removal and rephtcc:ment of dderjorate.u stred facilities at three locations: Fifth Avt:nut;; anu
"C" Street - moval of the existing cross-gutter, placement of asphalt concrete pavement and crushed aggregate.
base, and e installation of a curb inlet and reinforced concrde pipe; Second Avenue and Cypress Street; Riverlawn
Avenue nd Kearney Stre.et - reconstruction of settled cross-gutters, replacement of curbs and gutte.rs, installation
of P. .C. pedestrian ramps, placement of asphalt concrde pavement anJ cru.sheJ aggre.gate hase. anti a1l olher
ms latioo items of work as shown on the plans. Staff recommend:>; approval of the resolutIOn. (Director of Puhlic
arks) 4/5th's vote required.
JO. REPORT OT A Y RANCH SPA ONE PLANKED CO~II\IUNITY DISTRICT REGULATlOKS ON
"HOLLYWOOD" DRIVEWAYS - On 6/3/97. COllncil approved Olay Ranch SPA One amendments and a tentative
map for the McMillin Companies pOf{JOn of the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan. t>.1L:Millin proposed amending the
Planned Community District Regulation concerning "Hollywood" driveways. Council introuuced the ordinance. with
the market tlexiJ.,ility provisions for Neighborhood R-ll on 6/17/97. Representatives from ViJJage De.vdopment
requested the same market tlexihility for their portion of SPA One. It was recommem!ed that the ordinance not he
amended for Village Development without analysis hy staff. Staff was Jirected to rdum with a report on appJying
the market flexihility provisions SP A-wiJe. Staff recommends no action he taken at this time. (Dlfector of
Planning)
* * * Councilmemher Moot left the dais * * *
Councilmember Rindone stated that the re-port discusses !he existing HollY\'I"ood Driveways that are estahlished in
areas of Chula Vista that Were creakd a numher of years ago were with a typil:al house that Was smaller in size and
of a single story construction. Older developments in many cases utilized singJe-L'.:Jf ,g..m~ges with narrow access
driv~ways. Both of thos~ statements were not totally accurate. If you look at some of the neighhorhoods, you will
see that on SO foot lots, they have. HollywooJ Driveways with single story homes and douhle garage.s. He tdt the
information provided seems to try to offer reasons for not doing this when in fact w~ have examples to the contrary.
He has no problem with th~ Hollywood Driveway. All he was trying to do was to point out that the e.xamples were
not exceptions for not doing HoJJywooJ Dnves on a 50 foot lot.
Ken Lte, Assistant Planning Diredor. s!ideu he had no dL<.;agrt'cment with Counulmemher Rinuone.'s statements.
Staff has found that the lots in the ohler parts of town ale ahout 130 teet l.h::~ep. That Was part of the. issue. that if
~)("i\>i+ "
Mmllte~
July 22. 1997
Page 4
we have a lot of 100 feet in depth. it hecomes very Jifficult. That i~ why ~taff is saying that in the future planning
of the villages, if we want to consider this on the narrower lots, we will have to go to a deeper lot to make it work.
Theft~ are some other options such as going to a zero lot line or allow the garage area itself lo go over to the
property lines.
Councilmemher Rindone stateu that Mr. Lee was l~orrect in that the 50 foot wide lots, the property was deeper.
Huwever, he was familiar with a home that had a lot of only 100 feet Jeep.
ACTION: Council receiveu and filed the report.
,;< * '" Councilmemher Moot returned to the dais * * *
* * * END OF CONSE^7 CALEND,iR * * *
ORAL Cml~IUNICATlONS
(There were none)
PUBLIC HEARI;\IGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
II. PUBLIC HEARING PCA-97-04: CONSIDERATION OF AMEND~IENTS TO THE
CODE TO CHANGE THE DEfINITIONS OF SMALL AND LARGE FAMILY DAY CAR
FA1\lIL Y DAY CARE - The proposed pr~iect is an amendment to the Municipal Code to chan the definition of
family day care and family day care homes such that they are consistent with recent changes i alifomia State law.
Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Planning)
ORDINANCE 2710 AMENDING SECTION 19.04.093 THROUGH .095 OF TH
MODIFY THE DEfINITION OF FAMILY DAY CARE AND FAMILY DAY
.,
IUNICIPAL CODE TO
E HOMES (first readin2)
Councilmemher Rindone stated lhat he understood the inknt of state law was expand hy at least two children.
He asked if there was any olher square footage requirement that goes along Ith this; it would app~ar to him that
the original premise for the numbers that was estahlished for the child car enters was hased upon minimal square
feet. He supported rhe expansion of two more, but he was interested. here was any companion legislation that
dea1t with slJuare feet.
Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director. stated that there was no He felt that because there Were other qualifiers
in the law, e.g. that no more than three infants are cared for' any time ,..'hen there are more than twelve children
l1eing cared for. There are qualifiers that deal with the of age groups.
This being the time and place as aJvertised, the puhli earing was opened. There being no one indicating a desire
to speak, the public hearing was closed.
ORDINANCE 2710 PLACED ON FIRST ADlNG BY MAYOR HORTON. heading read, text waived,
passed and approYCd 4-0-1 (Padilla ahs ).
12. PUBLIC HEARING M-94-04: CONSIDERATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM
EAST ORANGE AVENUE OLYMPIC PARKWAY BETWEEN 1-805 AND WUESTE ROAD - This is
a City-initiated application lllesting approval to change the name of East Orange Avenue between 1-805 and
Wueste Road to "Olympi arkway." The intent is to gain approval of the name change of the entire length of the
roadway, hut to imple nt only the segment hetween Hunte Parkway and WlIeste Road, which currently connects
to the ARCO Olym Training Center. ImplementatIOn of remaining segments of East Orange Avenue to the west
would only OCCl as the future street segments are connected through to the east. Staff recommenJs approval of
the resolutio . (Director of Planning)
" -I
/ J ...:_!?~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
Meeting date: July 22. 1997
ITEM TITLE:
Report - City Council Referral - Otay Ranch SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations on 'Hollywood"Driveways
Director of Planning d
SUBl\1.11 TW BY:
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
4/5 Vote:(Yes_NolQ
Refemtl No. 3060
On June 3, 1997, the City Council approved Otay Ranch SPA One amendments and a tentative
map for the McMillin Companies portion of the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan. In their Otay Ranch
SPA One Plan Amendment application, the McMillin Companies proposed amending the
Planned CommUnity District Regulation concerning 'Hollywood" driveways. During the public
hearing, McMillin's representative requested the amendment specifically include market
flexIoility provisions for the number of units to be built with this concept in Neighborhood R-Il.
The City Council introduced the ordinance with the market flexibility provisions for
Neighborhood R-11 at their June 17 meeting. At that meeting, representatives from Village
Development requested the same market flexIoility for their portion of SPA One. The City
Manager recommended that the ordinance not be amended. for Village Development without
analysis by staff. The Assistant City Attorney indicated there was no evidence presented during
the Council public hearing for SPA-wide implementation of the market flexibility provisions. The
Council unanimously adopted the ordinance and directed staff to return with a report on
applying the market flexibility provisions SPA-wide. The Council also requested the lot width
requirements for 'Hollywood" driveways be reevaluated and compared to existing older
neighborhoods in Chula Vista with 50-foot lot widths.
RECOMMENDATION:
Take no action at this time. Village Development has applied to amend the SPA One Plan for
market flexibility provision on their part of SPA One. Staff will be bring the amendment forward
to City Council as part of the formal review process.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
None.
DISCUSSION:
Village Development has applied for an amendment to SPA One to apply the market flexibility
provisions to their portion of Villages One and Five. Staff will process the amendment and
provide analysis and a recommendation as part of that review.
exhibit 7
Page 2, Item No. _
Meeting Date: Julv 22. 1997
At the June 17, 1997, meeting, the Council also requested that staff reassess the lot width
criteria for the "Hollywood" driveways in relation to the 50' wide lots in the older existing
neighborhoods in Chula Vista. Staff found that many of the existing 50' wide lots with
Hollywood driveways had lot depths of 130' or more, whereas even the 60' wide lots in SPA
r are limited in depth to 110' and the 55' wide lots are no more than 105' deep.
Staff has prepared the attached exhibit to provide Council with the visual comparison between
the three lot sizes referenced above.
The existing Hollywood drives in the established areas of Chula Vista were created a number
of years ago when the typical house was smaller in size and typically of single-story
construction; whereas, the more typical house constructed in today's market has more square
footage and is two-story in nature, requiring a wider building footprint to achieve good
architectural proportions. In addition, the older developments in many cases utilized single-car
garages with narrow access drives.
It is, therefore, the conclusion of the staff that utilizing a 50' wide lot to achieve the Hollywood
drive would necessitate the creation of a lot deeper than 110' and, thus, the applicant would have
to reconfigure the subdivision design which staff would deem to be inappropriate at this time.
However, deeper lots could be considered and planned in the future SPA r West plan for the
areas west of Paseo Ranchero.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. Village Development has an existing staff agreement which would
cover the cost of processing any SPA plan amendment. A new staffmg agreement is required
for the SPA I West amendment.
7-1
,...
z
...
:t.
<\-'?
~I~U
U-o
z'"
Z
~
...
,
,
,
~,
$
---
,
,
...:
...
~,
~\
,
t:::
=....
en=,
I:)...l
I:)
In_
""
r--
...:
...
=1-
0=,
1:)..1
co
""-
""
,
k-JhIlZ
l,
,
,
-
t-=
...
---
-------
~\ ~9
"'I 5
k-.o-m
L-
,00'01.1.
.>:,7, ~'. -;::"!-i';W~:b:JJ:G~';; ',':'.c-j ,,;'" :"',
---
---.-----
.oO.SO~
~~~~~~"1't~i#:~~'!i-~;:,70.>
.o-.s~ ~
---
-------
.00.0&1.
------------
-
,-~
,
"
.
"
';
~
::-
5'
,
'.
,
.~.
"
"
"
<
o
~
:;II:
='
~
:;II:
c:I
-
t:
=
CO)
.
u..
en
....
:;II:
='
c:c
Do
"11!!' CI)
==
C
:;II:
c:c
a:
~
b
<P
~
1 .~
'& \U~
~
~D
~
'0 t;" 1
\
.
,
....... . \
t- ~~
~
H
~
.....
.-
7
'Z.
u.I
~
cc.
~
u.I
a:
2-
o
cc.
u...
B
S
u.I
Co
u.I
cD
o
I-
~
rJ)
o
0-
o
cc.
0-
<.f)
<!.
'tt
<!.
Co
u.I
Co
<!.
~
<.f)
0>
th
o
o
oa:
lUlU
wI
<0
c..Z
<
a:
'Z.
u.I
2-
u.I
cc.
~
'tt
o
l-
t
u.I
....,
ro
~
<.f)
<!.
'tt
<!.
Co
u.I
z
::i
I-
::>
o
*
t
I
..
..
0:':-
I 0:(
I .
....z
a:
0:(
z..
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
..
a:
<f-
:::Ew
Ow
-'a:
a:t;J
w
t;
U1
I
I
",Z;
~J::.'t
?jr-. (<\
00-
(/)....$
-"'0>
~f>.s
",Cll>
~~S
~~(/)
'" II> 't
~~ ~
~(5 ~
~u)~~
-.;"'C)<<$
~~-n'~
- Q) c....
.d.--cOc:
c.. <<$ a:.-
(j) Q) ~(I')
o.1.sC3~
-o-s:?
z,gu
-
,
\S)
~
-s
~
uJ
3
'tiJ
~
d>
...-;
'8
t:;;.';
!}!
<<:
w
~
t1)
ffi
"
S
a:
~
'&
~
~
b
8
~
Z- ~
i
,
~
. \
l~
.
~i
'Z
uJ
:z
2;
~z;
<(
we.
::\~
o ~
V\ ~ ~
4>>\D'tiJ
--a:t:.
..~. (f)
\t :z.
::: uJ <!.
.- a: ~
')oc..
-
-
: ...
-
-
-
-
'it
<!.
~
-s
111:
{OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE
."EMENT
You arc required to file a Statemenl of Disclosure of certain owne,-,;hip or financial interests. payments. or campaign
conlrihUlions, on all matters which will require discrctionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the
contract. e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Village Development
The Otay Ranch, L.P.
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership. list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in thc corporation or owning any partnership intcrcst in the partnership.
James P. Baldwin
Alfred E. Baldwin
3. If any person. identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust. list the names of any person
serving as director of Ihe non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of thc City staff. Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No~ 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 Ihis matter.
Kim John Kilkenny
Ranie Hunter
Robert Cameron
James Baldwin
Kent Aden
Alfred Baldwin
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate. contributed more than $1.000 to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding election period? Ycs_ No-X, If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
. . . (NOTE: Attacb additional pages as n=ry) . . .
Date:
Julv
7, 1997
6. st /li6/zL. a ~A-f'..I~ (!~1ftY'/;i'lJ/ ~.
! i J v-r ~of.;; ilk n Vice President
tjt.1tMf,f ;J;.1/J-?r' Print or type name of contractor/applicant
of contractor/applicant
. Person is defincd as: "Any jJJ(Jividual, flnn, co-partnership, joinl vallUre, associatIOn, social club, frau:nwI orgaJliliJtiofl, corporation, estate, l1USt, receiva, syndicate,
this and any other count)', eiI)' Qnd COUfll1)', city mUnlcipalit)', dist::ric~ or oUIt:r polirical su.bdi~'i.siOf~ or any other group or combi/latiofl acring OJ a wm."
E)<h ibi t 'I
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item --L
Meeting Date 1/14/98
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCS-98-02; Tentative Subdivision Map for the
Eastlake Greens Parcel R-16, Chula Vista Tract 98-02, involving 60 single
family and 3 open space lots on 10.89 acres located on the north side of
South Greensview Drive west of Hunte Parkway- The Eastlake Company.
The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Eastlake South Greens Unit 16,
Chula Vista Tract 98-02, in order to subdivide 10.89 acres into 60 single family and 3 open space
lots (see Exhibit A). The project site is identified as Parcel R-16 in the Eastlake Greens Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) plan which targets the site for 109 dwelling units at a density of 10 du/ac (see
Exhibit B). The subdivision site is located on the north side of South Greensview Drive between
Silverado Drive and Hunte Parkway within the Eastlake Greens planned Community (see Locator,
attached).
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project implements and falls under
the purview ofFEIR-86-04(B) and that no further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt attached Planning Commission Resolution PCS-98-02 recommending approval of the
Tentative Subdivision Map Eastlake South Greens View Unit 16, Chula Vista Tract 98-02, in
accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft City
Council Resolution.
DISCUSSION
Site Characteristics
The project site is an elongated, two-level building pad created as part ofthe Eastlake Greens mass
grading program. The proposed finish grade maintains the existing building pad configuration and
elevation, except for minimum fill in the area of lots 14-19 and some cut to lower the grade around
the area of lots 36-39. Both building pads, which are separated by a 15 foot slope bank at the
approximate property midpoint, slope west to east 27-33 feet (see Tentative Map blueprints).
The site is limited to the north by Hole II of the Eastlake Golf Course, to the south by South
Greensview Drive, to the west by Silverado Road, and to the east by a level pad open space area
containing an existing trail/golf course view point (see Locator).
Page 2, Item .-L
Meeting Date 1114/98
Zoning and Land Use
Zoning
Existing Land Use
Community District Zone District Designation
Site
PC (Planned Community)
Vacant RC-lO, Residential Condominium
North / East
PC (Planned Community)
Golf Course OS-6. Open Space
West
PC (Planned Community)
Single family RS-5, Residential Single Family
detached
South
PC (Planned Community)
Vacant RP-8. Residential Planned Concept
Proposed Proiect
The proposed tentative map consists of subdividing 10.89 acres into two neighborhoods separated
by a 15 foot elevation difference and containing a total of60 single family lots and 3 open space lots.
Each neighborhood has a single access point from South Greensview Drive and a single interior
street ending in cul-de-sacs.
The proposed proposed subdivision is within the RC -10 Residential Condominium land use district
which requires that property development standards be established with the site plan and tentative
subdivision map process.
The residential lots are 53 x 89 with the exception of knuckle and cul-de-sac lots which are 35 feet
wide. Thus, the proposed subdivision is summarized as follows:
Total Number of Residential Lots:
60
Minimum Dimensions:
Average Lot Dimensions:
Minimum Lot Area:
Average Lot Area:
50 x 86 ft.
53 x 86 ft.
4,300 sq.ft.
5,437 sq.ft.
Property development standards for the construction of individual homes are also subject to site plan
approval. Specific project design is scheduled to be considered by the Zoning Administrator on
January 28, 1998.
Affordable Housing
The Developer has entered into an agreement with the City to control the delivery of the low and
moderate income housing units required by the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing
Element requires the overall master planned community to provide five percent of the total project
Page 3, Item 2-
Meeting Date 1/14/98
units as low income units and five percent moderate income housing units. The Eastlake Greens
Affordable Housing Program and Agreement requires the developer to deliver the low and moderate
income housing units prior to issuance of the 2,550th dwelling unit within the territory of the
Eastlake Greens Master Tentative, Chula Vista Tract 89-06, or be under construction no later than
June 1st, 1998. The five percent of moderate income housing units has been satisfied with market
rate housing units. However, representatives from The Eastlake Company are currently working
with City staff to deliver the low income housing units in the near future.
The Eastlake Greens Planned Community offers a mix of housing types and lot sizes for single-
family, townhomes, condominium and various apartment densities to provide a wide spectrum of
housing prices for persons of various incomes.
Analysis
The interior facing subdivision features standard public streets and cul-de-sacs with pedestrian walks
on both sides and adequate maneuvering area for emergency vehicles. The elongated shape of the
lot provides substantial exposure to the northerly adjacent golf course and surrounding streets. To
properly enhance these edges, a perimeter fence, as prescribed in the Eastlake Greens Design
Guidelines, would be required for the project, in addition to landscaping along the three open space
lots, as well as special architectural treatment on all units exposed to public view.
Overall, the proposed subdivision, as conditioned, is in substantial compliance with the Eastlake II
General Development Plan, Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, and all applicable
regulations and City policies.
Conclusion
For the reasons noted above, staff recommends approval of the proposed tentative subdivision map,
Chula Vista Tract 98-02, in accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
Attachments
1. P1anning Commission Resolution
2. Draft City Council Resolution
3. Exhibits
4. Disclosure Statement
\
"-
'~
~///\
"
"
"-
" '
"'.
\
C HULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT The Eastlake Company PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NEC of South Greensview Drive Request: Proposal for 63 lot subdivision on 10.88 acres.
ADDRESS: & Silverado Drive
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale PCS-98-02
h:lhomelplanning\carlosllocatorslpcs9802.cdr 1/6/98
ATTACHMENU
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-98-02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE TENT A TIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS UNIT 16, CHULA
VISTA TRACT 98-02, WITHIN THE EASTLAKE GREENS PLANNED
COMMUNITY AND PC ZONE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map was filed with the
Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on October 27, 1997 by The Eastlake Company
("Developer"); and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to subdivide 10.889 acres into 60 residential
lots and 3 open space lots ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the property is located on the north side of South Greensview Drive west of
Hunte Parkway within the Eastlake Greens Planned Community and P-C Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project
implements and falls under the purview ofFEIR-86-04(B) and that no further environmental review
is necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the tentative map
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.,
January 14, 1998 in the Council Chanlbers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has previously considered FEIR-86-04 (B) and,
therefore, no further environmental action by the Commission is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving the
Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 98-02 in accordance with the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14th day ofJanuary, 1998, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Patty Davis, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND IMPOSING
CONDITIONS OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS UNIT 16, CHULA
VISTA TRACT NO 98-02
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution
is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, is commonly known as Eastlake
South Greens Unit 16 Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vita Tract 98-02;
and for purpose of general description herein consists of 10.89 acres
located on the north side of South Greensview Drive west of Hunte
Parkway within the Eastlake Greens Planned Community and PC zone
District ("Project site").
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on October 27, 1997 The Eastlake Company ("Developer")
filed a tentative subdivision map application with the Planning Department
of the City of Chula Vista and requested approval of the Tentative
Subdivision Map known as Eastlake South Greens Unit 16, Chula Vista
Tract 98-02 in order to subdivide the Project site into 60 single family
residential lots and 3 open space lots ("Project"); and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject
matter of 1) a General Development Plan, EastLake II (EastLake I
Expansion) previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15198
("GDP"); 2) the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan, previously
adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15199; (SPA), all approved on
July 18, 1989; and, 3) an Air Quality Improvement Plan (EastLake Greens
Air Quality Improvement Plan) and 4) a Water Conservation Plan
(EastLake Greens Water Conservation Plan) and Public Facilities
Financing Plan (Eastlake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan), all
previously approved by the City Council on November 24, 1992, by
Resolution No. 16898 5) Eastlake Greens Master Tentative Subdivision
map, approved by Resolution No.17618; and,
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing
on said project on January 14, 1998 and voted ( ) to recommend that
the City Council approve the Project based upon the findings and subject
to the conditions listed below; and,
E. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was
held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on February 3,
1998, on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
find, determine and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on this project held on January 14, 1998, and the minutes and
Resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that the project
implements and falls under the purview of FEIR 86-04(B) and that no further
environmental review is necessary.
IV. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act,
the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned
herein for Eastlake South Greens Unit 16, Chula Vista Tract No. 98-02 is
in conformance with the EastIake II General Development Plan, EastIake
Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan and the elements of the City's
General Plan, based on the following:
1. Land Use
The General Development Plan designation is Medium Density Residential
(5-15 du/ac) and the SPA allows 109 dwelling units at a density of
approximately 10 du/ac. The proposed 60 lot subdivision is within the
allowable density and permitted number of dwelling units. Therefore, as
conditioned, the project is in substantial compliance with the City's
General Plan, EastLake II
General Development Plan (GDP) and Eastlake Greens Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) plan.
2. Circulation
All of the on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the
subdivision will be constructed or DIF fees paid by the developer in
accordance with the Eastlake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan and
Development Agreement. The public streets within the Project will be
designed in accordance with the City design standards and/or requirements
and provide for vehicular and pedestrian connections with adjacent streets.
3. Housing
Resolution No. 15751 adopted by the City Council on August 7, 1990,
acknowledged that the requirement to provide ten percent of the total
number of units allowed in the EastLake Greens Planned Community for
low and moderate income households.
In July 1995, the City Council approved a program and the applicant
entered into an agreement for the provision of affordable Housing within
the Eastlake Greens Planned Community. The program outlines the
required number of low and moderate income units, the proposed location
and the implementation schedule.
4. Conservation
The Environmental Impact Report FEIR-86-04 (B) addressed the goals
and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan. The
development of this site is consistent with these goals and policies.
5. Parks and Recreation, Open Space
The EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan provides public
and private parks, trails and open space consistent with City policies.
6. Seismic Safety
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of
the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site.
7. Safety
The Fire Department and other emergency service agencies have reviewed
the proposed subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and
have determined that the proposal meets the City Threshold Standards for
emergency services.
8. Noise
Noise mitigation measures included in the Environmental Impact Report
FEIR-86-04 (B) adequately address the noise policy of the General Plan.
The project has been conditioned to require that all dwelling units be
designed to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA. and exterior noise
exposure to 65 dBA which in accordance with the City's performance
standards.
9. Scenic Highway
The project is not adjacent to scenic highways.
10. Bicycle Routes
When the street system in the EastLake Greens planned community was
originally considered, appropriate bicycle lanes were included within the
community. The private streets within the project are of adequate width to
accommodate bicycle travel interior to the site.
11. Public Buildings
No public buildings are proposed on the project site. The project is
subject to RCT fees prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council
certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing
needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service
needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and
environmental resources.
C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows
for the optimum sitting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling
opportunities as required by Government Code Section 66473.1.
D. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal
conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement
herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent
to the impact created by the proposed development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby approve the Project
subject to the general and special conditions set forth below.
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the foregoing Tentative Subdivision Map which is stated to be
conditioned on "General Conditions" is hereby conditioned as follows:
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site
with the Project as described in the Master Tentative Map, Tract No. 88-03
Resolution No. 15200 and FEIR 86-04 (B) Mitigation Measures except as
modified by this Resolution.
B. Mitigation Measures
Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all
mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report FEIR-86-04 (B).
C. Implement previously adopted conditions of approval pertinent to project
Unless othelWise conditioned, developer shall comply with all unfulfilled
conditions of approval of the Eastlake Greens Master Tentative Map,
Chula Vista Tract 88-03, established by Resolution No. 15200 and
approved by Council on July 18, 1989, and shall remain in compliance with
and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of the Eastlake Greens
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, General Development Plan, Planned
Community District Regulations, Water Conservation Plan, Air Quality
Improvement Plan, Residential Design Guidelines and Public Facilities
Financing Plan as amended and as are applicable to the property which is
the subject matter of this tentative map, prior to approval of the Final Map
or shall have entered into an agreement with the City, providing the City
with such security (including recordation of covenants running with the
land) and implementation procedures, as the City may require, assuring
that after approval of the Final Map, the developer shall continue to
comply with, remain in compliance with, and implement such plans.
D. Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan
Developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the Eastlake
Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan, as amended or as required by the
City Engineer, to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula
Vista. The City Engineer and Planning Director may, at their discretion,
modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions
change to warrant such a revision.
E. Design Approval
The applicant shall develop the lots in accordance with the applicable
EastLake Greens Development Regulations and Design Guidelines. The
plans for this residential project shall be submitted for review and obtain
approval under the City's design review process prior to submittal for
building permits.
F. Project Phasing
If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final
maps, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development
phasing plan by the City Engineer and Director of Planning prior to
approval of any final map.
The phasing plan shall include:
1. A site plan showing the lot lines and lot numbers, the phase lines
and phase numbers and number of dwelling units in each phase.
2. A table showing the phase number, the lots included in the phase
and the number of units included in each phase.
Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or
unit of development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning. The City reserves the right to conditionally approve
each final map and require improvements, facilities and/or dedications as
necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of
police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Planning Director
may at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction
should conditions change to warrant such revision(s).
G. Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions
1. Comply with any and all unfulfilled conditions of approval
applicable to the Eastlake South Greens, Chula Vista Tract 88-03,
Tentative Map established by Resolution No. 15200 approved by
Council on July 18, 1989, and amended by Resolution 17618 on
August 16,1994.
2. Install public facilities in accordance with the Eastlake South
Greens, Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required
by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the
City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer and Planning Director may,
at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement
construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
STREETS. RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
3. Design and construct all street improvements in accordance with
Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Standards, and
the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. Submit for approval by the City Engineer
improvement plans detailing horizontal and vertical alignment of
said streets.
Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt
concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer
and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, cuI de sacs,
street knuckles and fire hydrants.
4. Guarantee prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map, the
construction of public street improvements (streets, sewer, drainage,
utilities, etc.) deemed necessary to provide service to the subject
subdivision in accordance with City standards.
5. Submit and obtain preliminary approval for proposed street names
from the Director of Planning and the City Engineer. Dedicate to
public use, the right of way for all streets shown on the Tentative
map within the subdivision.
6. Street light locations shall be approved by the City Engineer.
7. Construct five and one half foot (5 Vz') sidewalks and construct
pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet or exceed the "Americans
with Disabilities Act" standards.
8. Present written verification to the City Engineer from Otay Water
District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service
and long term water storage facilities.
9. Connect proposed storm drain system to existing 30" R.C.P. storm
drain in South Greensview Drive. Connect proposed sewer system
to existing sewer in South Greensview Drive.
10. All streets which intersect other streets at or near horizontal or
vertical curves must meet intersection design sight distance
requirements in accordance with City standards.
11. All sanitary sewer facilities required for development of any lot
subject to Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows DIF or Salt
Creek Sewer Basin DIF shall be guaranteed prior to recordation of
the Subdivision Final Map for said lot.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
12. Submit hydrologic and hydraulic studies and calculations, including
dry lane calculations for all public streets. Calculations shall also be
provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage
structures, pipes and inlets.
13. Storm drain design shall be accomplished on the basis of the
requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance
( #1797 as amended)
14. Provide improved access to all storm drain clean outs or as
approved by the City Engineer.
15. Submit to and obtain approval from the City Engineer for an
erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of grading plans.
16. Provide an updated soils report or an addendum to the original
document prepared by a registered engineer, as required by the City
Engineer.
17. Design the storm drains and other drainage facilities to include
Best Management Practices to minimize non-point source
pollution, satisfactory to the City Engineer.
18. The property owner shall submit "as built" improvement and
grading plans as required by the City Subdivision Manual.
Additionally, the property owner shall provide the City said plans
in a digital D.X.F. file format.
19. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes except as approved
by the City Engineer. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the
street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be
permitted to flow over slopes.
20. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the grades
and elevations shown on the approved tentative map or as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
21. Prior to approval of Final Subdivision Map, the developer shall
submit a list of proposed lots indicating whether the structure will
be located on fill, cut, or a transition between the two situations.
22. The inclination of each cut or fill surface resulting in a slope shall
not be steeper than 2: 1 (two horizontal to one vertical) except
for minor slopes as herein defined.
All constructed minor slopes shall be designed for proper stability
considering both geological and soil properties. A minor slope
may be constructed no steeper than one and one-half horizontal
to one vertical (1.5: 1) contingent upon:
a. Submission of reports by both a soils engineer and a
certified engineering geologist containing the results of
surface and subsurface exploration and analysis. These
results should be sufficient for the soils engineer and
engineering geologist to certify that in their professional
opinion, the underlying bedrock and soil supporting the
slope have strength characteristics sufficient to provide a
stable slope and will not pose a danger to persons or
property, and
b. The installation of an approved special slope planting program
and irrigation system.
c. A "Minor Slope" is defined as a slope four (4) feet or less in
vertical dimension in either cut or fill, between single family lots
and not parallel to any roadway.
AGREEMENTS
23. Agree that the City may withhold building permits for the subject
subdivision if anyone of the following occur:
a. Regional development threshold limits set by the East
Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been
reached.
b. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or
services exceed the adopted City threshold standards in
the then effective Growth Management Ordinance.
c. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or
as amended or otherwise conditioned have not been
completed or constructed to satisfaction of the City. The
developer may propose changes in the timing and
sequencing of development and the construction of
improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be
amended as approved by the City Planning Director and
Public Works Director.
24. Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its
agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or
proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees
to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approval by its Planning Commission, City Councilor
any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to
this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map
Act provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any
claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the
City fully cooperates in the defense.
25. Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion,
siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project.
26. Agree to ensure that all franchised cable television companies
("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place
conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the
subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those
franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in
compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise
and which are in further compliance with all other rules,
regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting
the operation of cable television companies as same may have
been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula
Vista.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
27. Grant an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD), on the Final Map
for Open Space Lots A, B, and C within the subdivision. The City
Clerk's statement on the final maps shall indicate rejection of said
lots subject to future acceptance in accordance with the State
Subdivision Map Act.
28. Provide proof to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director
of Planning that all improvements located on open space lots "A",
"B", and "C" will be incorporated into and maintained by the
existing Eastlake Homeowners Association.
29. Pay additional fees on a proportional basis as determined by the
City Engineer into the Assessment District Numbers 90-3, 91-1
and 94-1 or other applicable assessment districts due to changes
in the number of units approved subsequent to district formation.
30. Pay all costs associated with apportionment of assessments for
all City assessment districts as a result of subdivision of lands
within the boundary. Submit an apportionment form and provide
a deposit to the City estimated at $4,725.00 ( $25 per lot X 63 lots
X 3 districts) to cover costs.
31. Submit all Special Tax and Assessment disclosure forms for the
approval of the City Engineer.
32. Comply with the terms and conditions of the
Acquisition/Financing Agreement for Assessment District 94-1, CO
94-064, approved by Council Resolution 17483 as said terms and
conditions may be applicable to this development.
33. The developer shall be responsible for street trees in accordance
with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The
use of cones shall be included where necessary to reduce the
impact of root systems disrupting adjacent sidewalks and rights-
of-way.
34. Maintenance of all facilities and improvements within open space
areas covered by home owners associations shall be covered by
CC&Rs to be submitted and approved by the Engineering
Department prior to approval of the associated final map.
35. Prior to the approval of any final map, the developer shall request
in writing that maintenance of all facilities and improvements
within the open space area associated with such map shall be
the responsibility of the Eastlake Greens Open Space
Maintenance District I.
36. All utilities which service open space shall be located within the
open space or within dedicated City right-of-way.
37. For walls which are located within the open space maintenance
district, owners of adjoining lots shall sign a statement when
purchasing their homes that they are aware that the wall is on
Open Space property and that they may not modify or
supplement the wall or encroach onto Open Space property.
These restrictions shall also be reflected in the CC&Rs for each
lot.
EASEMENTS
38. Grant on the final map a minimum 15' wide easement to the City
of Chula Vista for construction and maintenance of sewer facilities
within Lots 2 and 39.
39. Grant to the City a 5.5 foot wide street tree planting and
maintenance easement along all public streets within the
subdivision. Said easement shall extend from the property line
and shall contain no slope steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical
ratio ).
MISCELLANEOUS
40. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall
include provisions assuring maintenance of all open space areas
as applicable, streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems
which are private. The City of Chula Vista shall be named as
party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the terms
and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any
owner within the subdivision.
41. Submit copies of Final Maps in a digital format such as (DXF)
graphic file prior to approval of each Final Map. Provide
Computer Aided Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map based on
accurate coordinate geometry calculations and submit the
information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital
Submittal in duplicate on 5-1/4" HD or 3-1/2" disks. Submit as-
built improvement and grading plans in digital format. Provide
security to guarantee the ultimate submittal of improvements and
grading digital files. Update electronic files after any construction
pen and ink changes to the grading or improvement plans and
resubmit to the City.
42. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System -
Zone VI (1983).
CODE REQUIREMENTS
43. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in
accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and
the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision
Manual.
44. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with
Municipal Code requirements.
45. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and
Council Policy:
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development
Impact Fees.
b. Signal Participation Fees.
c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer
connection fees.
d. SR-125 impact fee.
e. Telegraph Canyon Pump Sewer Fee.
f. Salt Creek Ranch Sewer Basin Fee.
46. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local
regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be
responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to
demonstration said compliance as required by the City Engineer.
47. The fire hydrant on Street "A" shall be relocated to the entry street as
indicated by the Fire Department. All fire hydrants shall be installed and
operable and 20' fire access roads shall be usable prior to delivery of
any combustible construction materials.
48. Design all dwelling units to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA
and shield all exterior private open space to limit noise exposure to 65
dBA.
VI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and rnaintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of
all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages
for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in
interest by the City's approval of this Resolution.
VII. 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, provision, or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or
unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no
further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Kenneth G. Lee
Planning Director (Acting)
Approved as to form by
John Kaheny
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT 3
EXHIBITS
a..
<
==
LLI
>
co
c:>>
-
t-
<
t-
:z:
LLI
t-
",..
I,;.
~ I :;.
-
-~
~.-
"
ILl "
I"~ 1 1
Cl' .
In,
.
1 \ . d'r \~ .\ ~ n " ~I'\
.. e...,!" I \ \ . ,
.. "II ....
( \.
".--;.--..-..-: ~
..~
v
.
.. ,
'.,
','
i,
~~ ~ ~
~\ ~ '~
w' ..
-', : ~
IQ
...
....
-
.
:z:
::;)
o
%
,
:\~_; \ii,
\ ~.-l--
I, "
tn
:z:
UJ
UJ
a:
CJ
3i
ij
t-
(.,)
<
a:
t-
,d
J .,~'
J'i"'::'
i;; .
::~
:c
....
::;)
o
tn
\ ,
~#
t~
<
t-
en
~'! ::.
~:~ i ~ ; ~
\ -~'- !~
._-~\ - 1-- 1 ----+
, \1~'
\ i !'
I ' ..
,~\
I'i
, .
\ 'I-;r~
I . ]_,
:_.\ _L~\/
h - ("I'
~.; i
~~~
UJ
~
...:
....
....
en
...:
UJ
.~
~.
'. ~i!!_
i ';;;I'ilj
. >/w"
) '(<3-
.'
.~,
-
>
cC
...I
~
X
(.,)
j
o.
:! 6 ~ ~; ~~ ~ ~,,) t 1
\\ \~~ \ t.,. j':~'\_" :~ \',: 1~ ~r. ::, ':. ~" \/
~.;. ~:'''~:~~ 'i;} ,
., ,." -',., -, :~ -" '1 ',>
~ "', . ~." '": = : . .: ;.' CO;>
~~ ~Y{~:;~ . ., <
!
i
~ 1 .
\\\HH
~ ~
~ ; ; ~
~ l " :,: '. ~ ~
~" } - 1> :='1 t ~ ~ : ~
diHH1;~i\~HL'1;
- :;
. ,
^ ,
~ ~
~,
"
--:-r \
~i
, ,
n
1 .
,
,
;.;
-~:~
'~CI~
\-t - ;\'
\ i
, ,
. \
\ l-e,
\ ; :1
,-1,1_:;
/ /'
, \
~.:' I
.'
~
.-
t.
/
, ~.\
j ~~h
~ ,.:.i~
't~I.
"\
'\
~~
"
i:
.'
~~ i~
,
"
\~
:i ~
!
,
;-~ ::.
i~ .~:
~~ ~'~
i ~-, ;~
~ ~'. ~7,
" ; .~ ".,
1.' ..,~.. '
J~ ~l"
'J , .;~, 1
.~ j ::
. !,:', .~
.', ' ~
.;..,f.
-~
\
i ~I
'" -<
~
e
~
\
~\ '
)I ~~: \~
~\\~;i ~.
a: ~1'.. .~
"" ~ t! ~ ~~
'I! '''I '
~ Hi::; ~
.;1
~~;:
".
/r~
;~ \
~;i
II!
~~~
:~i \
:il~
" l.~
~ ~;~
~m
W .:ti
o !;.. \
i. ...;~
~ ;!i
\ \
~\I' ,'\
~\~H~
; 5; ~ ~
~ ! ~ U ~
I
.
I
~
'"
... ~
~? ~
o 'I;
o~ ~
rn~ ::
U'I.;~:
0( ,l<
( ?)~
'.
~.
. '0
uo
:i~,,;~
og,:",
; U<II"S;
;i :::~i
...!11 0"''''-
\
,
EJ ~
E-I
Z '-n ....
tj ~ ...., c;" ~
-. c: 'cS
<( !'= ..,.OO)..,ItIIOO<QIt)CQr-..NC\l.Q;lctOl...,c:oOl (h(\4CO(QOO"'" '" '" .... ;f ....
.CIt)..,m-or-..<QO)..,...,.mm","COCQo_ItIItIO M,.....,...... (0., 11'1 M '" \Jill :=
Fj -_ N'" -(\1-- - N ... ....
N
...J '" ~
a.. u ~
-- .'!. u
,
&,'ii .....,...ItICCU)..,<DIIH.'_CO-;MIl)"'"OInI/'lOID OHn..,.mOM.., " C'!.!!
i~NN...,.~.~~~.....~It)(Q~~g~~~~ ;:Mcrioi~..,c:o '" "'~ ;
Z 1"0 '" 1
- 11
0 u u u Li
- - - I
. .
- ! ........c:ooO..,.....It)It)(QDNIO..,.OIOIIOQI"'"M ~C")-:O!MC\!-: M ! ~MCD~~-:O~ItIOO!-:OI~~O!~..,.- m '"
~ u cri.-.~.....O~~..C:ON-~o~cri..,. -OI/'l.....I()(J)(Q v U QlOltlcnOItlM_..,.MN__....c:o..,ltIo..... '" .; HI
.. --NNN--- M__C\i.___N -- -N _ N .. ---..,.-- - ~'" N '" ~
v v
'" I
N .. g~ '0 ~-l:-e:~ ~_i J
=. 1()L()1l)1l'I1/) It) ~~ ~~~~~~ g
. ~~~~1l)1t)1t)1tI1I)1/)1tI1tI1l)1t)1t)
- C 1tI1/)1tI1/)1I)_______________ ____(\IIt)..- !i ~ ~
...J !&! 66666~1b_n.;,.n.n.n.n.n.n.n.n.n.n.n .n.n.ntiJ<j!6.n $..:...:._~.f'8'8'8'8c1)QHIHIICllcI)QI i
~~~g~~~~~~gu~o~~u~a .
- - ~~e~Eg~~~~~!~~~~i~G
I- :e:~ - . pft J
co:>
". =-a r::JI,(J.!:!U)CI)~ ~.r:.J::.C:C:CC:ccc()'" t
::::> ~loocaOQOcQcQCOCC~~~ss QQQQQcQ :- E QDOOel)QlQI QI_O ii l !
C:C ~.g.g~.9! 0;;;;0;;8888-&0.&'0. ..
<0:(<<0(<< < Q)-
ea :! ~ :g...l ... >~~zwuzzzz 0 ~~ ~ - ~ ! ~ "i
jq ~ .
:;: .
c:-j . O....NM..I()ID....GDo)O~NM..II'IID....a) 1i (I) .,z '7~~ "7~~"r~~t':' 1i
m~ "7~~~~~~~~~'7~~~~"7~"7"7~~~~~~~~~ S ~ ~ E OO~~'7~,,"!''?~CI)(I)(/)fJ)CI)CI) ;2 <:; ~. ,)i J
'U i~ a:a:a:a:a: a: a: IX a: a: a::: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a:: a: cx:a::a:a:::a:a::a::a: I III ~ Q.,Q.CI)(/)Q.Q.Q.Q.,Q. 000000 .. I
.(j)G..Z ;, c:o.z ;, "15' I ~ 0 i
. . a:
CD .. 0 ..
a: z
,
w
o
Z
E-IO
U....
~E-I
~<
OU
~O
~~
N
"'
N
"
"-
~~u
SLU u~
__LUb
r-=~ <(
lnt.!)
~
~
"'
.
-\
.
\"---
---j--~f ~
-:- IN..,
'II VJ <II
000
A TT ACHMENIA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
11-1
. Y OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURJ
. rEM ENT
Yuu arc required 10 tile <J SLalemenl of Di~clo5urc nr cCT1~in ownership or finam:iCJI interests, payments, or campaign
contri~ulions, on all mailers which will rcquire diserelionary aClion on the pari of Ihe Cily Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following informalion musl ~e disclosed:
1. Ust the name. of all persons having a financial interc.q in Ihe property which is Ihe su~jecl of the application or Ihe
contract, e.g., owner, applicanl, conlractor, su~conlractor, material supplier.
T/Te ,fh'57,1/l/{c c!(J.
2. If any person' identified pursuant 10 (I) above IS a corporation or partnership, listlhe name.' of all individuals owning
more Ihan 10% of the shares in the corporatton or owning any pannership inlere.t in the partnership.
J'.J, / ri
(
3. If any person' idenliried pursuant 10 (I) above is non'profit organi!Ation or a trusI, list Ihe name. of any person
serving as director of the non.profil organil;)tion or as Iruslce or beneficiary or IruSlor of the trust.
H/r4 .
I
4. Have you had more than $25U worth of bus inc.'" Iransaeled wilh any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Commillee., and Council wilhin the past Iwelvc monlhs') Ye._ No~ If ye." please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consullanls, or independent contractors who
you have assigned 10 repre.enl you before Ihe City in Ihis matter.
c/f/e!C# cf 1.f.ftJC.
7!oGER 'Z1i.4i/4 I R.C, E.
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding elcction period? Ycs_ No V If yes, Slate which Couneilmember(s):
. , , (NOTE:
Attach additional pages :lZ...~
Slgnatu~P1icant
1de-~~ ~
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
Date:
/()-ll-,97
. Persofl O' defined as: "All)' jlU1iwdual. finn, cO-parltlCTsJllp. lO/1Il \'t'7,llIrc, /J.k1f/cUJllnfl, so>cial club, frarenlul orgalllWlwlt, t:otportltion, (S'ale, tru.tt, receiver, J)'rulicQu::,
dW and an)' Oilier CQUlII)', eil)' and cOlmlry, (Il)' mutJ/ClpcJliry, di.nner, or OIlier puln/fal J'Ubdi~'isjont or affy atilt7 group or combiffatiOff actinG a.r a wliL ..
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 1/14/98
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCS-98-03; Tentative Subdivision Map for the
Eastlake Greens Parcel R-IO, Chula Vista Tract 98-03, involving 231
single family and 5 open space lots on 34.28 acres located on the south
side of South Greensview Drive west of Hunte Parkway. The Eastlake
Company.
The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Eastlake South Greens
Unit 10, Chula Vista Tract 98-03, in order to subdivide 34.28 acres into 231 single family
and 5 open space lots (see Exhibit A). The project site is identified as Parcel R-1O in the
Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan which targets the site for 246 dwelling
units at a density of 7.1 du/ac (see Exhibit B). The subdivision site, which is limited to the
east and west by single family residential neighborhoods and 80 ft. wide water easement to
the south, is located on the south side of South Greensview Drive west of Hunte Parkway
within the Eastlake Greens planned community (see Locator).
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project implements and
falls under the purview of FEIR.86-04 (B) and that no further environmental review is
necessary .
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt attached Planning Commission Resolution PCS-98-03 recommending approval of the
Tentative Subdivision Map, Eastlake South Greens View Unit 10, Chula Vista Tract 98-03,
in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached
Draft City Council Resolution.
DISCUSSION
Background
The subject site is a 34.28 acre "Super Lot" (e. i., large parcel designed for further
subdivision) created as part of the Eastlake Greens Master Tentative Subdivision map
approved in 1989. The Eastlake Greens Master Tentative Subdivision map subdivided
approximately 884 acres into residential lots accommodating approximately 1,124 single
family lots and several super lots to house 1747 units for a combined total of 2,871 dwelling
units. The project site is one of these super lots identified as Parcel R-1O in the SPA's Site
Utilization Plan (see Exhibit B).
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 1/14/98
Site Characteristics
The project site is a level building pad created as part of the Eastlake Greens mass grading
program. The site would be regraded to create two building pads, hereby referred to as the
East and West building pads, of similar size( (west = 16.86 ac. East = 12.35 ac.) and with
West building pad being 8 ft. higher). The site is limited to the north by South Greensview
Drive, single family developments to the east and west, and the future Olympic Parkway to
the south.
The West building pad elevation drops approximately 22 ft. from the westerly adjacent
residential neighborhood and is about 17 ft. above the future Olympic Parkway located
directly to the south. This building pad drains west to east and north to south towards storm
drains located at both ends of street B.
As noted, the East building pad elevation is approximately 8 ft. below the West building
pad, 18-25 ft. above the easterly adjacent residential neighborhood (R-12), and varies in
height (8-30 ft.) above the future Olympic Parkway. South Greensview Drive is about the
same elevation of both building pad access points. The East building pad drains west to east
and slight slope north to south.
Zoning and Land Use
Zoning
Existing Land Use
Community District Zone
District Designation
Site
PC (Planned Community)
Vacant
RC, 10 Residential
Condominium *
North I West
PC (Planned Community)
Single family detached
RS-5, Residential Single
Family
East
PC (Planned Community)
Single family detached
RP-13 Residential Planned
Concept
*
On January 20, 1998, the City Council will consider a SPA amendment to change the Land Use District
Designation of the subject site from RP-8. Rcsidential Planned Concept, to RC-lO, Residential Condominiums.
For the purpose of this report, the existing land use district designation would be the proposed RC-lO.
Proposal
The proposed tentative map consists of subdividing 34.28 acres into two separate building
pads, hereby referred as the west and east neighborhoods, for a combined total of 231 single
family and 5 open space lots. The following paragraphs describe in more detail each
Neighborhood:
Page 3, Item~
Meeting Date 1114/98
West Neighborhood
The west neighborhood subdivision design consists of a square shape loop street
connected by an access point to South Greensview Drive. The majority of the
residential lots are 45' X 70', except for lot 132 which is 29 ft. wide. Knuckle and cul-
de-sac lots are 25-32 ft. wide, except for lot 97, which is only 22 ft. wide, and lots 10,
20 and 47 which are designed as panhandle lots.
East Neighborhood
The east neighborhood subdivision design is basically the same square shape
configuration and street width design as the West Neighborhood. This site is also
connected to Greensview Drive by an access driveway. All residential lots are 50' X
55'or better with the exception of knuckle and cul-de-sac lots which are 35 ft. wide
and irregular in shape.
A decorative type perimeter wall along South Greensview Drive and south property line
will define the exterior boundaries of this subdivisions (both neighborhoods) and
complement the existing open space landscaping treatment along South Greens View Drive.
The perimeter walls would be constructed within open space lots and maintained, along with
the landscaping, by the existing Eastlake Landscape Maintenance District.
Compliance with the Eastlake II General Development plan and Eastlake Greens SPA Plan
The Eastlake II (Eastlake I extension) General Development Plan (GDP), which establishes
general pattern, intensity and character of development, designates the site M, Residential
Medium density (6-11 du/ac). The SPA Site Utilization Plan identifies this parcel as R-1O
for 246 dwelling units at a density of7.1 du/ac. The proposed 231 residential lot subdivision
is well below the allowable density and permitted number of dwelling units. Thus, as
conditioned, this subdivision is in substantial compliance with the Eastlake II General
Development Plan (GDP) and Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan.
Compliance with Planned Community Regulations
The applicant has submitted a SPA amendment application requesting to change Parcel R-
IO present land use designation from RP-8, Residential Planned Concept, to RC-IO,
Residential Condominium. Both districts allow basically the same residential products
(single family attached and detached homes, patio homes, townhomes, duplexes and other
single family products on small lots or in land held in common by association), but the RC-
ID District allows the introduction of special property development standards as part of the
project's site plan and architectural review approval. The SPA amendment was considered
by the Planning Commission on December 12, 1997 and voted unanimously to recommend
Page 4, Item~
Meeting Date 1/14/98
that the City Council approve said amendment. The City Council will consider the
application on January 20, 1998 and, if approved, the new Land Use District Designation
would be in effect February 21, 1998. The tentative subdivision map approval is contingent
upon approval of the above mentioned land use district designation change.
Assuming that the SPA amendment is approved as requested, the new RC-lO, Residential
Condominium Land Use District allows the property development standards to be
established by approval of the site plan or tentative subdivision map.
The proposed subdivision development standards are as follows:
West Neighborhood
Minimum lot dimensions
Lot area
Cul-de-sac/ knuckle lot frontage
45' X 70 (average size 47' X 75')
3,150 sq. ft. (average lot area 3,500 sq. ft.)
35 ft.
East Neighborhood
Minimum lot dimensions
Min Lot area
Cui-de sac/ knuckle lot frontage
50' X 55' ( average lot size 53' X 59')
2,800 sq. ft. (average lot size 3,200 sq. ft.)
35 ft.
property development standards for the construction of individual homes are required in
conjunction with the site design which is scheduled to be considered by the Zoning
Administrator on January 28, 1998.
Mfordable Housinl!:
The Developer has entered into an agreement with the City which establishes the delivery
of the low and moderate income housing units required by the Housing Element of the
General Plan. The Housing Element requires the overall master planned community to
provide five percent of the total project units as low income units and five percent moderate
income housing units. The Eastlake Greens Affordable Housing Program and Agreement
requires the developer to deliver the low and moderate income housing units prior to
issuance of the 2,550th dwelling unit within the territory of the Eastlake Greens Master
Tentative, Chula Vista Tract 89-06, or be under construction no later than June 1st, 1998.
The five percent of moderate income housing units has been satisfied with market rate
housing units. However, representatives from The Eastlake Company are currently working
with City staff to deliver the low income housing units in the near future.
The Eastlake Greens Planned Community also offers a mix of housing types and lot sizes
for single-family, townhomes, condominium and various apartment densities to provide a
Page 5, Item--.i.
Meeting Date 1/14/98
wide spectrum of housing prices for persons of various incomes.
Analysis
The proposed small lot residential project features a standard public streets and cul-de-sacs
with pedestrian walks on both sides and ample maneuvering area for emergency vehicles.
The project is separated from the westerly and easterly adjacent single family residential
neighborhoods by a substantial elevation difference which provides individuality for each
neighborhood. The proposed subdivision provides for a residential project with
approximately 15 units less than targeted in the SPA plan and a small lot product presently
not available in the Greens. The Following table illustrates the Eastlake Greens planned
community residential lot product composition:
6,000-7,000 sq. ft. lots = 288 (11 %)
5,000 sq. ft. lots = 470 (18%)
4,500 sq. ft. lots = 401 (15%)
4,000 sq. ft. lots = 92 (4%)
3,000 sq. ft.lots = 291 (11%)
The introduction of the 3,800 and 2,800 sq. ft. small lot products would allow the applicant
the opportunity to provide a wider variety of housing product within the planned community
and complement the existing housing composition and the character envisioned in the SPA
plan. The project is also compatible with the westerly and easterly adjacent single family
detached residential developments.
Provided the SPA amendment (PCM-98-14) to change the underlying Land Use District
designation from RP-8, Residential Concept to RC-lO, Residential Condominiums is
approved by Council, the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is in substantial
compliance with all applicable regulations and City policies.
Conclusion
For the reasons noted above, staff recommends approval of the proposed Tentative
Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 98-03 in accordance with the attached Draft City
Council Resolution and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Attachments
]. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Draft City Council Resolution
3. Exhibits
4. Disclosure Statement
5 Blue Prints
~
'.ff '1
I ! I
I
I
I
i I EASTLAKE
i! HIGH
SCHOOL
jl
I
,
Iff
~
\
,
"
",
\
PROJEC\
SITE
'~
\
\
CH U LA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT The Eastlake Company PROJECT DESCRIPTION,
C) APPLICANT, SUBDIVISION
PROJECT EasUake Greens Request: Proposal for 236 single family detached units on 2,800 to 3,200
ADDRESS: sq. ft. lots at Parcel R-t O.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale PCS-98-03 Related Cases: DRC'98-19, PCM-98-t4,
h :\home\planning\carlos\locators\pcs9803 .cdr 12/4/97
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-98-03
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAKE
SOUTH GREENS UNIT 10, CHULA VISTA TRACT 98-03, WITHIN THE
EASTLAKE GREENS PLANNED COMMUNITY AND PC ZONE
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map was filed with
the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on November 5, 1997 by The Eastlake
Company ("Developer"); and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to subdivide 34.28 acres into 231
residential lots and 5 open space lots ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the property is located on the south side of South Greensview Drive
west of Hunte Parkway within the Eastlake Greens Planned Community and P-C Zone
District; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project
implements and falls under the purview of FEIR-86-04 and that no further environmental
review is necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the
tentative map 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 of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10
days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00
p.m., January 14, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has previously considered FEIR-86-04 (B)
and, therefore, no further environmental action by the Commission is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City
Council Resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 98-03
in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to
the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of January, 1998, by the following vote, to-
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Frank Tarantino, Chair
A TIEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
(H:/home/planning/luisIPCS-9803.PCR)
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND IMPOSING
CONDITIONS OF TIlE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS, CHULA VISTA
TRACT NO 98-03
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution
is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, is commonly known as Eastlake
South Greens Unit 10 Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vita Tract 98-03;
and for purpose of general description herein consists of 34.28 acres
located on the south side of South Greensview Drive west of Hunte
Parkway within the Eastlake Greens Planned Community and PC zone
District ("Project site").
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on November 5, 1997 The Eastlake Company ("Developer")
filed a tentative subdivision map application with the Planning Department
of the City of Chula Vista and requested approval of the Tentative
Subdivision Map known as Eastlake South Greens Unit 10, Chula Vista
Tract 98-03 in order to subdivide the Project site into 231 single family
residential lots and 5 open space lots ("Project"); and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject
matter of: 1) a General Development Plan, EastLake II (EastLake I
Expansion) previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15198
("GDP"); 2) the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan, previously
adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15199; both approved on July 18,
1989; 3) an Air Quality Improvement Plan (EastLake Greens Air Quality
Improvement Plan); 4) a Water Conservation Plan (EastLake Greens
Water Conservation Plan) and Public Facilities Financing Plan (Eastlake
Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan), all previously approved by the
City Council on November 24, 1992, by Resolution No. 16898 5) Eastlake
Greens Master Tentative Subdivision map, approved by Resolution No._
_; and,
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing
on said project on January 14, 1998 and voted ( ) to recommend that
the City Council approve the Project based upon the findings and subject
to the conditions listed below; and,
E. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was
held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on January 27,
1998, on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City council does hereby
find, detennine and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on this project held on January 14, 1998, and the minutes and
Resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project
implements and falls under the purview of FEIR 86-04 (B) and that no further
environmental review is necessary.
IV. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act,
the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned
herein for Eastlake South Greens Unit 10, Chula Vista Tract No. 98-03 is
in conformance with the Eastlake II General Development Plan, Eastlake
Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan and the elements of the City's
General Plan, based on the following:
1. Land Use
The General Development Plan designation is Residential Low Medium
density (3-6 du/ac/) and the SPA allows 246 dwelling units at a density of
approximately 7.1 du/ac. The proposed 236 lot subdivision (5 open space
lots) is well below the allowable density and permitted number of dwelling
units. Therefore, as conditioned, the project is in substantial compliance
with the City's General Plan, Eastlake n General Development Plan
(GDP) and Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan.
2. Circulation
All on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision will
be constructed or DIF fees paid by the developer in accordance with the
Eastlake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan and Development
Agreement. The public streets within the Project will be designed in
accordance with the City design standards and/or requirements and provide
for vehicular and pedestrian connections with adjacent streets and
community pedestrian trails.
3. Housing
Resolution No. 15751 adopted by the City Council on August 7, 1990,
requires the provision of ten percent of the total number of units allowed
in the Eastlake Greens planned community for low and moderate income
households.
In July 1995, the City Council approved a program and the applicant
entered into an agreement for the provision of affordable Housing within
the Eastlake Greens Planned Community. The program outlines the
required number of low and moderate income units, the proposed location
and the implementation schedule.
4. Conservation
The Environmental Impact Report FEIR-86-04 (B) addressed the goals
and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan. The
development of this site is consistent with these goals and policies.
5. Parks and Recreation, Open Space
The Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan provides public
and private parks, trails and open space consistent with City policies.
6. Seismic Safety
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of
the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site.
7. Safety
The Fire Department and other emergency service agencies have reviewed
the proposed subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and
have determined that the proposal meets the City Threshold Standards for
emergency services.
8. Noise
Noise mitigation measures included in the Environmental Impact Report
FEIR-86-04 (B) adequately address the noise policy of the General Plan.
The project has been conditioned to require that all dwelling units be
designed to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA. and exterior noise
exposure to 65 dBA which in accordance with the City's performance
stan dards.
9. Scenic Highway
The project is not adjacent to scenic highways.
10. Bicycle Routes
When the street system in the EastIake Greens was originally considered,
appropriate bicycle lanes were included within the community. The private
streets within the project are of adequate width to accommodate bicycle
travel interior to the site.
11. Public Buildings
No public buildings are proposed on the project site. The project is
subject to RCT fees prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council
certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing
needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service
needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and
environmental resources.
C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows
for the optimum sitting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling
opportunities as required by Government Code Section 66473.1.
D. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal
conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement
herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent
to the impact created by the proposed development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby approve the Project
subject to the general and special conditions set forth below.
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the foregoing Tentative Subdivision Map which is stated to be
conditioned on "General Conditions" is hereby conditioned as follows:
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site
with the Project as described in the Master Tentative Map, Tract No. 92-
02, Resolution No. and FEIR 86-04 (B) Mitigation Measures except
as modified by this Resolution.
B. Implement Mitigation Measures.
Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all
mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report FEIR-86-04 (B).
C. Implement previously adopted conditions of approval pertinent to project
Unless othelWise conditioned, developer shall comply with all unfulfilled
conditions of approval of the Eastlake Greens Master Tentative Map,
Chula Vista Tract 88-03, established by Resolution No. _ and approved
by Council on , and shall remain in compliance with and implement
the terms, conditions and provisions of the Eastlake Greens Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) plan, General Development Plan, Planned
Community District Regulations, Water Conservation Plan, Air Quality
Improvement Plan, Residential Design Guidelines and Public Facilities
Financing Plan as amended and as are applicable to the property which is
the subject matter of this tentative map, prior to approval of the Final Map
or shall have entered into an agreement with the City, providing the City
with such security (including recordation of covenants running with the
land) and implementation procedures, as the City may require, assuring
that after approval of the Pinal Map, the developer shall continue to
comply with, remain in compliance with, and implement such plans.
D. Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan
Developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the Eastlake
Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan, as amended or as required by the
City Engineer, to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula
Vista. The City Engineer and Planning Director may, at their discretion,
modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions
change to warrant such a revision.
E. Contingency of Project Approval
Approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map is contingent upon the
amendments to the EastIake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan
and EastIake II Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use
District map taking effect (PCM-98-14).
F. Design Approval
The applicant shall develop the lots in accordance with the applicable
EastIake Greens Planned Community District Regulations and Design
Guidelines. The plans for the residential project shall be submitted for
review and obtain approval under the City's Design Review process prior
to submittal for building permits.
G. Project Phasing
If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final
maps, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development
phasing plan by the City Engineer and Director of Planning prior to
approval of any final map.
The phasing plan shall include:
1. A site plan showing the lot lines and lot numbers, the phase lines
and phase numbers and number of dwelling units in each phase.
2. A table showing the phase number, the lots included in the phase
and the number of units included in each phase.
Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or
unit of development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning. The City reserves the right to conditionally approve
each final map and require improvements, facilities and/or dedications as
necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of
police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Planning Director
may at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction
should conditions change to warrant such revision(s).
H. Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions
Prior to approval of the final map unless otheIWise indicated, the
developer shall:
GENERAL/PRELIMINAR Y
1. Comply with any and all unfulfilled conditions of approval applicable to
the Eastlake South Greens, Chula Vista Tract 88-03, Tentative Map
established by Resolution No. 15200 approved by Council on July 18, 1989,
and amended by resolution 17618 on August 16,1994.
2. Install public facilities in accordance with the Eastlake South Greens,
Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City
Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista.
The City Engineer and Planning Director may, at their discretion, modify
the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to
warrant such a revision.
STREETS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
3. Design and construct all street improvements in accordance with Chula
Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Standards, and the Chula Vista
Subdivision Manual unless othelWise approved by the City Engineer.
Submit for approval by the City Engineer improvement plans detailing
horizontal and vertical alignment of said streets.
Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete
pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and water
utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, cui de sacs, street knuckles
and fire hydrants.
4. Guarantee prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map, all
improvements interior to the subdivision (streets, sewer, drainage, utilities,
etc.) deemed necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision in
accordance with City standards.
5. Submit and obtain preliminary approval for proposed street names from
the Director of Planning and the City Engineer. Final approval of street
names shall be by the Planning Commission. No two intersections shall
incorporate the same two street names. Dedicate to public use, the right
of way for all streets shown on the Tentative map within the subdivision.
6. Existing street lights on South Greensview Drive shall be moved and
placed at new locations to provide illumination at the two new
intersections proposed. Final street light locations shall be approved by the
City Engineer.
7. Construct five and one half foot (5 Vz') sidewalks and construct pedestrian
ramps on all walkways to meet or exceed the "Americans with Disabilities
Act" standards.
8. Present written verification to the City Engineer from Otay Water District
that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long term
water storage facilities.
9. Submit and obtain approval of improvement plans for the following:
a. Connect proposed storm drain system to existing 30" R.c.P. storm
drain in South Greensview Drive.
b. Provide a pair of connections to the existing storm drain system in
future Olympic Parkway.
c. Remove existing sewer mains, manholes, laterals and related
structures that are presently providing service to Eastlake South
Greens Unit 23. Realign and connect proposed sewer system to
existing sewer in South Greensview Drive.
10. All streets which intersect other streets at or near horizontal or vertical
curves must meet intersection design sight distance requirements in
accordance with City standards.
11. All Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum curb radius of 36'.
12. All sanitary sewer facilities required for development of any lot subject to
Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows DIF or Salt Creek Sewer Basin
DIF shall be guaranteed prior to recordation of the Subdivision Final Map
for said lot.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
13. Submit for approval by the City Engineer, a detailed grading plan in
accordance with the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance 1797, as amended.
14. Submit letters of permission to grade for all off-site grading including but
not limited to letters of permission from the San Diego County Water
Authority and the Otay Water District for grading within their easements.
15. Submit hydrologic and hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry
lane calculations for all public streets. Calculations shall also be provided
to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and
inlets.
16. Storm drain design shall be accomplished on the basis of the requirements
of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance ( #1797 as
amended)
17. Provide improved access to all storm drain clean outs or as approved by
the City Engineer.
18. Submit to and obtain approval from the City Engineer for an erosion and
sedimentation control plan as part of grading plans.
19. Provide an updated soils report or an addendum to the original document
prepared by a registered engineer, as required by the City Engineer. The
geotechnical investigation shall address the proposed earthwork shown on
the Tentative Map and Grading Plans and describe any changes in
geotechnical references and statements.
20. Design the storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best
Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
21. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes except as approved by the
City Engineer. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an
approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over
slopes.
22. Grade a level, clear area at least two (2) feet wide, along the length of any
wall abutting Olympic Parkway, as measured from face-of-wall to beginning
of slope, said area as approved by the City Engineer and the Director of
Parks and Recreation.
23. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the grades and
elevations shown on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved
by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
24. Prior to approval of Final Subdivision Map, the developer shall submit a
list of proposed lots indicating whether the structure will be located on fill,
cut, or a transition between the two situations.
25. The inclination of each cut or fill surface resulting in a slope shall not be
steeper than 2: I ( two horizontal to one vertical) except for minor slopes
as herein defined.
All constructed minor slopes shall be designed for proper stability
considering both geological and soil properties. A minor slope may be
constructed no steeper than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical
(1.5:1) contingent upon:
a. Submission of reports by both a soils engineer and a certified
engineering geologist containing the results of surface and
subsurface exploration and analysis. These results should be
sufficient for the soils engineer and engineering geologist to certify
that in their professional opinion, the underlying bedrock and soil
supporting the slope have strength characteristics sufficient to
provide a stable slope and will not pose a danger to persons or
property, and
b. The installation of an approved special slope planting program and
irrigation system.
c. A "Minor Slope" is defined as a slope four (4) feet or less in
vertical dimension in either cut or fill, between single family lots
and not parallel to any roadway.
AGREEMENTS
26. Agree that the City may withhold building permits for the subject
subdivision if anyone of the following occur:
a. Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached.
b. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services
exceed the adopted City threshold standards in the then effective
Growth Management Ordinance.
c. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP and
condition # 3, Table 1 of Resolution 15200 or as amended or
otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to
satisfaction of the City. The developer may propose changes in the
timing and sequencing of development and the construction of
improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended as
approved by the City Planning Director and Public Works Director.
27. Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the
City, or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul
any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission,
City Councilor any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with
regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map
Act provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, action
or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in
the defense.
28. Agree to hold the City hannless from any liability for erosion, siltation or
increase flow of drainage resulting from this project.
29. Agree to ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable
Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide
cable television service to each lot within the subdivision. Restrict access
to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are,
and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the
franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules,
regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the
operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may
from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.
30. Prior to the approval of any Final Map, the developer shall do all of the
following: a) 1. Provide security to guarantee the full street
improvements for Olympic Parkway from Hunte Parkway to the Westerly
subdivision boundary. 2. Provide security to guarantee the full street
improvements of Hunte Parkway from South Greensview to Olympic
Parkway. 3. Grant an Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication (IODs) for all
the right of way and temporary construction easements necessary to
construct the Olympic Parkway and Hunte Parkway segments.
b) Alternatively, in satisfaction of item al above and applicable portion of
condition No.3 of Resolution No. 15200, the developer may agree to not
protest the formation of an assessment district or a community facility
district to finance the construction of the entire length of Olympic Parkway
from 1-805 to Hunte Parkway. Participation in such a district shall be to
agree to construct or participate in the financing of phased improvements
for Olympic Parkway according to the City of Chula Vista adoption of the
feasibility and financing study for Olympic Parkway. Said participation
should be at minimum equal to the full cost of improvements for Olympic
Parkway from Hunte Parkway to the Westerly subdivision boundary.
31. Fully comply with condition No.3 of Resolution No. 15200 and the
Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Unit 12 approved
by Resolution No. 18211.
32. Agree to provide, prior to issuance of building permits a noise study
addressing noise impacts generated by existing and future major streets
surrounding the project (South Greensview Drive and Olympic Parkway)
and take the necessary measures to preclude interior noise levels over 45
dBA and all exterior private open space shield with solid masonry walls
and or buildings to limit noise exposure to 65 dBA.
33. Agree to install fire hydrants at every 500 ft. or as required by the Fire
Marshal and make them operable prior to delivery of combustible building
materials. Exact location of fire hydrants shall be reviewed and approved
by the Fire Marshall prior to installation.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
34. Grant an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (laD), on the Final Map for
Open Space Lots A, B, C, D and E within the subdivision. The City Clerk's
statement on the final maps shall indicate rejection of said lots subject to
future acceptance in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act. The
minimum width of each open space shall be 5 V2' for the tree planting and
maintenance easement behind the back of sidewalk.
35. Provide proof to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of
Planning that all improvements located on open space lots (Lots A-E) will
be incorporated into and maintained by the Existing EastIake Homeowners
Association.
36. Pay additional fees on a proportional basis as determined by the City
Engineer into the Assessment District Numbers 90-3,91-1 and 94-1 or
other applicable assessment districts due to changes to the number of units
approved subsequent to district formation.
37. Pay all costs associated with apportionment of assessments for all City
assessment districts as a result of subdivision of lands within the boundary.
Submit an apportionment form and provide a deposit to the City
estimated at $17,700.00 ( $25 per lot X 236 lots X 3 districts) to cover
costs.
38. Submit all Special Tax and Assessment disclosure forms for the approval of
the City Engineer.
39. Comply with the tenus and conditions of the AcquisitionlFinancing
Agreement for Assessment District 94-1, CO 94-064, approved by Council
Resolution 17483 as said terms and conditions may be applicable to this
development.
40. Indicate on the grading plans that all walls which are to be maintained by
an open space maintenance district are constructed entirely within the
district property.
41. The developer shall be responsible for street trees in accordance with
Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The use of cones
shall be included where necessary to reduce the impact of root systems
disrupting adjacent sidewalks and rights-of-way.
42. Maintenance of all facilities and improvements within open space areas
covered by home owners associations shall be covered by CC&Rs to be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department prior to approval
of the associated final map.
43. Prior to the approval of any final map, the developer shall request in
writing that maintenance of all facilities and improvements within the open
space area associated with such map shall be the responsibility of the
EastIake Greens Open Space Maintenance District I.
44. All utilities which service open space shall be located within the open
space.
45. For walls which are located within the open space maintenance district,
owners of adjoining lots shall sign a statement when purchasing their
homes that they are aware that the wall is on Open Space property and
that they may not modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto Open
Space property. These restrictions shall also be reflected in the CC&Rs
for each lot.
46. Make payment to reduce the debt on the subject property as a result of
lower density than assumed for the assessment district at the time of
District formation. The amount of payment is determined by multiplying
the difference between the actual and assumed number of units multiplied
by the estimated assessment (or principal outstanding) per unit.
47. Submit detailed irrigation plans and water management guidelines for all
open space landscaping in accordance with the Chula Vista Landscape
Manual. The plans are subject to approval by the Director of Planning and
the Director of Parks and Recreation Department.
EASEMENTS
48. Grant on the final map a minimum 20' wide easement to the City of Chula
Vista for construction and maintenance of water and storm drain facilities
within Lot 47.
49. Grant on the final map a minimum 10' wide easement to the City of Chula
Vista for construction and maintenance of storm drain facilities within Lot
42.
50. Grant on the final map a minimum 20' wide easement to the City of Chula
Vista for construction and maintenance of sewer and storm drain facilities
within Lots 11 and 176.
51. Grant on the final map a minimum 20' wide easement to the City of Chula
Vista for construction and maintenance of sewer and storm drain facilities
within Lots 20, 21, 165 and 166.
52. Grant on the final map a minimum 20' wide easement to the City of Chula
Vista for construction and maintenance of sewer and storm drain facilities
within Lot 137.
53. Grant on the final map a minimum 10' wide easement to the City of Chula
Vista for construction and maintenance of storm drain facilities within Lot
150.
54. Grant to the City a 5.5 foot wide street tree planting and maintenance
easement along all public streets within the subdivision. Said easement
shall extend from the property line and shall contain no slope steeper than
5:1 ( horizontal to vertical ratio). Easements along corner lots may have
slopes of 2: 1 ( horizontal to vertical ratio) as long as flat areas are
provided for street tree planting.
55. Grant on the final map a minimum 20' wide easement to the City of Chula
Vista for landscaping along future Olympic Parkway. Said easement shall
extend from the property line and shall contain no slope steeper than 5:1 (
horizontal to vertical ratio ).
56. Grant on the final map a minimum 10' wide easement to the City of Chula
Vista for installation and maintenance of utilities along future Olympic
Parkway and South Greensview Drive over Open Space Lots A,B,C,D and
E.
MISCELLANEOUS
57. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall include
provisions assuring maintenance of all open space areas, streets, driveways,
drainage and sewage systems which are private. The City of Chula Vista
shall be named as party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce
the terms and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any
owner within the subdivision.
58. Submit copies of Final Maps, improvement plans and grading plans in a
digital format such as (DXF) graphic file prior to approval of each Final
Map. Provide Computer Aided Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map
based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and submit the
information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal in
duplicate on 5-1/4" HD or 3-1/2" disks. Submit as-built improvement and
grading plans in digital format. Provide security to guarantee the ultimate
submittal of improvements and grading digital files. Update electronic files
after any construction pen and ink changes to the grading or improvement
plans and resubmit to the City.
59. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System - Zone VI
(1983).
60. Design all Dwelling units to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA and
all exterior private open space shield to limit noise exposure to 65 dBA.
61. Prior to approval of the final map and issuance of grading permits, provide
a comprehensive fencing! retaining wall program incorporating the
following fencing standards:
a. Where privacy fences are installed directly over, or immediately
adjacent to retaining walls, the overall waIl! fence height shall not
exceed 7 ft. Where higher retaining waIl! fence conditions occurs, a
four foot landscape transition strip between the wall and the fence
shall be provided.
b. Retaining walls along interior and exterior property lines shall not
exceed 4 ft in height.
b. Fences, retaining walls or a combination of both located within the
required front setback area shall be limited to forty two inches in
height (42").
c. Provide a design and install 5 ft. high decorative fences on along the
exterior side yard of all corner lots.
62. Revise the subdivision design, as necessary, to comply with the following
criteria:
West Neig.hborhood
Minimum lot dimensions
Lot area
Cul-de-sac! knuckle lot frontage
45' X 70 (average size 47' X 75')
3,150 sq. ft. (average 3,500 sq. ft.)
35 ft.
East Neil!.hborhood
Minimum lot dimensions
Min Lot area
Cui-de sac! knuckle lot frontage
50' X 55' ( average lot size 53' X 59')
2,800 sq. ft. (average 3,200 sq. ft.)
35 ft.
63. Present written verification to the City Engineer from Otay Water District
that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long tenn
water storage facilities.
CODE REOUlREMENTS:
Code requirements to be included as Conditions of Approval:
64. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and
the policies. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in
accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of
Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
65. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with
Municipal Code requirements.
66. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council
Policy:
The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
Signal Participation Fees.
All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees.
SR-125 impact fee.
Telegraph Canyon Pump Sewer Fee.
Salt Creek Ranch Sewer Basin Fee.
67. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local
regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be
responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to
demonstration said compliance as required by the City Engineer.
VI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition
issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted,
institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions
or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or
a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution.
VII. 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,
provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction top
be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be
automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Kenneth G. Lee
Planning Director (Acting)
John Kaheny
City Attorney
EXHIBITS
ATTACHMENT 3
I>
i'
'i~
!'\
"
i-
il:
'I'
\!
H'
I!!I
!!!
~iil
~
~"
1I;!!Ii (
c;;:S I
;!~~ I
::....I!! !
i1~C!j I
~~~ I
~"'~s:i
~"),
S;:!<I'
~~I
""....'
...!':'
;'i; "> \
.....~ '
'oJ
I "Il~
~ 11- ~~ 7i
"
, -
:: (~~ () I
II
,
t. i ill k\~
II ,~ i
ii'
\\ I, :~,j ~
i 'I ~
U
I
!
,
!
I
,
,
II
~!
1"111
'I
xll_ ,
:.1111;1
~ ~'r ~~ ;
" iii,
!
II
II
~..
I
, ~
,
I - ---
! ~
I
j
,
!
,
,
i,
~. ~
~ '
-,
II
Ii
..
Ii ;
,,! , '
;; I !. i'-
II ::i !Ii! I! ! I'!I!
> ,m inlll!1; I!iui!!h!ll!
~ IL;;;linmhd,lInmmm
!
II
il
~,
~l,
.~ ~ II ~
, /~"t!li:
.
~ I" , ).!
~
c
~ Ii
i!
~ , ~IF
~
"i , -- III
~,
, ~I\}
> ,
~ II
~ 1\
~
~
, II 11
u
~ J ,
! /\ ~
'I ,-
~.
~~
"
@)'" I.
'" ',."
~ ~~ . \
~ ~~
.' ":c:<o.
~~~ ~
"'''\'j: I
~ ~~::; ~
~ ~~ ~
~ ::\ <:';
, ~
! filE-<
i JF,~
I !'~
! ::r: ;
:><'
~~i
......a-
f"r~/~/"~ h~i
Jft' '~;
"
~----/! ~
I
,
!
I!
. .
~n~uu~~u~~~~~~~~ . HUH
~ ~ i ~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~ss~~~~ss~~ ~ ~~~~p~
,
I
! ,I I
I I' ',! ,il i
I' .! I IlL 'II!
: II. ii' ~ I: 1,1 ! I!
! II! !!h! Ii I.~, i idlll!!!i Ii
'I I!n!!!,! d:~ ',1'111:' II
!j' ' I!! un'l "I! I,' 11'1' I
'I , ~ i '.i 'n I", > Ii I' ,II' 'I
II ! I !, j,' ; I Ii 'III'" ,! I ' ! 'I "I!,
II ii' Ii 1:11 ! H ! I I! Ii : ':1.. i ,II ~ II n II; III:!:!!! : H ','
i! '" " ill . d ! i 'i Ii .1" I II ' ,I ' II' I' > 'j I :, ',;'; 'II I '
~: II 1'\" i' n : III H " I b "II . I II, i'l! II I! I, '!I
~ ! !!! !' !I ! ! ! I H L! L I ;!!!::: ~ ; ~! ~ ~ I: :' :1 ~,!I !i !! ~ ~
/"
.~.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.
~i
>'
a
~
~
I ~~
i j~
~~
Je
~;~il
ill f\lI:
'\
u
~
,
(, '-\,
II
!!
~;,
, I
I~ I au In m~m U Ii II~! I! II Ii Ii iI Uln
~ .
~ ~~~~~~~~!HnIU~II~~j;~~~~~'Ui~i!~~~~U~~
.
!!I!I!!;!II!!III!!!il!!!I!!IIII!IIII!!I~
.
~S~~~~~~!~~~~!!~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~!~~I~!!~:
.
mmmlm
.
2;~~~~~~~~~~9
.
h !mmmmmm ! I!, I, ij ~ IIII I!!!!!! ~ i
~ .
, ~ ;;, 1I:.t 11<. ~ II . t ~ ::c; lla II;'; . .H~iiH!~~U~~~~~~~,,~;
~ .
n,m~mmmm !!llnlmmmmli
~ .
~ ~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~* ~\I;;, 1I:.t lal:O II'~;;: ~;:>~ ~ ~ ~ ~I'
~
~~
<
,.
7-
S
If''
~i
~':o" \
~~~ (':t
,-" <!.'
't:'i;,':i "
\ ""'~
~ ~~ \\
t t '
\- \~~~'.
. \ ,"^ ,
\ !~:
\ ~~
~~\~
~
, \
\
\
1:5
f
l1JH>
"
,,<
~ .\'
~ ~.
\
~\, .
\
"
\
'<-I,
~
~'-
~!
.\1>
~~it;
"''-1Oi
....u'i'$;
~....-
~~~
".i~~
\1>'"
'J;;.'"
'>C
~~
~~
~~
...
~
i'.
.~
f Ii I
II I
I, I
'/Ii
',' ,Ii! i
II.'
i/.' '
!/ / I
~~
_ _____~:...~---l
_'. ~.:'-::',:o,
'-'iJO,f.{117:>
'i
\'\
I '
, ~ --~.
!! -
\
\., ~ '\,
,
,>,'
-:: /:,;j~_\.~r~a.L)__
~lJ.
fl,,_'
'--.
~
,~
.
..
.,'
1
....,~-*-- \
'},
,
dH
~-.-: " 1~ !11U d
~l
I~ , ," /s::.4--J: ill
, ~I
~ I LE:~,r
1 III, y/ " J ,
. 0 . A "
FI! \'. ~ "~ , ;! ~
ii. ~ I,'\' ~ , ~i
\.- ,
! 1 , ~ J .~ ~ 13,
j ~
~ ! ~~ ,i
t- ~!: ,'! ~ ~, ~
~~ I " 0
L :.,> ~
I' ~ ~ I ~
II " I
I~!II ~
~ I I
~ 'I i ........,-~ ("0::"'1)
~
! (<.o~) (<1;j ';) ,
, . '= _....--J \ \
" I
~i ~
. / (I
#-1 r..,:.~ -
. , "f ~
i
III
I~ Ii
~
~
z
o
~
"
~ '
. l'
..
,~
~~ ~ ""I
~ ~~ TTI
~ ~~O) ("f"')
! ~" I I
I~' <
,I il!~:
I !!.-;
! ~;
-'
~~;,
rTl ;:;
~::;,~
~
I
I -
"
"
"
,~ \
" -
,
~~'
'i'.....
!!>:I!=, '
a):::S '
,
;:
iJJHS
DS
z
<(
--.J
0..
z
o
-
~
N
--.J
~
::::>
~
o
~
0 LU \f't J; ~
.
N , ~Z~~
0 I
~ q:LU ~~
.
, --'UJ j~
,
c I
~ ~~<
,
,
'-"<.!)
;:s
"''''1
-.
~
~5
o
"0
O1NCOeoOO-
.......,........-....u;....-Ll)
N
...-Q01...-Ll)~C~Ll)W....NNw...-~...-...-m~
Ll)...-~-O....~~...-.(OO1.a:>WO-Ll)Ll)O
-- N - -C\j--
~
M
~
N
-
C::~i.........t()a:> U:>",-WI()r")-W- C")tn...-OIf).nCw
~::::INN"'-"'-"'-"'- 'l')11) 11'1"'" lrilri Wr-.:U"IO.....V1-.....
J!:eI! .- .-
~O'
,
i
u
ro
"3
"0
~
W
0'>1/")..,.0')0<'")""
=t")O>O>~""(O
.
.
;;
<
u
ro
.....C":I-O>1'"">N-1 f"')
-:olOr--IIJO>tDl ...,.
-N - IN
I~
.
.
;;
<
IWr')g;)NO-Oeoll'JOO1-(7)(OMO'IO'>'OI'-J ~
1000It'>C!Ou-)r-:>-...-M('\I--....CO....<t">O....16 CO
---"T-- .- to CD N
~
i
i..........cooo...-....Ll)\l'IW!l>N w",,"tnO>Wm...-M
i""...--...-("'j.... 0"': CO 'V ..,.CO N~-O:CDC'>..,...,.
i--NNN--- r')--C\l---N --
i
~I
.; : U'')I,t'H1H(),tHf) In LtlI/)\I') It) Ll)Ll) II'IL/')
:::: C,'IHO U")lf)Ll)_______________
!~ i66 666.i1~,;,,;,.n.n.n.n.n.n .n.n.n.n.n
i
:S<!
"':;1
! 110DDOCOOOOOOOODOeeQee eeeeeOe
o&~. <<<<< <<<<< <
~ l:'1 \
c-- .O-NM....tnW....COO>O_NM....tt)W.....eo .
m~f-NM""tt)tD....COO>----------NNNNNNNNN __0
""0 ~:lIci:c:o:ci:r:i:r:i:C::r:i:r:i:ri:ci:ci:ci:ci:C:ci:ci:ci:c':ci:ci:tCci:ci:ri;ci:ci:r:i:
~~ ID~
Q) I I , J;
a:
U"UI'Jl.OIl'lLl) U"J
----(\IIt)-
J.,J.,';'J.,'f;.6J.,
.!:?!:? 0 .X-.X-.X-.X-
~~ E~~~~~ g
:~~5:_~~5-g-g15G.>G.>Q>CI)G.>G.>G.> ~c:
,t:::: 0 >->-0 0 0 0 () U U U U U U ~:J ~
1G.>~~O.~;;;~m~mmmmm~u_
looo-t~ 3 5 0 5 oc%J5"t%~~&&g6:9
~2E~G.>E2~~~c:c:c:c:cc:cu.J
m--~EEo~oOG.>G.>G.>G.>G.>G.>G.>=p
1~~~gG.>o'~~~~~~~~~~~o~
>~~ZwozzZZOOOOOOD~~
.
- .
"'"
:.="C
C .
Q) .
,,""
.en - ~ __IN -C\H"":O~to-
r!i!. tf uoO-N-NM"ll'IcnrJ,rhchchchch
I ii ~ >c....c..chchc.'..c.'..c.'..o.'..c.'..ODODOOO
c"z
o
z
;;
:e
~
o
'"
d
~
N
Co '"
'"
" lln
<h
--...---
Slt-C!$
,;,
o
.
.
o
"
~
o
"
"0
'"
'"'
~
N
u
Nro
M~
"0
u
ro
N
M
'"
CD
I ~
!o !.
. < .
~. f
~! 1
~ ~ ir:
i~ ~
~ ;
~:€ ~
lL
~.r -
- ~ :
t" i
~~ r;
E - c
~ ~
"'
;Q
()
'"
'0
It
r--~
..........4~~
';;;ir~F~
.::::;:;::~~
\Ji(~~
><
i ~
~
~
I
t
~
1
I
.
}
. 1
~ ~
.~ .
.
. l
0 .
~
i:.L:I
E-<
.....
CIJ
G
i:.L:I
...,
o
~
p..
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ATTACHMENT 4
- - ......
TI-lE. .., OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE... fEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
conlfioul;ons, on all mailers which will require discretionary aClion on the part of Ihe City Oluncil, Planning Commission, and
all olher official bodies. The following information must oe disclosed:
1. Lisl the names of all persons having a financial inlerest in the property which is Ihe suojecl of the application or the
conlract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Eastlake Development Company
2. If any person' identified pursuantlO (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a Irust, lisl the names of any person
serving as director of the non.profit organil.3tion or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of ousine.~< transacted with any memoer of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council whhin the past twelve months? Yes_ No-K, If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please idenlify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned 10 represent you before the City in Ihis matter.
Boswell Properties
The Tulaqo Company
6. Have you and/or your officers or agenls. in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a CouneiImember in the
current or preceding election period? Yes_ NoL If yes, state which CounciImember(s):
Date: /pji;-
. . . (NOTE.: Attach additional pages
ure of contractor/applicant
William T. Ostrem
Print or type name of conlractor!applicant
. Person is defincd as: "AllY i/ldA'idual. finn. co.parttlcrship, joitU VOtlUfC:, association. social club, fralmlaJ orgalliwllma, corporalioll, ~'ate, lTWt, receiver, syndicatc,
this Qltd any other county. city and COUll/I)'. city InUlJicira/ily, dissricl, or other political subdi\'i.Jio,1, or ally oUler tl'oup or COmbUIQt;oll acting as a WUL"