HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2007/11/28
AGENDA
MEETING OF THE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, November 28,2007
City Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Planning Commission:
Tripp_ Vinson_Moctezuma_ Bensoussan_
Felber_ Clay ton_ Spethman_
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE:
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.
CONSENT ITEMS:
The Chair may entertain requests by Staff to continue or withdraw an agenda item, The Chair may
also entertain a recommendation by a Commissioner to approve certain non-controversial agenda
items as consent items. Items approved on consent are in accordance with Staff's proposed
findings and in accordance with the recommendation as stated in Staff's report to the Planning
Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS I ACTION ITEMS:
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of the following applications filed by
Brookfield-Shea Otay, LLC, to develop 3.9 acre
Concordia Lutheran Church site, located at 267 East
Oxford Street:
- PCZ 07-08; a rezone from the R-1-7 Single Family
Residential zone to the R-1-5-P Single Family
Residential zone, with a precise Plan Modifying
District;
- PCM 08-02, a Precise Plan to establish Precise
Plan development standards, architectural and
landscape design guidelines;
Planning Commission
- 2 -
November 28, 2007
- PCS 07-07, a Tentative Subdivision Map to
subdivide 3.9 acres into 24 residential and 2 open
space lots, served by a new public residential
street.
Staff recommends that public hearing be opened and continued to a date certain of
December 12, 2007.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 08-01; Consideration of a Conditional Use
Permit to construct and operate a Senior Living
Facility at 505 Mount Miguel Road - Spring Hill
Senior Living, LLC.
Project Manager: Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of the applications filed by IRE
Development for three separate parcels totaling
43.6 acres within the existing Eastlake Business
Center II
a. GPA 07-05; General Plan Amendment to change
the land use designation of 16.7 acres at the
northeast corner of Fenton Street and
Showroom Place from Light Industrial to Retail
Commercial.
b. PCM 07-04; amendments to the Eastlake II
General Development Plan (GDP), and Eastlake
Business Center II Sectional Planning Area Plan
(SPA), and Planned Community District
Regulations, Land Use District Map and
associated regulatory documents.
c. PCC 05-70; rescind Conditional Use Permit
previously approved to establish and operate a
Design District on the north side of Fenton
Street, both sides of Showroom Place.
Project Manager: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
Planning Commission
- 3 -
November 28, 2007
4. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC 07-71; Consideration of a Conditional Use
Permit to construct and operate a hotel at 2430
Fenton Street in the Eastlake Business Center.
Applicant: Innkeepers, USA.
Project Manager: Caroline Young, Assistant Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
To a regular Planning Commission meeting on
December 12, 2007.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for
meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities, Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-
5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired,
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 11/28/07
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution of the City of Chula Vista
Planning Commission approving Conditional Use Permit PCC-
08-01, to construct and operate a Senior Living Facility at 505
Mount Miguel Road - Spring Hill Senior Living, LLC.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building
INTRODUCTION:
The project applicant, Spring Hill Senior Living, LLC, requests consideration of a Conditional
Use Permit for a lOS-unit senior care facility on a 3.1-acre site at the northeast comer of Mt.
Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road in the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community (see
attached Locator Map, Attachment I).
BACKGROUND
Chula Vista Municipal Code section 19.48.025 requires that planned communities provide and
designate a minimum of 1.39 acres of land per thousand population for CPF uses, in order to
reserve sites for future institutional uses, such as religious institutions, private schools and senior
care and recreational facilities. The CPF land use designation for the site was established by the
San Miguel Ranch SPA, which was approved on October 19, 1999. The San Miguel Ranch SPA
Planned Community District Regulations also designates the project site as a CPF land use
district. The Senior Care and Recreation Use is permitted in the CPF Land Use District upon
approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The project also requires approval of Design Review
Permit DRC-08-001, which is to be considered by the Design Review Committee on November
19,2007.
The site has been on the market and offered to institutional uses such as churches and schools for
a period of eight years, since approval of the SPA. The site is currently occupied by the San
Miguel Ranch Home-finding center, which is a temporary use on the northerly portion of the
site. The use of the building has been terminated, and the building is proposed to be demolished.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed action
was adequately covered in previously adopted environmental documents as follows: San Miguel
Ranch SPA Plan and Tentative Map Final Subsequent EIR 97-02 and associated Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. Thus, no further environmental review or documentation is
necessary.
PCC-08-001
Page No.2
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Planning Commission Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit PCC-08-
001, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On November 19, 2007, the Design Review Committee voted 3-0-0-2 to approve Design Review
Permit DRC-08-001.
DISCUSSION
Project Site Characteristics:
The Project site is located at the northeast comer ofMt. Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road.
Vehicular access to the site is provided by one existing driveway connecting to Mount Miguel
Road on the west side of the site. The project proposes retaining this driveway and adding a
second driveway connecting to Proctor Valley Road on the south side of the site (see Locator
Map). Proctor Valley Road is a 128 ft. wide, 6-1ane Prime Arterial, and Mount Miguel Road is a
102 ft. wide, 4-1ane Class I collector. The project site is adjacent to the extensive network of
pedestrian trails serving the San Miguel Ranch and the Rolling Hills Ranch communities.
The elevation of existing building pad is 608 feet, which is approximately 20 feet above the
street level at the intersection. The grade tapers down to the east until the pad matches the street
grade at the easterly driveway. The applicant is proposing to re-grade and re-compact the
existing pad, keeping the pad at approximately the same elevation.
Adjacent land uses include the Shops at San Miguel Ranch, an eXIstmg neighborhood
commercial shopping center located to the south across Proctor Valley Road; an open space
preserve including a detention basin, wetland area, and hillside northeast of the site; and an
existing single-family residential neighborhood is located to the west, across Mt. Miguel Road.
This is the nearest residential area to the site, located approximately 350 feet away, and separated
by Mount Miguel Road and a landscaped slope oriented downhill towards the west.
Project Description:
The Spring Hill Senior Living retirement community will be fully licensed by the State of
California Community Care Licensing Division-Department of Social Services (DSS) as a
residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE). The retirement community would be a 24-hour
per day operation, and would be staffed with three employee shifts: dayshift (7 AM to 3 PM),
swing shift (3 PM to 11 PM), and night shift (11 PM to 7 AM). The shift that would have the
maximum total staffing is the daytime shift that would have 21 employees (assisted living and
memory care combined). Licensing regulations do not specify staffing requirements for assisted
living facilities. Licensing does require a State certified Executive Director, one awake staff
member in each of our two buildings during nighttime hours, one activities person for both the
assisted living building and for the memory care building, as well as overall staffing to meet the
needs of the residents. The applicant anticipates having 21 employees on the day shift, 15
employees on the swing shift and, and 8 employees on the night shift, for a combined total for
the three shifts of 44 employees.
PCC-08-00 1
Page No.3
The project proposes construction of two buildings, including one 89-unit, 35 ft. high! 3-story,
94,400 square-foot assisted living facility, and one 16-unit, 16 foot high/I-story, 12,509 square-
foot memory care/ Alzheimer's facility. The facility will include a total of 133 beds, including
both buildings (see Attachment 3, site planlelevationslfloor plans).
The assisted living building would be located on the western portion of the site facing Mount
Miguel Road. The proposed structure would be setback approximately 110 feet from Mount
Miguel Road, and 85 feet from Proctor Valley Road. It would be separated from the street by a
24-foot fire lane and a 75 ft. deep landscape lot. The assisted living facility will have 18 studio
units, 59 one - bedroom units, and 12 two bedroom units, for a total of 101 beds. The 2-bedroom
units would be designed to be converted to separate I-bedroom units, if necessary. The proposed
units include a stackable washer/dryer, private full baths, and accessible showers. Smaller units
would include a kitchenette with sink, microwave and cabinets, and the kitchenette in larger
rooms would add a dishwasher and range, but no oven. The facility's common amenities and
services would include group dining facilities, recreational and fitness activities, entertainment,
transportation services, beauty salon and barber shop, as well as a movie theater (see Site
PlanlElevationslFloor Plans, Attachment 3).
The memory care / Alzheimer's facility would be located on the eastern portion of the site facing
Proctor Valley Road. This building is L-shaped, setback approximately 30 feet from the road,
with an enclosed outdoor patio facing the road. The memory care / Alzheimer's facility would
have 16 2-bedroom units for a total of 32 beds. The memory care building is for patients with
Alzheimer's disease or other dementia. Each unit would have 2 bedrooms and a full bath, but
would not have kitchenettes. These residents would have similar common amenities such as
group dining facilities, recreational activities, entertainment, transportation services, and a beauty
salon and barber shop.
Parking would be provided in two main lots, with 31 spaces in the center of the site at the
building entries, and 27 spaces northerly of the assisted living building. Also, 21 parking spaces
would be located along the driveway near the Proctor Valley Road entrance. Parking
requirements are discussed in the parking section of this report.
Vehicle access would include the two 24 ft. wide driveways at the southeastern comer of the site
connecting to Proctor Valley Road, and at the northwest side of the site connecting to Mount
Miguel Road. The easterly driveway would be aligned with the signalized intersection leading to
the adjacent shopping center. Access to the northerly driveway would be restricted to right in
and right out turns only (see Attachment 2, condition of approval III.3.d).
Along the project frontage with Proctor Valley Road, pedestrian access will be provided by a 5-
ft. wide handicapped-accessible sidewalk connecting to the site to the existing 10ft. trail along
Proctor Valley Road. Access to the Shops at San Miguel Ranch and other uses to the south is
provided by a crosswalk within the adjacent 3-way intersection.
Presently, there are no facilities of this kind in Eastern Chula Vista. The nearest existing assisted
living facilities to the site are located on Bonita Road, just east of 1-805 in Bonita.
PCC-08-00 I
Page No.4
Compliance with Development Regulations:
The adopted and existing land uses on site and in the surrounding area include the following:
Location
Site
SPA Land Use Designation
Comm. Purpose Facility
(San Miguel Ranch Neigh M)
Existing Land Use
San Miguel Ranch Home finding
Center / Vacant
North
Open Space
(San Miguel Ranch OS-I)
Open Space Preserve
Detention Basin
South
(across Proctor Valley Rd)
East
Commercial Retail
(San Miguel Ranch Neigh. N)
Open Space
(San Miguel Ranch OS-I)
Shops @ San Miguel Ranch
Open Space Preserve
West
(across Mt. Miguel Road)
Salt Creek I SPA Single -Family
Residential
Existing Single -Family
Residential
ANALYSIS:
In recommending approval of the requested CUP to the Planning Commission, staff relies on the
following points:
Staffing/Hours of Operation/ Operational Profile
The applicant has prepared a detailed project description/operational profile that describes the
project operations, residents, staffing, amenities, services and hours of operation (see Attachment
2, Exhibit B, Project Description/Operational Profile). Staff recommends a condition of approval
that the project operate in compliance with the applicable sections of this project
description/operational profile.
Parking
The San Miguel Ranch SPA Planned Community District Regulations require that the parking
for the project be determined by approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for the
project. The City Municipal code contains a parking standard for "Nursing homes, Convalescent
homes, and Homes for the Aged" (1 parking space per 3 beds). However, in staffs estimation,
this is not applicable since the project proposes individual units with amenities that exceed those
of typical nursing homes, such as separate living rooms, kitchens, bedrooms and patios, that
could attract more mobile and affluent residents. Staff requested that the applicant model the
parking study after similar higher-end assisted living facilities, not nursing homes.
In order to determine the appropriate parking for the assisted living facility, Darnell &
Associates prepared a traffic and parking study dated October 1, 2007, which studied seven
similar projects in San Diego, Orange and Riverside Counties. The study modeled the project as
a Congregate Care use, which includes independent living and assisted living uses, typically
including kitchenettes and ability of residents to own cars. The Institute of Traffic Engineers
PCC-08-00 I
Page No.5
recommends 0.41 parking spaces per unit for these facilities. The study found that other
jurisdictions have typically applied a parking standard of I parking space per 0.5 beds for these
facilities. These standards include parking to support resident, employee, visitor, and special
care visits.
The Project does not propose independent living, however the amenities included in the assisted
living units will be upgraded to create units that will respond to a changing market that is
demanding a wider range of amenities, to create an environment more like a home, and less like
an institution. The applicant, who has experience operating these types of facilities, has indicated
that the age and physical condition of the residents, the pre-paid dining program, transportation
services, and on-site amenities such as a gift shop, beaut ylb arb er shop, and movie theater, are the
reasons why a majority of the residents would not drive. A van will be provided for the residents
for scheduled transportation to medical services, shopping, and occasional excursions.
According to the applicant, the largest number of employees on site at one time is anticipated to
be 21 persons during the day shift. The maximum number of non-employees who regularly work
or visit the premises is estimated to be 4. Deliveries are estimated at approximately 3 times a
week. Their operational estimate of the peak hour visitors is 5. Therefore, in the worst-case
scenario, the parking needed to support employees, deliveries, non-employee workers, and
visitors would be approximately 30 spaces, not including the parking for the residents' cars.
Hypothetically, this would leave approximately 49 spaces available for use by residents, which is
equivalent to a ratio of 0.46 parking spaces per unit, or 0.37 parking spaces per bed.
The Parking study recommends a standard of I parking space per 0.5 beds, which for this project
with 133 beds would require 67 parking spaces. A key recommendation is the use of van
transportation for residents, which has been included as a condition of approval. The project
proposes 79 parking spaces, and all available parking will be provided on-site. The study found
that this amount of parking is adequate to serve employees, visitors and residents. Staff supports
the conclusions of the study, but recommends an additional condition of approval limiting the
use to assisted living and memory/ Alzheimer's care uses only. Any change of use will required
modification of the CUP and a revised parking analysis.
Traffic
The study analyzed the Project as a Congregate Care Facility at 2.5 trips per unit, generating 263
Average Daily Trips, with II am peak hour trips and 21 pm peak hour trips. The study modeled
existing plus project conditions, as well as build-out plus project conditions scenarios. This
analysis demonstrated that the project does not have any significant impacts to roadway
segments or intersections in the vicinity, and thus, no traffic mitigation measures are required.
Compatibility with surrounding area
In staffs opinion, this is an excellent site for the proposed use because it is adjacent to major
roads, a neighborhood commercial shopping center, public transit, a public park and a fire station
that can serve the project's residents. Adjacent residential uses are separated by major roads, and
open space lots with significant grade separation, and should not be affected by project
operations. The site is located at the major entrance to the San Miguel Ranch community, and the
architecture of building will create a positive entry statement that will be compatible with the
architectural theme established by the San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines, and will
complement the adjacent commercial architecture.
PCC-08-00 I
Page No.6
The site is located adjacent to an open space preserve and detention basin to the north serving the
San Miguel Ranch community. The project is required to comply with applicable provisions of
the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 97-02 and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the San Miguel Ranch project, which include mitigation measures
addressing any potential biological, noise, drainage, and water quality impacts of the Project. If
applicable, compliance with these measures will be required prior to issuance of grading or
building permits for the project.
The Project will be conditioned to operate in compliance with the Performance Standards of the
San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area Community Purpose Facility Land Use District, and
with Municipal Code Chapter 19.66.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Planning Commission resolution approving Conditional Use Permit PCC-08-001 based
on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS:
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no
property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property, which is subject to this
action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts from the preparation of this report and the processing of the CUP.
All costs are covered by the application deposit accounts.
ATTACHMENTS
1 Locator Map
2 Draft Planning Commission Resolution
3 Site Plan/Elevations/Floor Plans
4 Ownership Disclosure Form
Prepared by: Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department
J: planning\casefiles\08\PCC\publichearing\PCC 08-001-PC-AS-II-05
Single ....--/
Family
Residential
C-- Open Space --J
"'- Preserve
"'0
C!:::
Q)
:J
.Q'J
~
-
C
:J
o
~
Neighborhood
Commercial
Center
Multi-
Family
Residential
PROJECT
lOCATION
Fire
Station
Mackenzie Creek
Public Park
Thurgood Marshal
Elementarv School
Mackenzie Creek Rd.
Multi-
Family
Residential
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: Spring Hill Development, LLC
:~~~~: 505 Mount Miguel Rd
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
No Scale PCC-08-001
-.
DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Project Description: Proposing CUP for assisted living/dementia
facility for senior care use. The use requires CUP in the CPF
zone.
Related cases: DRC-08-01
NORTH
L:\Gabe Files\locators\pcc08001,cdr 07.18.07
ATTACHMENT 1
,- '/-r1A C-(tyV1 EAJ T L
RESOLUTION NO. PCC 08-001
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PCC-08-001, TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THE A
SENIOR LIVING FACILITY AT 505 MOUNT MIGUEL ROAD
- SPRINGHILL SENIOR LIVING, LLC.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit was filed with the
City ofChula Vista Planning and Building Department on July 10, 2007, by Spring Hill Senior
Living LLC, ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, said Applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use permit, PCC-08-001
to construct and operate a senior care facility with an 89 unit assisted living facility and a 16-unit
memory carel Alzheimer's facility ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the area of land commonly known as the Spring Hill Senior Living Project,
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 one site totaling 3.1 acres, located at 505 Mount Miguel Road
("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Building set the time and place for a hearing on
said Conditional Use Permit and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by
its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property
owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely November
28, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that
the proposed action was adequately covered in previously adopted environmental documents
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report FSEIR 97-02 and associated Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. Thus, no further environmental review or documentation is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said
public hearing with respect to the Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning Commission
voted to approve the Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the
findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits,
as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated
finding to be made:
Resolution
Page 2 of6
I. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
Approval of the project will allow the applicant to provide a state licensed senior care
complex including an assisted living facility and a memory carel Alzheimer's facility to
provide a higher level of services for senior citizens in the community. The project will
include architecture and landscaping that will improve and enhance the image of the
neighborhood. Its location is desirable for provision of senior care services because the
site is in a highly visible and conveniently accessible location to existing residential
neighborhoods, senior housing, transportation facilities, neighborhood shopping, and
public services such as parks, schools and a fire station. The nearest existing assisted
living facility is located in Bonita approximately 5 miles to the west, and the availability
of senior care facilities in the eastern part of the City is limited. Therefore, approval of
the Project will enhance the level of senior care services for residents of the surrounding
community.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental
to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The Spring Hill Senior Living retirement community will be fully licensed by the State of
California Community Care Licensing Division-Department of Social Services as a
residential care facility for the elderly, and will be managed to provide a wide range of
services to residents on-site, and minimize the need for residents to leave the facility. A
traffic and parking analysis has been prepared that shows that the project will not
generate a significant amount of traffic that will impact the adjacent streets. The project
will provide sufficient parking to serve the project residents, visitors, and employees on-
site, without affecting the amount of parking available in the surrounding area. Project
operations will not affect adj acent residential neighborhoods because the nearest
residential area to the site is located approximately 350 feet to the west, and is separated
by Mount Miguel Road and a landscaped slope oriented downhill towards the west. The
lands~aping and drainage facilities of the site will be designed so that the project will not
adversely impact the adjacent open space lot to the northeast. Therefore, the operation of
the facility will not adversely affect adjacent persons or properties.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The use is consistent with the requirements of the Planned Community Zone, and the San
Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) land use district. The
project conditions of approval require the operation to be in continuing compliance with
all applicable city codes and regulations.
4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The Chula Vista General Plan and Municipal Code requires that planned communities
provide and designate a minimum of 1.39 acres of land per thousand population for
Community Purpose Facilities (CPF), in order to reserve sites for uses such as religious
Resolution
Page 3 of6
institutions, private schools and senior care and recreation. The project is consistent with
the permitted CPF land uses. Therefore, approval of a Conditional Use Permit will
enable implementation of the General Plan and San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan.
CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL
I The Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista hereby grants Conditional Use Permit
PCC-08-001 subject to the following conditions of approval required to be satisfied by the
Applicant and/or property owner(s), as specified below:
I. The Applicant shall satisfy the applicable requirements of this Conditional Use Permit
and Design Review Permit (DRC-08-01) prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
2. Prior to, or in conjunction with the issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant
shall pay all applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for
deposit account DQ-1450.
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the project, the Applicant shall comply with
the "Construction Site Policy for Compliance with Fire Safety Provisions to the
satisfaction of the Chula Vista Fire Department. New construction shall comply with
CVFD policy 2916.01 for access, turnarounds, and water supply. To demonstrate
compliance with this policy, provide exhibits showing that driveway design, construction,
gradient, and truck turning requirements have been satisfied.
II. The following conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to establishment of the use or
occupancy of the site:
I. The site shall be developed and maintained by the Applicant and lor their successors-in-
interest in accordance with the approved plans, dated November 8, 2007, which include
site plan, conceptual landscape plan, floor plans, and elevations plans on file in the
Planning Division of the Planning and Building Department, the conditions contained
herein, and applicable requirements ofCVMC Title 19.
2. Pursuant to DRC-08-01 Final Notice of Decision, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a
revised site plan by the Director of Planning and Building, and a grading permit by the
City Engineer. Plans shall ensure that the grading and construction activities shall not
encroach into the existing on-site slope/daylight line adjacent to the open space lot on the
northeast side of the site.
III. Upon certification by the Director of Planning and Building for occupancy or establishment
of use allowed by this Conditional Use Permit, the following conditions shall apply:
1. The conditions of approval for this permit shall be applied to the subject property until
such time that the conditional use permit is modified or revoked.
2. This Conditional Use Permit authorizes only the use specified in the application for PCC-
08-00 I, and further described in Exhibit "8" to this resolution. Any new use,
modification/expansion of use, or activities not authorized under this Conditional Use
Permit shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. Any
Resolution
Page 4 of6
deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a
modified conditional use permit.
3. The Applicant shall ensure that the Project complies with the parameters of the use
outlined in the application, and CVMC Title 19, including but not limited to the
following:
a) Hours of operation will be 24 hours per day, 7 days a week;
b) The project shall operate in compliance with the project's Project
Description/Operational Profile outlined in Exhibit B.
c) Facility shall operate in compliance with the Performance Standards of the San
Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area - Community Purpose Facility Land Use
District, and with Municipal Code Chapter 19.66.
d) Driveway accessing Mount Miguel Road shall operate as a right-turn in and right-
turn out only, and shall include sign age at appropriate locations indicating such
restriction.
e) Driveways shall remain clear of parked vehicles or other obstructions at all times.
t) All vehicles shall be parked only in designated parking spaces.
g) Project shall maintain 79 parking spaces available for employees, visitors and
project residents.
h) The applicant shall provide daily bus/van service to the residents for necessary
field trips, appointments and shopping, for the duration of this use permit.
4. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed
after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to
health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the
Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard
thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a
substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the
Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to
economically recover.
5. This permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the
effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code.
Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed
by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
IV. The applicant/owner shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
armless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from
and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including
court costs and attorney's fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising,
directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use
Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a
copy of this Conditional Use Permit where indicated below. Applicant's/operator's
compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and
this provision shall be binding on any and all of applicant's/operator's successors and
assIgns.
Resolution
Page 5 of6
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the 90-day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or
other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution
and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020(a) and failure
to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set
aside, void or annul imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or
other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application
processing fees in connection with this project; and it does not apply to any fees,
dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to this,
nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has
previously expired.
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have
each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution,
this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the
sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this
recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the
property owners/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for
building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said
document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as document No.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Representative
Date
INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Planning Commission 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 and the Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
adopts the resolution approving the conditional use permit, PCC-08-01, in accordance with the
findings and subject to the conditions contained in this resolution.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of November, 2007, by the following vote, to-
wit:
Resolution
Page60f6
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J: planning\casefiles\08\PCC\publichearing\PCC 08-0I-PCC-resolution
Exhibit A - Locator Map
Exhibit B - Operational ProfilelProject Description
Bill Tripp, Chair
b
PROJECT
LOCATION
Mackenzie Creek
Public Park
Thurgood Marshal
Elementarv School
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND
LOC)CATOR ~~~I~ Spring Hill Development, LLC
:~~~1: 505 Mount Miguel Rd
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
No Scale PCC-08-001
BUILDING
DEPARTMENT
NORTH
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
MISCELLANEOUS
Project Description: Proposing CUP for assisted living/dementia
facility for senior care use. The use requires CUP in the CPF
zone.
Related cases: DRC-08-01
L:\Gabe Files\locators\pcc08001,cdr 07,18,07
e'fvll 16 iT A
September 21,2007
Spring Hill Senior Living Project Description/Operational Profile
Conditional Use Permit Application PCC-08-01
Location: NE Corner of Proctor Valley Road at Mt. Miguel Road, Chula Vista, Ca.
Project Description
The existing Welcoming Center for new home sales at the San Miguel Ranch master
planned community will be torn down and a retirement community will be built in its
place.
The Spring Hill Senior Living retirement community will consist of a 3-story, 92-unit
assisted living building that will be fully licensed by the State of California Community
Care Licensing Division-Department of Social Services (DSS) as a residential care
facility for the elderly (RCFE). The retirement community is a 24-hour per day operation.
We anticipate that our average resident will be a single woman of approximately 84-
years of age. Approximately, 10% of our residents will be couples. We will have our own
van and will provide our residents with scheduled transportation to medical services,
shopping, and occasional excursions. Transportation needs will be minimized because
we provide many services onsite such dining that includes 3-meals per day plus snacks
for all residents as required by licensing (all residents pay monthly as part of their rent
for our dining services and no discount is available for opting out); an onsite
beauty/barber shop; a gift shop that will sell cards, toothpaste, shampoo and various
sundries; a movie theatre; entertainment, and onsite activities/exercise programming.
We will have an employee lounge for our employees and many of our staff will purchase
a meal during their shift from our dining room at a reduced price. The project's location is
across from the Shops at San Miguel Ranch and residents will be able to cross the
street in a designated cross walk one of two adjacent traffic signals. The convenience of
the adjacent shopping center may further minimize our traffic generation.
Each apartment contains its own stackable washer/dryer and private full baths with
handicap accessible showers. The studio apartments contain kitchenettes (sink,
microwave, and cabinets) and the one bedroom and two bedroom apartments contain
kitchens with a sink, dishwasher, cabinets, microwaves, range but no oven). Our
experience in our other retirement communities has taught us that the apartments are
more marketable to the adult children of our seniors and to the seniors themselves if
they contain kitchens and stackable laundry equipment. We like to give our residents
choice to do their own laundry or prepare a meal but very few of our residents do so
because we offer excellent and convenient services onsite. The reason that residents
and family like these amenities is that it is difficult to accept the fact that residents are
giving up much of their independence. Many adult children feel a certain amount of guilt
in having a relative live in a retirement community instead of in their own home or the
home of a relative. By providing the services and conveniences of home in our
retirement community, we lessen the guilt of both family and residents alike and smooth
the transition process.
Our memory care building (for residents with Alzheimer's or other dementias) will be a
single story structure containing 16-studio apartments. The apartments each have their
own private full baths but do not contain kitchenettes or stackable washer/dryers. It is
E't.Hj~rJ~
Spring Hill Senior Living
Operational Profile
Page 2
very rare that we have any couples occupying a studio apartment in the memory care
building. This building also will be fully licensed by the State of California Community
Care Licensing-Department of Social Services (DSS). Many services are provided onsite
such as our dining services, activities, entertainment, and an onsite beauty/barber salon.
Using our van, we also provide these residents with escorted transportation to medical
appointments.
Staffing
We staff the entire retirement community 24-hours per day on three employee shifts (7
AM to 3 PM, 3 PM to 11 PM and 11 PM to 7 AM). The shift in which we have our
maximum total staffing is the daytime shift in which we will have 21 employees (assisted
living and memory care combined). Licensing regulations do not specify staffing
requirements for assisted living facilities. Licensing does require that we have a State
certified Executive Director, that we have one awake staff member in each of our two
buildings during nighttime hours, that we have one activities person for the assisted
living building and for the memory care building and that we provide overall staffing to
meet the needs of our residents. We anticipate having 21 employees on the day shift
(7 AM to 3 PM), 15 employees on the (3 PM to 11 PM shift), and 8 employees on the
night shift (11 PM to 7 AM) for a combined total for the three shifts of 44 employees.
The maximum number of non-employees who regularly work or visit the premises is
estimated to be 4 non-employees on the premises. We are estimating that the worst
case would be if food delivery and landscaping were to occur at the same time.
An operational estimate of the peak hour visitors is 5. Most visitors arrive throughout the
day at varying times with most visits occurring from 9 AM to 7 PM. On a typical day, we
would not anticipate having more than 5 total visitors. We typically have a weekly food
delivery supplemented by perishable items such as bread, milk, butter, that are delivered
separately a few times per week. Deliveries typically occur at non-peak traffic times such
as mid-morning or mid-afternoon.
All of the onsite employees will be employees of the facility. Spring Hill Senior Living is
our management company that oversees the operations of the facility. Spring Hill will
have employees visiting the Chula Vista community on an ongoing basis to assist with
training and to oversee the day to day operations. Initially, Spring Hill Senior Living's
management company will be visiting every few weeks (our regional director of
operations and our director of resident services). Once the Chula Vista community
reaches stabilization, we would anticipate that Spring Hill would make 6 to 8 visits to the
community annually.
Residents
We anticipate that the average age of our residents will be 84 years old. Approximately 5
percent of our residents will be in their 70s, 75 percent of our residents will be in their
80s and approximately 20 percent of our residents will be in their 90s.
We require our residents to pay an inclusive rate that includes 3 meals per day
plus our activities program, and housekeeping. We are including full kitchens and
stackable washer/dryers in the apartments not because we expect these
features to be regularly utilized but to make our project more marketable to the
Spring Hill Senior Living
Operational Profile
Page 2
adult children who are frequently involved in the decision making process (as
there is often times "guilt" associated with "placing" a relative in a facility and
prospective residents also resist moving into a facility because they have trouble
acknowledging their loss of independence.
Parking
We have been developing and operating assisted living facilities since 1996.
These initial facilities were built with 1 parking space for every three apartments.
Our more recent assisted living facilities have been built with between 1 parking
space for every three units and 1 parking space for every two apartments. All of
our communities have adequate parking to accommodate the needs of our staff,
visitors and residents who drive.
Skilled nursing facilities do require more parking than assisted living facilities
because the level of staffing is substantially higher than for assisted living
facilities. Staffing levels for skilled nursing facilities are regulated and very
specific (3.2 hours per resident day). The parking requirement differential has
everything to do with the number of employees and very little to do with the
number of our residents who drive. We will provide scheduled transportation with
a 12-person van to doctors appointments and for other scheduled outings. In
fact, we provide certain amenities such as a dining program, fitness and wellness
program, a gift shop, beauty/barber shop, activities, movie theatre because our
residents, for the most part, don't drive. These amenities allow our residents to
lead normal lives within our community without having to rely on driving
themselves or our scheduled transportation for most daily activities. The parking
that we are proposing to provide at our Chula Vista location exceeds what we are
providing on a per unit basis at any of our other locations.
We are providing for 79 onsite parking spaces of which three will be dedicated for
handicapped parking and two will be for loading. This parking will be more than
sufficient to meet our needs.
"c) !7Acf/
3
ii
~~
.6.
~Z~
V'"
.. ! !
u
'. H
.-' 0."
. s!'"
!
<:
i I i
!~ ! i i
f. j!f H I i
. JJj l~ . i
LU <
,
/
/
'" ,"
J ,,'"
~
Ii\
; ~ a
~b. _
"i
~;i
~
!~
o
r'''.''-'
!
r'.....-.
I
r......-. .
!
i5~:i5:.
~ .~ .
i J mm.- 11
L !mmU ji
~i
H I
H.
iP i
.r j ~
.6.
~z~
V'"
~:I
~~
c..~
~5
(/)0
~
o
.
+
,
!
~I
!=
\.
If
I
+
~
i
,
T
,
!
"'~'
~
i
" w~ ..
,,__ .~ ~i\
-_o~-~=~=~==~=~=~=~~=~=~1i(~~~~=~=~~~:=~=~:~~~~=~=~=~=~~~~=~~~---
~w~
13f\111Nv1j)3N11J.ilI3d01:1d
'a~ 13n~l~ lNno~
c:..-
~<(
c
Q)
E
a.
o
Qj
>
Q)
o
~
i:i5
8~
'"'~
-...
R~
01:1
g~
t;~
IU<
~o
~b
~~
CI
c:
:2
.~
m
~
GI
E
'Qi
.r::
N
;C
"
GI
.r::
u
S
GI
C
~ (J
.s ::I
In
....
"
c:
nI
~
'u
nI
U.
CI
c:
'>
:::i
"
~
.!Il
1/1
1/1
c(
~
o
-
In
M
"
GI
1/1
o
Co
o
..
Q.
1 ,;!
f~~
~.i~
"~ .!
..2 .,J
~~
"'~
iiE~
:E:
.[
CI)
!
1M:
I .",j
.~ "n
, f..
~i 1_~1
.<1 .ft. I
ZW"
-~t
~j~
-Z:>:
.~~
...0.: <
-t-..
L1
1::..
-
"-- --'t' ;:,;;' r=
~ ODO ..-- ~I- ~ L,!; ~
- ~~~~~\~JIrlli Jd!~ ~~
~I~~~, I~ Ijl
-- nlr ~ T. b\;.~_! ~!rt7( ~
IQTI~ ~~~~ii~?9 ~ ,~ ~ :r .!i. ~-'f ~~.~. -~
,UllP"T" 0 0 If !:<-'fr-l LOE U ,_I! ii I c:::::J
~, J=iI., 6Ii ..,(o~c::J ,~ 11 im! I .~ ~
r~~~ ~~'!'- i ~~~~ 1~~ v
~o~] '1~f'Ff1 I-.Ji lDJ~~ !~v^ v v v
I' 8IL-''t~UI : rcr,1 I l! fi 'V V V
I ~~ I: "I,,,,,, 41 ',03 :;.1" .of' .0<0
I t+,C!':!.. .' , " \f. ~ ^ ^ iO V V
, '-"'S'- 'I i J 'ii'V 'Vv
! c::J~, : r ~ j 011 Il1h 0 ", ! ~ (~ V V V
~itJ> , .' DUI ~JJ.2 "'II>! J.:- V V
$~ r,:;~r'\!! }~m!j ~ H. <ij>~!i! ,1 1i
~r-~:-::':t- - '11>" '
k~ll ~ 'rv;- 'I ~------I:~'i'''::oo~:.t: ii. ---00 ----- ·
aru:nr , '~" I~ f' Ell ~; I ~~,~~ ,"
~ c::J!!O'" ': (rc:'!~. ji",. ! ~ If',
10 c::J /' ,
n)';~ ].ITJ i ! "
J:UL.: a ,-I: ~ '~hI,
,J=iI.,~ ~i:?~1 :((! ~
:, 16'1 c::J~'O ~~o i 2 - I
O:I.m,~' ,o! ~/
I:DIT~ : in i
IrlT1F"" 'i t I ~ ,~
Il~'-111 II'><' I! ,LfifiI "'" I00UI
!~~e.l__~:~l'--- ~~I
i:~ ~~~~ ~~:! ~
:n~ Erll ~g.~! ~ ~n ~
1)
~' !DlR ~
r !;;~PJ
~ I- J~~ --
'"
,
@
4
4
~
.1','
r>
~
~ ~ ~I
0-.
O. !!
u:::~
~ ~ ~
.....
o
z
S
...
>
w
~
A.
<1Z~
v
c: ~ BE;
<II N'
a:: ~&
8 g~
u: ~~
~ 01-
iI: e:~
C>
c:
:2
'5
!D
c:
~
CI
c
:5!
'S
!XI
I!!
Q)
E
'Q;
.r:
N
<(
"
Q)
.r:
U
S
Q)
c
~
.g ~
I/) c'
... [,;;
"'C .5!a::-
c: u 'ii~
ca ~,~
-::;~
~ .~~~
'u- (I)~.g
!lnti
.f
.~
~ en
.:;:
::i
"
oS!
.!!!
UI
UI
<(
~
.g
I/)
C')
"
Q)
UI
o
Q.
o
..
Q.
5
. ~
rt"4 f
lie i;i!
~! UH
.3 .6~ I
ZW"
- ~t;
~j~
-Z:I:
.~~
...0.;; <
~ ~~ J.I;\. @
~ ,', l' _~ ' ': "
IUur:-,' ~.-JI '
I.C~ ~ ~~i ~ ~ ~j:t, II ~ jI .g~~&.,l r
!1~~Pj ~ JJ~J~ ~N~~
~ J~~'n n .. h !. IlJI -....,. . >-; +12u~P._ -r,- _~
fr, ; V-O:oOuaHl ,I ~' .I~' !:J,.o[; ~ Ii'
lri~ om I, ~r! ifyH ~ .~~ ,~~~~
,UL.:~ ~o I, 0 ,:C 10 1~1,~~1: ~~1r~T
0..0': ! CJC.o i~j""
T..? ,~ '0 :i TaE1 I ~; 0..'
ICti ~~i, 1 '"""i ~ ~ .~
.!~~~ -- n f" il}~h.-."l -i..Em
'~O~i 01 7f U ,n.J "'" 1J!"~ ~!,\jIO \
E~ .~ i "" 0" 1 ~J:
~ J, O:ib I' ' " ~
. urn, I 'J
f-' J '. 0, nil- '.
~ I 0 ;J l' [0 IJ1 ~II- , ~ '" .
:CJ~1o I I od~"" J;:; '1 ~';
~'n 'n~~ n~~Iu~==.._ h_, h_,+n n_'_n
=r l.1 ~ H'fi j ~~ I.",
'~ II ~ j; ~~ i i i! '" \,' '"
' ] ~'~5iol I r iTlUi'~' '" ~+! ,I '"
-, \i 12 ;;w,U i ~'. ~ '" ,
:~L.: ~ ~~;r i . '. ,
J~~~~:~ ~o ! 'y",
~~~bl ~
.:n\i 10-1 0OL.J ''-''1,rrn
u::: g f i /0-, am '5<11 It-' L.J
I ~ -. ,AI 1111 ~ !Q;,
~ ! CJ~_t?j_..~ -i' _:._-;:~;: ~
w :I~q,_\.. g 2 f~ttl ~3f_
':... .o~ a "0 lr:i'T f ,
:n~'it5k'ai!j,o' .-"'0,
~ <~
~
.1".'
1
c
'"
i[
(;
o~
u::~
~ -g ~
8~
J!~
..-
o
1,
.,
I
I'-
z
:s
0.
>
W
:.:
A ffi C') ~15
~Z[> ~< U
'" _11.0 0- w
V ~~
1:1 00-
S g:~
Q)
en
0>
c
:g
'5
aJ
c
'OJ
::;
:1
C1
c
!!
":;
IX]
UI
..
ell
E
"Qj
.I:
N
:;(
"C
Q)
.I:
U
III
4i
c
t=- 0
o ::I
in -
'I'"" ~~;
'D ~~a;
I: ~!~
III ~:r a
_~~:i5
v.I"'.!!
.u ;;;;~i!
~ r U
~ '"
">
~
"C
ell
-
UI
"w
UI
c(
t=-
o
in
M
"C
ell
UI
o
Q.
o
..
0.
,
~ ~
EI1 !
Ii nj
II iiu
ZW'"
-~~
~t5~
-z:.:
~~~
~ ~p ~~..~
"O'/!O -- '
~~ ~~~? ~Jr<&~~lt '8
!~p) ~~J~,!~~~
'~.).. ! ~ '~~"Q
ID- ~~;~oo .. i'j .~ 1 .'~Ii~!tP}~r ~~~ +.: oo_~
" ~~Tt, Pn oc~ i: /
, 'io ' 11;']!1:
~L.:~ ~~"; Ii: np&co~ i~"'"
Oil ~ 0 · mi., .n...'
~.~~i ~ "'\., i ~ "~,g
I ~ --...\ n '" 1~.7 ..c~
:~)~LJ ~ u roo~ ',."", I?~~ ~ ~ro '
1 !, ~ '-I*" I " ,..JUu
--- ' ~O~b I' : " .~ ~," ''',
I i rrTno ' I ,,<) ", " : ~
---~ DC.' l' rg IiIJ RhL , ~ '" ',I
:.16 ',~fl.ld~!f"' ')1<1 ,-__,
J ' Ii [T'! ~ Ii 11" I{ r ", ,.
l<i'~_. .' ~ j-~ c. " 1\ " : ~.',
~ D~iO ji 11-1 0 ' .:-'" \:V' ", ':',
1 :lLI~ ~q ! '-, /~~ (~~---t',,?
:~~~ ~~ 11 ' " " """,'
1~,~~i21 ~o ! 'n:,
?=- ~ Nf1j!!O i \:EJ
:n~ '~!jI'o '}
IT', -"-Ie f i 1-=' I---
l LJ '-1 ..J2 --
[ ii J-ii~ n
h,. ! D~P. ._~a. : -00-0 -4
!fBo~ r ~tm 'r
~~ j .g~~~' h a ,J
"
~ ~ ~
~,
~
,,"
c
'"
c:
o~
.2.
11._
"C;;
E5
1-.
......
o
..... ~ v ~~
/1Z[> ~o <( ~ ~
'.J g!13
V u..2 ~w
~~
"E ~t;
~ a.~
en
c
:g
':;
CD
c
'(ij
::2:
CI
c:
~
'5
III
III
...
G)
E
'Qi
.c:
N
<
"
G)
.c:
u
III
q;
o
~ 0
o ::J
-
~ L~
"'C ~a::o;
c: i15
ca '2~.i
_~ h5
~~~
.~ ~"'5
LL .[
g' '"
':;:
:J
"
G)
Ui
"in
III
<(
~
o
Ii)
M
"
G)
III
o
Q.
o
...
Q.
z
..:
...J
Q.
)0-
w
"
:& ~
: 0 :!~ 1
h~ -;si
S'~ ~t;.
~~! ~~~;
ZW'"
-~~
~<(",
~ut:
-z:x:
.~~
...0.: <
~
~
~
~
w
~
g-
~
~
C-
'" .
a::.
Ow
&~
T"""
o
c
co
a::~
0'"
o.
u:::~
~ ~ ~
N
o
z
5
...
>-
w
:0::
[4
IJ
C(D
~<(
'0
o
c::
o/S
C
'"
a::
0>
C
B
'5
CD
'"
(j;
E
'ijj
.s::
N
<(
0)
!:
:2
oS
II)
~
Q)
E
'Cij
.c:
N
<
"C
Q)
.c:
o
ca
Qj
C
~ 0
o oj
-
U)
l;!
g.~~
-g ~!~
ca '2~ ..
O_~ '~~~
",on.!!
.~ ~~~
LL <[
g' '"
oS;
:::i
"C
Q)
-
II)
'iij
II)
<(
~
o
(;)
M
"C
Q)
II)
o
Co
o
~
c..
j" . Mj
.~ i6!;
J' .~~!
i !,!!
u ~~~ ~
z w.,
-~t
~<(..
eo::: US
-Z:c
.~~
...0: -<
c
,Q
m
>~
.!!~
w.
-g
~~
N
o
c
,Q
~5
w~
ig
w
~
o
"'I'-
,~ <{
m
>
Q)
w
.Q
Qj
x
w
C)
c
:2
"S
aJ
C
'(ij
:2
8~
N,..:
~~
gi!3
~"'
~~
O~
~O
~.:
CI
I:
:E
"S
m
~
Q)
E
"iij
.s::.
N
~
~
Q)
.s::.
u
('II
Qj
C
~
o
-
II)
u
oj
..
c ...
~L~~
-i!~
~~';
~ -;;
~!i5
~8~
="'.c
:!: u
!!'
5-
en
~
I:
('II
~
"u
('II
u..
CI
I:
":;:
:::i
~
Q)
1ii
"iij
III
<
~
o
-
II)
M
~
Q)
III
o
C-
O
...
Il.
, ~
~i~ ~
: ., ~~if1
E.J~ i~~ i
~ . ~<! \
~ 8 d~ t
ZW~
-~o
~t5t
-Z:I:
...~ ~
...0.: -<
c
o
~
~~
.r::.~
g~
C/)
N
o
z
:5
Q.
>-
W
~
z
:5
Q.
>-
W
~
<nOO
~<(
ro
>
QJ
jjj
o
"&i
x
w
C)
c
:E
'5
CD
c
'(ij
::;
c
,2
ro
>.
dj~
.r::.~
5~
Z
.....
o
01
c:
:2
"S
m
I!!
Q)
E
"q;
.s::.
N
;(
~
Q)
.s::.
u
IV
Q;
C
~
o
-
II)
o
::J
I ,~
~~~
CD!~
~t~
h~
~~~
~ Q
.[
'"
~
c:
IV
~
"u
IV
u..
01
c:
":;
:::i
~
QI
iii
"in
III
<(
~
o
-
II)
M
~
QI
III
o
a.
o
...
11.
,
~ ~
. ~i~!
101 I;' J
.1 ..1!
i! ~~i ~
~~B ~~~ i
ZW'"
-~t
><(..
~U~
-Z:':
,,~~
uiC') at;
>..- N~
C C ~<( ~~
.2 ,2 x 2J!!
10 10 "'I:'
~ > w ~a
II) C> ~o
w iD c:
i~ ~~ :2 it
'5
~o ~2 cc
J::"'
'1::" 52 '"
o~ "\..
Z (/) CD
N ~ E
0 0 'ii)
J::
N
;({
~
i
3
J
It
at
C
3!
:;
IX)
e
e
".
.s:
N
. ;(
-g
.s:
<.>
z ~
~
Go Q
~ ~ ~
:.: 0
- I~
(I)
..-
"
c:
I\J
~ i!~
'u !~g
I\J
IL i
at
c:
">
c: c: ::;
,g ,g "
g! ! ~
II) CII
iD iD -;
'i~ 1i!~ CII
<(
"I? jo ~
€. :s=
0'1 o~ 0
z (/) -
oq- ('f) (I)
0 0 CO)
-g
~
Q,
0
...
Q.
z
~
A.
>-
!:i!
.
~
a..
~
;: ~
. tt~~ ~
~;! !
;<t~ a
hj ~m
ZW'"
- ~i;
~l5~
...~ ~
-.0.: <
.
4rr-Acc 1-+ /11 EA;T +-
B
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed:
1.
List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contra~ subcontractor, material supplier. .
r;~~, ~: ~1~~t..';~tlEof .
6" - . A~. . ~
J ~ +rWl/\
If any pers identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
2.
3.
If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profrt organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4.
Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
5.
Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealing~h an official- of the City of Chula
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No ,
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract.
6.
Have you made a contributiolj,1 ~ more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? No ~ Yes _If yes, which Council member?
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (12) UIonths? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes_ No~
If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided?
Date:
1- S-~
,;4~~~
Signature of Contractor/Applicant ~
A/J. r MS. I":) I 'O-f'\
Print or type name of Contractor/Appli nt
*
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fratemal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
**
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation member,
Planning Commissioner, member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
September 8, 2006
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 3
MeetingDate: 11/28/07
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of the following applications filed by IRE
Development, for three separate parcels totaling approximately 44 acres
within the existing EastLake Business Center II.
a) GPA 07-05: General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation of 16.7 acres at the northeast comer of Fenton Street and
Showroom Place from Light Industrial to Retail Commercial.
b) PCM 07-04: amendments to the EastLake II General Development Plan
(GDP), and EastLake Business Center II Sectional Planning Area Plan
(SPA), and Planned Community District Regulations, Land Use Districts
Map and associated regulatory documents.
c) PCC-05-070 Rescind Conditional Use Permit previously approved to
establish and operate a Design District on the north side of Fenton
Street, both sides of Showroom Place.
SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Jim Hare, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is proposing to introduce commercial retail uses within the existing Eastlake
Design District in order to complement the existing furniture and home decorating businesses
presently in the District. The additional commercial uses are intended to bring more foot traffic
to the District, improving its mercantile posture and potential for success. The applicant is also
proposing certain modifications to the property development standards to accommodate up to
five story buildings, special parking ratios and professional and medical office uses, including
medical clinics. Specialty retail related to home improvement is currently allowed under a
previously approved Master Use Permit. However, these uses and other developmental and
operational flexibilities have been incorporated into the proposed SPA plan. Thus, the Master
Use Permit is no longer necessary and is proposed to be rescinded.
BACKGROUND
In November, 1999 the EastLake Business Center II SPA (SPA) was created to allow a 108-acre
expansion of the original Business Center which was established in 1985. The SPA was
approved in order to complete the anticipated employment/industrial development within the
EastLake Planned Community. In April, 2005, an amendment to the SPA document was
approved to allow approximately 35 acres near the eastern edge of the Business Center to be
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 2
developed as a home improvement/design center. To date, Phase I of the Eastlake Design
District, consisting of approximately 234,000 square feet of building, has been constructed on
approximately 16.7 acres. Phase II consists of approximately 17.7 acres and is located just west
and north of the existing Design District (see Locator Map). This area is part of the total
approximately 35 acres currently regulated by the Design District Overlay established in 2005.
A neighborhood meeting took place on September 12, 2007 to introduce the Applicant's
development and rezoning proposal. Approximately 40 residents and business owners attended
the meeting and commented on the project. Most of the concerns expressed at the meeting were
related to the proposed increase in building height and massing. However, the applicant was
commended for the quality of the proposed development and the recently completed Eastlake
Design Center.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-07-015 in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in significant
effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the
applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, IS-07-015.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Planning Commission Resolution
GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04, recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-07-015) issued for the
Project and approve these applications filed by the applicant based on the findings and subject to
the conditions contained in the attached draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance.
DISCUSSION
1. Existing Site Characteristics
The 44 acre project site encompasses the easternmost portion of the existing EastLake Business
Center. The site is bounded by Otay Lakes Road to the south, existing EastLake Business Center
to the west, Rolling Hill Ranch residential development to the north and EastLake Woods West
to the east of the site (see Locator Map). Due to the size, location and configuration, the overall
project site has been divided into three areas: Area A consists of 16.7 acres located at the
northeast comer of Fenton Street and Showroom Place. The site contains the existing EastLake
Design District. Area B consists of 17.7 acres at the northwest comer of Fenton Street and
Showroom Place. The site is consists of vacant leveled building pads. Area C, located south of
the intersection of Fenton Street and Harold Place, consists of 9.6 acres and is also a building
pad. (see Locator).
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 3
1. Existing General Plan, SPA Land Use Designations and land use
General Plan CV Municipal PC District Land Existing Land Use
Code Zonin2 Use Desi2nation
Site: Area A Light Industrial PC, Planned BC-I with Design EastLake Design
Community District Overlay District
North Light Industrial PC, Planned BC-l with Design Vacant
Community District Overlay
South FentonlOtay Lakes N/A N/A N/A
Road
East Residential ( 3-6 PC, Planned RPl, Single Family
du/ac) Community RP2,Residential detached SF
Residential
West Showroom Place N/A N/A N/A
General Plan CV Municipal PC District Land Existing Land Use
Code Zoning Use Designation
Site: Area B Light Industrial PC, Planned BC-l; Design Vacant
Community District Overlay
North Residential (3-6 PC, Planned SF AlSF3 single Single Family
du/ac) Community family detached Detached homes
residential
South Fenton Street N/A N/A N/A
East Showroom Place N/A N/A N/A
West Light Industrial PC, Planned BC-I, Light Industrial
Community Condominiums
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 4
General Plan CV Municipal PC District Land Existing Land Use
Code Zoning Use Designation
Site: Area C Light Industrial PC, Planned BC-l Vacant
Community
North Fenton Street N/A N/A N/A
South Otay Lakes Road N/A N/A N/A
East Light Industrial PC, Planned BC-I Medical Offices
Community
West Light Industrial PC, Planned BC-l Hitachi Corporate
Community Office
2. Project Description
The proposed amendments are more specifically described below:
General Plan Amendment
Amend the General Plan land use diagram, text and statistics to change the land use designation
of Area A from Limited Industrial to Commercial Retail (see Attachment 8, GP tab)
EastLake II General Development Plan
Amend the EastLake II General Development Plan land use diagram, text and statistics to change
the land use designation of 16.7 acres at the northeast comer of Fenton Street and Showroom
Place (Area A) from IR, Research and Limited Industrial to CR, Retail Commercial (see
Attachment 8, GDP tab)
EastLake Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
Amend the EastLake Business Center II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Site Utilization
Plan, text and statistics to reflect the introduction of a new 16.7 acre commercial parcel (E-13),
and the reduction in size/acreage of parcel E-12 from 75.4 to 58.74 gross acres and
corresponding reduction in net acreage from 58.2 to 41.5 acres (see Attachment 8, SPA tab)
EastLake II Planned Community District Regulations
Amend the Eastlake II PC District Regulations as follows:
a. Amend Section IlL 1 to add a new VC-5 land use district and parking provisions for
Area A.
b. Amend Section IV.1 to add a new BC-4 land use district for Areas Band C.
c. Repeal Section IV.2 and 3, Design District Overlay.
d. Amend Section IV.4(A) to increase building height from range of 35ft. to 60 f1. to
maximum of76 f1. with approval of Design Review Committee for Areas Band C.
e. Amend Section VIII.l to incorporate shared parking provisions for this project, and
establish prerequisites and requirements.
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 5
f. Amend Section VII1.2.B to change parking ratios for furniture stores fTom 1 space
per 600 s.f. to I space per I, I 00 s.f.
g. Amend Land Use District Map to remove the Design District Overlay and introduce a
new VC-5 land use district for Area A and change the underlying land use district for
Areas Band C from BC-l to a new BC-4 land use district
(See Attachment 8, PC District Regs. tab).
2. Design Guidelines
a. Amend Section 11.4.5, Individual Lot Design Criteria to increase the permitted
building height from 35 to 60 feet to maximum of76 feet with approval of the Design
Review Committee for Areas Band C inclusive.
b. Add separate section design criteria for buildings higher than 35 feet as well as
additional building setbacks required fTom property lines.
(see Attachment 8, Design Guidelines tab).
3. Public Facilities Finance Program (PFFP)
Amend applicable sections of the PFFP to reflect the reduction in the industrial land
inventory in the Eastlake Business Center from 100 to 83.3 acres and increase of
commercial land use at 16.7 acres (see Attachment 9).
4. Air Quality Improvement Plan
Amend the Air Quality Improvement Plan to reflect the new 16.7 acres of commercial
land use and the reduction of industrial land from 100 to 83.3 acres. (see Attachment
8, AQIP tab)
5. Water Conservation Plan
Amend the Water Conservation Plan to reflect the new 16.7 acres of commercial land
use and the reduction of industrial land use designation by the same amount (see
Attachment 8, WCP tab)
6. Master Use Permit (Area A and B)
Repeal of existing Master Use Permit PCC-05-070, regarding the Design District on
Areas A and B. (see Attachment 6)
ANALYSIS:
Land Use
The existing land uses presently found in the Design District (Area A) consist primarily of
furniture stores and wholesale/retail distribution and showroom businesses related to home
improvement merchandise. These existing land uses are not typically representative of light
industrial land uses such as warehousing and light manufacturing. However, a previous
amendment to the EastLake Business Center II SPA (approved in 2005) allowed the introduction
of specialty retail land uses under an overlay zone known as Design District Overlay zone (see
Attachment 8, PC District Regs, section IV.2). To date, Area A was designed and operated in a
semi-industrial manner, but has not been as successful as originally expected. The applicant
believes, and staff concurs, that additional commercial activity such as restaurants, bars and
specialty stores related home improvement could improve the commercial activity in the center,
and therefore position it as a more successful component of the EastLake Master Plan
Community.
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 6
The conversion of 16.7 acres from Industrial to Commercial represents 7.4 percent of industrial
land within the Eastlake Planned Community. Further analysis shows that the 16.7 acres
represents less than 1.3% of the industrial lands in eastern Chula Vista and less than 1 % of the
overall industrial lands within the City. Therefore, the percentage of industrially designated land
being lost is fairly small in comparison to the total amount of industrial land available in the
City.
The establishment of the Eastlake Design District Overlay Zone introduced land uses oriented
more towards commercial retail, which is consistent with the current request to change the
existing General Plan land use designation from Light Industrial to Commercial Retail. Staff is
of the opinion that the proposed Commercial Retail land use designation would reflect more
accurately the existing commercial pattern. The proposed amendment therefore, brings
consistency between the General Plan and the Eastlake II Business Center GDP and SPA.
EastLake II Planned Community District Regulations Amendments:
The EastLake Planned Community (PC) District Regulations function as the zoning regulations
for the EastLake Business Center. The PC District Regulations provide standards and
regulations to guide the development of the project. These regulations are applied in conjunction
with the Design Guidelines for the EastLake Business Center II Supplemental SPA.
The PC District Regulations were previously amended in 2005. The Design District Overlay
regulates and supercedes the land uses allowed by the underlying SPA land use district.
The SPA amendment established Section IV.2 and IV-3, Design District Overlay Designation, to
introduce specific land uses and developmental and operational parameters to change the Design
District vision. The adopted overlay zone required the approval of a Master Conditional Use
Permit (MUP as a pre-requisite to implement and activate the Design District Overlay zone.
Once the MUP was adopted, the specific development and operational parameters took
precedence over the underlying land use regulations prescribed in the PC District Regulations.
The use of permitted uses in the Design District Overlay zone is primarily a clarification or
expansion of certain permitted and conditional use permitted land uses contained in the BC-1
underlying land use designation.
The request to rescind the previously approved MUP is due to the fact that if the amendments to
the General Plan and EastLake II GDP and SPA are approved, the Commercial land use
designation will cover most of the permitted and conditional use permitted land uses permitted
under the MUP.
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 7
Land Use
Area A
The project proposes an amendment that would change the existing BC-l (with design district
overlay) to a new land use district category ofYillage Center 5 (YC-5) District. Area A would be
the only property within the Eastlake Business Center II with the YC-5 Land Use District
designation. Although the current proposal is to allow the entire Area A to be converted to
commercial retail, this is predicated upon the project meeting the parking standards for each
individual type of land use proposed under the YC-5 District. The Parking section discusses
parking for Area A in more detail.
As indicated above, the requested change in land use from BC-l to YC-5 is not considered a
significant change given the existing land uses already occurring within the Design District. The
fact that certain retail uses are already allowed (furniture stores, home improvement retail in
conjunction with showrooms) has demonstrated the appropriateness of other types of retail uses
complementary to the District. While the proposed land use category is similar in nature to the
YC-l, Village Commercial, there are certain uses which while allowed in the YC-l, will be
prohibited in the proposed YC-5 district due to the unique characteristics of the site and
surrounding area. Prohibited uses will include gasoline service stations, libraries, post office or
convalescent homes and hospitals. To adopt this existing industrial complex to commercial and
improve the mercantile posture of existing and future tenants, certain modifications to the
development standards are necessary.
Areas B and C
While the Land Use District Overlay is being removed as part of the entitlement requests, the
applicant is requesting to change the land use designation for Area B from BC-l to BC-4.
Although a hotel and office are currently proposed for Area C, the applicant has requested the
same BC-4 land use provisions apply for this area as well.
In terms of land use the new district will be very similar in nature to BC-3. Unlike BC-l, the
BC-3 land use designation allows certain additional land uses such as medical clinic land use
with a Conditional Use Permit. Staff supports this as an appropriate designation in that it is
located in an area that could be considered a transition between retail and more business
park/industrial type uses. The site itself is physically separated topographically from the
adjacent residential land uses to the north and east. Further analysis in terms of parking and
traffic could take place as part of the CUP process.
Parking
The required parking ratio of one space per 300 square feet established under the MUP (to
implement the Design District) will be removed. This blended ratio was specifically established
due to the unique mix of land uses allowed within the District.
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 8
Area A
The Eastlake Design District (Area A) is an eXIstmg development that is proposing an
amendment to allowable uses within the existing buildings. A traffic and parking study was
prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan (March 16, 2007) ("LLG") for Area A. This study
assumed an increased mix of commercial uses typical of what the proposed amendments would
allow. The study concluded that there would be adequate parking. Further, additional uses
cannot be approved absent evidence of adequate parking availability. The study included a 15%
mixed-use reduction and credit based on patrons from the same vehicle patronizing more than
one business per trip.
Staff concurs with the recommendations presented in parking study, to adopt the Urban Land
Institute parking standards for furniture stores. Based upon this study, the applicant is requesting
a reduced parking standard for this land use of 1 space per 1, I 00 s.f. The site contains unique
characteristics, including 1) vehicular access which is more conductive to a business center than
a typical retail center 2) and the exiting Design District contains a number of large suites
currently occupied by such furniture retailers as Bassett and Lane.
The proposed PC District Regulations will require that new establishments will be required to
demonstrate adequate parking to the satisfaction of the City (see section III. 1 footnote 1 of
Attachment 8).
Area B
There is no specific proposal for Area B at this time. However, when development occurs, it
will be required to provide parking on-site that is consistent with the Eastlake Business Center II
Planned Community District Regulations.
Area C
Another parking study was prepared by the traffic engineering firm ofLLG (September 2007) to
determine the adequacy of proposed parking on-site for Area C. In particular, the second parking
study sought to address the parking needs for approximately 8,800 square feet of proposed
conference room space proposed by the hotel land use. The City of Chula Vista does not have
parking standards that specifically address hotels with conference room space. A survey of other
municipal jurisdictions was also conducted in order to obtain clearer requirements for conference
room place. For the purposes of determining the parking demand, the City assumed that
dedicated conference space would require parking in addition to the City's standard requirement
for hotels. The parking study determined that adding the requirement of 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of
gross floor area of dedicated conference space in a hotel would adequately address the overall
hotel parking requirement.
The parking study took into account the fact that hotel, conference center and office uses create
peak parking demand at different times of the day. It also noted that the proposed hotel is a
business hotel, not a tourist hotel. The target market for the hotel is business travelers visiting
local companies to conduct business or corporate executives visiting a satellite office in Chula
Vista. Business travelers and local companies holding small conferences or meetings in a space
larger than the typical office conference room will use the conference room space. The hotel
peak demand occurs from 10:00pm to 6:00am while the office peak demand occurs at 8:00am to
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 9
5:00pm. The study demonstrates that, even assuming an additional 88 parking spaces (based
upon I space per 100 s.f.) need to be provided for the conference rooms independent of the
standard hotel parking requirements, there is adequate parking for the hotel (with conference
rooms) and the office building to operate independently (see Attachment 5). The owner's of the
Corporate Center hotel and office buildings will be entering into a private reciprocal parking
agreement to share parking as needed between the properties in order to take advantage of their
different peak demands and the minimum of 35 excess parking spaces that are available at any
one time.. This agreement will ensure a seamless parking facility for all uses on evenings and
weekends.
In addition to the above, the parking requirements for the proposed VC-5 and BC-4 Districts
(Areas A, B and C) will also be amended to provide a new standard for furniture stores and to
allow for shared parking subject to a specific procedure, demonstrating adequate parking (see
Attachment 7, PC District Regs. Tab, Section VIII).
Building Height
One of the main reasons for the creation of a new Land Use District (BC-4) as opposed to relying
on the existing BC-3 district is to accommodate the requested building height increase from 35
feet to 76 feet. Visual Simulations were prepared for Areas Band C (see Attachment 3,
Appendix A, and Attachment 4, Figure 5 and 6). Visual Simulation for Area A was not prepared
because the buildings already exist and no future construction on the site is proposed.
Area B
Photo simulations of a conceptual project to illustrate the potential visual impact of future
development containing buildings with a height of 76 feet were shown at a building setback of
210 feet from the north property line and 80 feet ttom the easterly property line. The photo
simulations were taken ttom observation points within the Rolling Hills Ranch residential
development that abuts Area B to the north and ttom Eastlake Woods West residential
development, which abuts Area B to the east (see Attachment 3, Appendix A). The photo
simulations illustrate that a combination of increased building setbacks, architectural design and
well articulated building mass blended well with the existing industrial buildings. Visibility of
the proposed building from the different points in the surrounding residential neighborhoods is
limited to the top floors. The proposed combination of building height setback ratio along with
additional design criteria for buildings over 35 feet in height will ensure that future proposed
development does not produce any adverse visual impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. At
the time when actual development is proposed, the applicant will be required to prepare
additional visual analysis in conjunction with a request for approval of Design Review
entitlements by the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee (DRC )
Area C
A Visual Analysis Report was prepared by Jones and Stokes (June 2007) to analyze the
Corporate Center. (see Attachment 4, Figure 5 and 6) This report analyzed the impact of the
proposed development from 10 Key Observation Points (KOP). Visual simulations of the
project were created and analyzed to detennine the aesthetics of the height and mass of the
buildings. Staff concurs with the report findings that, based upon the photo simulations
provided, as well as staffs field visits, that development would be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 10
The City of Chula Vista General Plan identifies Otay Lakes Road as a Scenic Roadway.
Although the proposed building height exceeds that of surrounding development, visibility of
the proposed hotel and office building from the surrounding area will be minimized by a
combination of greater building setbacks and reduction in the amount of vertical building
massing as viewed from the south.
Design Guidelines
The Design Guidelines are being amended primarily to add additional design criteria for
structures over 35 feet in height. These guidelines complement the additional requirements
added to the development standards of the PC District Regulations. The visual analysis
discussed above indicates that additional height can be accommodated with increased setbacks, a
reduction of vertical mass as the building height increase and increased architectural features
described in these guidelines.
Supplemental PFFP Amendment
The existing Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) has been prepared by City
consultants based upon the proposed change in land use of 16.7 acres from Light Industrial to
Commercial. However, because this land use change is a component of entitlements for the
larger 45 acre area, it is also included in the PFFP amendment specifically to include the
proposed office and hotel on Area C. As required by the City's Growth Management Ordinance,
the PFFP amendment analyzes the impact of the project on public facilities and services and
identifies the required public facilities and services needed to serve the project to maintain
consistency with the City's Quality of Life Threshold Standards. The PFFP describes in detail
the cost, financing mechanisms and timing for constructing public facilities.
The public facilities needed to serve the project will be guaranteed by placing conditions of
approval on the tentative parcel map, payment of DIP fees at the building permit stage, and/or
utilizing Community Facilities to finance or maintain the public facility.
Transportation/Traffic:
In September 2007, the traffic-consulting firm of Linscott, Law and Greenspan (LLG) prepared
two separate traffic impact analysis reports--one for Areas A and B and a separate analysis for
Area C. Subsequently, LLG prepared a comprehensive executive summary analyzing the results
of both traffic reports. For Area A the traffic report analyzed a project proposing 125,100 square
feet of furniture stores, 39,350 square feet of office floor space, 39,350 square feet of specialty
retaiVStrip commercial and 27,800 square feet of restaurant space for a total of 231,566 square
feet. For Area B the traffic report analyzed a high intensity land use consisting of 160,000 square
feet of specialty retail/strip commercial simulating a daily worst-case scenario for the future
potential development of this site. For Area C, the traffic report analyzed a 156-room hotel with
8,800 square feet of convention/meeting rooms and a 120,000 square foot office building.
Areas A and B
The existing land uses of Area A are calculated to generate a total of 1,110 ADT with 44 trips
during the AM peak hour (31 inbound and 13 outbound) and 100 trips during the PM peak hour
(50 inbound and 50 outbound). With the proposed land use change, Area A would generate a net
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 11
3,900 ADT with 139 trips during the AM peak hour (110 inbound and 29 outbound) and 355
trips during the PM peak hour (189 inbound and 166 outbound).
Area B land uses were calculated to generate a total of 5,440 ADT with 163 trips during the AM
peak hour (98 inbound and 65 outbound) and 448 trips during the PM peak hour (224 inbound
and 224 outbound).
The traffic study calculated the traffic for Areas A and B to be a net of 9,340 ADT with 302
trips during the AM peak hour (208 inbound and 94 outbound) and 803 trips during the PM peak
hour (413 inbound and 390 outbound), with the pass by reduction.
In addition the cumulative impact discussed below, a direct impact of the Project is anticipated at
the intersection of Fenton Street and Showroom Place (which will operate at LOS F during the
PM hours). To address this long term direct impact. A project condition has been included that
the Applicant/Developer shall be required to enter into an agreement to design, construct, and
secure a fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Showroom Place and Fenton Street
prior to completing development of Area B at the intersection of Showroom Place and Fenton
Street or as determined and approved by the City Engineer. With the traffic signal, this
intersection is projected to operate at LOS B or better.
Area C
The traffic study projected that the proposed hotel and office building (Area C) will generate an
estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 3,950 driveway trips, with 429 trips occurring in
the AM peak hour (358 inbound and 71 outbound) and 436 trips occurring in the PM peak hour
(136 inbound and 300 outbound).
Project (Areas A, B and C)
Based on the traffic impact study results, in the near term with the project all intersections are
calculated to operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or better except for the Otay Lakes Rd/V ons
Driveway intersection, which is calculated to continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak
hour. The impact at this intersection is considered to be cumulative in nature. The
Applicant/Developer will be required to pay their fair share to mitigate the Otay Lakes
Road/V ons Driveway intersection deficiency in the ftom of Transportation Development Impact
Fees. With the implementation of proposed mitigation this intersection is projected to operate at
an acceptable LOS D.
Drainage:
Since the PFFP was previously amended in 1999, urban runoff from municipal storm water
conveyance systems has been identified by local, regional, and national research programs as one
of the principle causes of water quality problems in most urban areas. A National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit now requires the development and implementation of
storm water regulations addressing storm water pollution issues. New thresholds have been
added to the PFFP to reflect these additional storm water discharge regulations.
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 12
Water Conservation Plan:
The City's Growth Management Ordinance requires the preparation of a Water Conservation
Plan for all projects. The original Water Conservation Plan was prepared in November of 1999
in conjunction with the original establishment of the original Business Center II. The current
update to the Plan updates the applicable tables to include the reduction on Industrial acreage and
the introduction of 16.7 acres of commercial acreage. In addition, the update includes the
addition of a number of residential and non-residential waster conservation measures. A
condition has been included to require that the development/redevelopment of Areas A, Band C
implement the recommendations of the Water Conservation Plan as amended.
Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP):
An Air Quality Improvement Plan was prepared for the project in accordance with Federal and
State requirements; and the City's General Plan Growth Management Element (GME) to meet
federal and state air quality standards. To implement the GME, the City's Growth Management
Program requires that that major commerciall'industrial projects prepare Air Quality
Improvement Plans for all Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans. The AQIP includes an
assessment of how the project has been designed to reduce emissions as well as identify
appropriate mitigation measures. The original AQIP was adopted in November 1999 in
conjunction with the establishment of the original Business Center II. The AQIP is being now
being amended to reflect to proposed transfer of 16.7acres from Industrial to Commercial. The
main changes to the AQIP is the addition of a section discussing the commitment to the Chula
Vista Greenstar program.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICTS:
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioner and found that
Commissioner Scott Vinson has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the
property which is the subject ofthis action.
FISCAL:
An amendment to the Eastlake Business Center II Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan
(PFFP) was prepared to ensure that the development of the project will not adversely impact the
City's Quality of Life Standards. The net fiscal impact from the amendment is negative in 2007
($91,800 Loss) and 2008 ($57,400 Loss) but becomes positive in 2009 ($306,500) and positive
at buildout ($345,000).
Case No: GPA 07-05/PCM 07-04
Page 13
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolutions
2. Draft City Council Resolutions & Ordinance
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP)
4. Figures
5. Parking Study for EastLake Corporate Center, table 4, dated 9-7-07
6. Master Use Permit PCC-05-070
7. Ownership Disclosure Form
8. Eastlake Business Center II SPA-Binder
9. Public Facilities Financing Plan amendment
J\p lanning\casefiles\06-07\PCM\PCM07 -04 \StaffReports\PC
/",
~>. /
......~ ",< "./">., /,/ .-
./ \ "./ ~,r' 1,
',<;~;)"~._ ,/'!d
::f
w
~
U)
()
I!I
.' ,/'
/" .,! >~......
//' ...,...... 1/ 2,:-.'--.,.
/ 2/ ."m!;"'"
............ ... ~/+-"i
'J /" 'Cd I
;""r-"rn ;(Q,~
/,~<" 2,7"~)
....-.i.....,....../ r~.
, 9 i ,o>,..,j
; ('~ "-I.e./ /":'
, ~'f'>...."~-'.'
\ L' ' "/1i)-:-t
J,\ /.r-~'
~\ \ >> x._~ t
, '(I)" //Q),.-.. \,
- ( \ \,
<)ro~X;\ ,
- . ' ".;Q; /'\
v/,E'''x /;( /
\\(.....;.... '",,"U "><./,,
,'-(X, "'or ^-
, "OAL.."......'
}. "~/~Q) ,-'
?, a" /> ~.E
_ )5f,~:d\Q>.
'< ./ >) ..p .n. '
')... <;~ /.::, 0/ -:.\
'^- /\~Q)~;q)\
./ U\;.-~"oL.. \(/)'
x- ,/',~-
I r' ,,J. \....-. as ..;;;;,#,.
......LU 'lID \ (tf
J-.-,C/,M \0\
J CUI ",/0\
4 ~ ,-,--~.L~"E'
6Y -~ aI "_-C
'~ - 5}a'
(J;fjj7.:.::.c:C.,_ _0 ()
/'--., . "'~ cu",.-~-:::r---
\..--/ r;:J . Q)"'"fI''lJ
_....n1 8 aw:r; "1',' L.:. "
~ '-';<(' '
,'_~=~~_ ~<; l~0.:,&~
()
I%:
:f
III
~
(/)
()
'"
-0::" .-...........
~EJ;----' 1-::1:'
<t: ' '
_0 \ Oil:...
'0, / z
...J
LOCATOR
~7
/
V')
.....
o
N
~
~
~
Iii
0>
2
Cii
-01
<=
(I)
E
~
0.:
~I
In
rD1
..:<:
OJ
'jji
at
!Y
(I)
iC
Iii
:9
(j
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. GPA-07-05/PCM-07-04
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE MITIGATED
NEGATNE DECLARATION IS-07-015 AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM; APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S
GENERAL PLAN, EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, EASTLAKE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICTS MAP, PUBLIC
FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN AND ASSOCIATED REGULATORY
DOCUMENTS FOR 44 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN THE EAST AKE BUSINESS
CENTER.
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, a duly verified application was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning and Building Department by IRE Development ("Developer"), requesting
approval of amendments to the City's General Plan, EastLake II General Development plan,
EastLake Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and EastLake II
Planned Community District Regulations and associated regulatory documents including Design
Guidelines, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Air Quality Improvement plan and Water Conservation
plan for 44 acres located north of Otay Lakes Road at the north, east and southwest sides of the
intersection of Showroom Place and Fenton Street. ("Project); and,
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-07-015
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results ofthe Initial
Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in
significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by
the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, IS-07-015.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-07 -015) has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City ofChula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project environmental impacts will be
mitigated by adoption ofthe Mitigation Measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and that the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure that during Project implementation, the
Developer, permittee/Project applicant, and any other responsible parties implement the project
components and comply with the mitigation Monitoring Program; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on the
Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city and it mailing to property owners and 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 6:00 p.m.,
November 28,2007, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and the hearing was thereafter closed.
Now therefore, the Chula Vista Planning Commission makes the following findings:
I. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CONFORM WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN, AS
AMENDED.
The proposed amendments to the EastLake II General Development Plan reflect the land uses
that are consistent with the City's General Plan as proposed to be amended and conform to
the provisions contained therein.
II. SPA FINDINGS
THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN,AS AMENDED, IS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA
GENERAL PLAN.
The proposed amendments to the EastLake Business Center II SP A Plan reflect the land uses
that are consistent with the EastLake II General Development Plan and the City ofChula Vista
General Plan as proposed to be amended.
THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL PROMOTE
THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREAS.
The requested amendments to the Eastlake Business Center II SPA plan includes a
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan that outlines the required inrrastructure to serve the
Project, the timing of installation and the financing mechanisms to promote the orderly
sequentialized development of the Project.
THE EASTLAKE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLANS, AS AMENDED, WILL
NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT,
CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The proposed modifications to land use and development standard provisions within the
Proj ect Site have been fully analyzed and will not adversely affect the circulation system and
overall land use as previously envisioned in the EastLake II General Development Plan. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-07-015) and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring
Program was prepared for the Project. Mitigation measures have been included related to
aesthetics/visual quality, air quality, paleontological, hydrology and water quality, noise, and
traffic. Thus, the requested amendments to the SPA will not adversely affect the adjacent land
uses, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality ofthe surrounding uses.
IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH
DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVERALL
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A
RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND
STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE.
The orientation and configuration of the 16.7 acres is substantially more suitable for
commercial retail rather than light industrial land use and more compatible with the
EastLake Design District which currently occupies the site.
Thus, changing the previously adopted land use designation from Light Industrial to
Commercial Retail is appropriate, and will not affect the surrounding areas. This added
acreage will contribute substantially to achieve the city's economic development goals and
objectives.
THE STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO
CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON.
The potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been thoroughly analyzed based upon the
proposed project resulting in specific requirements that must be complied with at the time of
development within the project area. This includes payment of in-lieu fees to pay fair share of
cumulative impacts to the off-site intersection located at the intersection ofthe V ons Driveway
and Otay Lakes Road and the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Fenton Street
and Showroom Place.
ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED
ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION (S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE
ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH
PROPOSED LOCATION (S).
The proposed amendments increase the acreage designated Commercial Retail to allow for
additional complementary retail establishments to be located within the existing Eastlake
Design District in an effort to increase the economic viability of the District and to provide
additional services, including restaurants and other similar uses, which complement the
existing home improvement district.
THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED
IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID
DEVELOPMENT.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the previously approved plans and regulations
applicable to surrounding sites and therefore the proposed amendments can be planned and
zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said development.
III. PFFP FINDINGS
THE AMENDMENT TO THE EXISITNG PFFP COMPLIES WITH SECTIONS 19.09.050
THROUGH 19.09.100, REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN.
The amendment to the Eastlake Business Center II Supplemental PFFP has been prepared
according to the contents and details outlined in the Municipal Code. It has been submitted
to and reviewed by the Director of Planning and Building who has determined that the
proposed amendments to the PFFP comply with the provisions of Section 19.09.080 and is
forwarding the document with corresponding development plan to the Planning Commission
for consideration and public input. Public facilities needed to serve the project were
identified and will be guaranteed by conditions of approval, implementation of required
mitigation measures identified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-015, payment ofDIF
fees at the building permit stage, and/or utilizing Community Facilities to finance or maintain
the public facility.
THE PROPOSED PFFP AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL
GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, THE AMENDED EASTLAKE II GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE AMENDED EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II
SPA PLAN.
The Eastlake II General Development Plan and Eastlake Business Center II SPA outline the
necessary public facilities required to meet its land use and circulation objectives of the
General Plan. The amendment to the existing PFFP outlines detailed plans for the provision
of those public facilities as they relate to the proposed Project.
The amended PFFP identifies required Development Impact Fees (DIF) fees which must be
paid to help defray costs of facilities which will benefit the project. The estimated fees
required by this project are $2,627,009 for Transportation Facilities and $2,850,622 for other
applicable Facilities.
While net fiscal impact ofthe Project on public facilities is negative in 2007 ($91,800 Loss)
and 2008 ($57 ,400 Loss) the fiscal impact becomes positive in 2009 ($306,500) and positive
at build out ($345,000).
THE AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING PFFP ENSURES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE PROJECT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE CITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE
STANDARDS.
As required by the City's Growth Management Ordinance, the PFFP amendment analyzes
the impact of the project on public facilities and services and identifies the required public
facilities and services needed to serve the project to maintain consistency with the 'City's
Quality of Life Threshold Standards. The PFFP describes in detail the cost, financing
mechanisms and timing for constructing public facilities required to ensure that development
occurs only when the necessary public facilities exist or are provided concurrent with the
demands of the new development. Certain facility improvements have been identified as
project impacts based upon Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-07-015) and accompanying
Mitigation Monitoring Program. These include the requirements for the construction of a
signal at the intersection of Fenton and Showroom Place prior to development of Area B.
Other required mitigation measures are related to aesthetics/visual quality, air quality,
paleontological, hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic. Implementation of these
mitigation measures along with payment of required DIF fees will ensure the Project will
maintain consistency with the City's Quality of Life Standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TH E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City
Council Resolution and Ordinance approving the Project in accordance with the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA THAT a copy of this Resolution and the draft City Council Resolution and
Ordinance be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of November, 2007, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
William Trip, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-05-070M
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
REPEALING PREVIOUL Y APPROVED MASTER CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT PCC 05-070 TO ESTABLISH AN OPERATE A DESIGN CENTER AT
851-891 SHOWROOM PLACE - IRE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the area ofland which is subject matter ofthis Resolution is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" and for the purpose of general description herein consists of
approximately 35 acres at the northeast and northwest and southwest comers of Fenton Street and
Showroom Place within the EastLake Planned Community ("Project Site"); and,
WHEREAS, on June 15,2005, a duly verified application for a Master Use Permit (PCC-05-
070) ("Project") was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Division by EastLake Design
District, LLC ("Applicant") to establish and operate a Design Center; and,
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2005 the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista
approved the Master Use Permit subject to conditions and is presently active and in full force; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting approval of a Eastlake Business Center II SPA
amendment to change the land use designation of the westerly 16.7 acres of the Project Site ftom
Light Industrial to Commercial Retail; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Eastlake Business Center II SPA include
specific amendments to the Planned Community District Regulations creating a new commercial
district VC-5, Village Center Commercial to replace the Master Use Permit;
WHEREAS; upon approval of the above mentioned SPA amendments, the Master Use
Permit would be obsolete; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting to rescind the Master Use Permit contingent upon
approval of the amendments to the Planned Community District Regulations and the Ordinance
approving the amendments become effective.
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project in
conjunction with the requested SPA Amendments for compliance with the California Quality Act
(CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-07-009 in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results ofthe Initial Study, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment.
However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-07-015.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1S-07 -009) has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City ofChula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city and it mailing to property owners and 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 6:00 p.m.,
November 28,2007, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and the hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA that it rescinds Conditional Use Permit PCC-05-070, contingent upon
the approval by the Chula Vista City Council ofthe proposed amendments to the Eastlake II Planned
Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map.
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 28th day of November, 2007, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
William Trip, Chairperson
Diana Vargas, Secretary
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
AND ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IS-07-015;
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, THE
EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE EASTLAKE
BUSINESS CENTER II SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN AND ASSOCIATED
REGULATORY DOCUMENTS FOR 44 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST,
NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF FENTON STREET AND
SHOWROOM PLACE WITHIN THE EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER.
I RECITALS
A Project Site
WHEREAS, the areas ofland which are the subject of this Resolution are diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit A attached to and incorporated into this Resolution, and commonly
known as EastLake Business Center II , and for the purpose of generai description herein
consists of 44 acres subdivided into 3 separate properties: 1) Area A consists of 16.7 acres
located at the eastern portion of the Business Center, at the northeast comer of Fenton
Street and Showroom Place and contains the existing (Phase I) 234,000 EastLake Design
District; 2) Area B consists of 17.7 acres located at the northwest comer of Fen ton Street
and Showroom Place. Area B is currently vacant;. 3) Area C, located south of Fenton
Street, consists of9.6 acres and is currently vacant ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and
Building Department on September II, 2006 by IRE Development ("Applicant"),
requesting amendments to the City's General Plan, the EastLake II General Development
Plan, the Eastlake Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan, the Planned Community
District Regulations and associated regulatory documents, including design guidelines,
Public Facilities Finance Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation
Plan for the Project Site ("Project); and,
C Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various
entitlements and agreements, including 1) amended Eastlake II General Development Plan
(GDP) approved by City Council Resolution No. 2005-288 on August 23, 2005; Business
Center II Supplemental SPA approved by City Council Resolution No. 19666 on November
16, 1999; and 3) amended Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations approved by
City Council Ordinance No. 3018 on September 13, 2005. and,
D. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project
for compliance with the California Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial
Study, IS-07-015 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based
upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment.
However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur;
therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, IS-07 -015.
E. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on the Project,
and notice of the 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
ft. ofthe exterior boundary ofthe Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on
November 28, 2007 and voted to forward a recommendation to the City
Council on the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission
at the public hearing on the Project held on November 28, 2007 and the minutes and
resolution resulting therefrom, are incorporated into the record ofthis proceedings; and,
F. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project application
and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city, and its mailing to property owners within 500
ft. of the exterior boundaries ofthe Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing.
WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed pubic hearing on the Project was held before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista on _ 2007 in the Council Chambers in the City
Hall, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. to receive the
recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to
the same.
2
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vita that
it finds, determines, and resolves as follows:
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council finds that, in the exercise of their independent review and judgment, the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-07-
015), in the form presented, has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the
City of Chula Vista and adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (IS-07-015).
IV. APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The City Council approves the amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use
Diagram text and statistics is as set forth and diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "B," a
copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, known as Document , to
change the land use designation of 16.7 acres at the northeast comer of Fenton Street and
Showroom Place from Light Industrial to Commercial Retail. The change of 16.7 acres
from Light Industrial to Commercial Retail is shown in updated Table 5-6 of the Land Use
Element and Transportation Element of the General Plan, as shown in Exhibit B-1.
V. GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
The City Council finds and determines that the General Plan is internally consistent and
shall remain internally consistent following the amendments in this Resolution.
VI. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CONFORM WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN, AS
AMENDED.
The proposed amendments to the EastLake II General Development Plan reflect the land
uses that are consistent with the City's General Plan as proposed to be amended.
VII. APPROVAL OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
In light of the findings above, the City Council approves the amendment to EastLake II
General Development Plan in the form presented to the City Council and on file in the
office of the City Clerk.
3
VIII. SPA FINDINGS/ APPROVAL
A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, IS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The proposed amendments to the EastLake Business Center II SPA Plan reflect the
land uses that are consistent with the EastLake II General Development Plan and the
City of Chula Vista General Plan as proposed to be amended.
B. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA(SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL
PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS.
The requested amendments to the Eastlake Business Center II SPA plan includes a
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan that outlines the required infrastructure
to serve the Project, the timing of installation and the financing mechanisms to
promote the orderly sequentialized development ofthe Project.
C. THE EASTLAKE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLANS, AS
AMENDED, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE,
RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY.
The proposed land use text and statistical amendments to the SP A, and
development standards will not adversely affect the circulation system and
overall land use pattern as previously envisioned in the EastLake II General
Development Plan. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-07-015) and
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program was prepared for the Project.
Mitigation measures have been included related to aesthetics/visual quality, air
quality, paleontological, hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic. Thus, the
requested amendments to the SPA will not adversely affect the adjacent land uses,
residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality ofthe surrounding uses.
D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT
SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION,
AND OVERALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH
AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF
SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH
DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE.
4
The orientation and configuration of the 16.7 acres is substantially more suitable
for commercial retail rather than light industrial land use and more compatible
with the EastLake Design District which currently occupies the site.
Thus, changing the previously adopted land use designation from Light Industrial
to Commercial Retail is appropriate, and would be compatible with surrounding
land uses. This added acreage will contribute substantially to achieve the city's
economic development goals and objectives.
E. THE STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE
TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON.
The potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been thoroughly analyzed based
upon the proposed project resulting in specific requirements that must be complied
with at the time of development within the project area. This includes payment of
in-lieu fees to pay fair share of cumulative impacts to the off-site intersection
located at the intersection of the V ons Driveway and Otay Lakes Road and the
construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Fenton Street and Showroom
Place.
G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED
ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION (S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE
ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT
SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION (S).
The proposed amendments increase the acreage designated Commercial Retail to
allow for additional complementary retail establishments to be located within the
existing Eastlake Design District in an effort to increase the economic viability of
the District and to provide additional services, including restaurants and other
similar uses, which complement the existing home improvement district.
H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED
AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY
WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the previously approved plans and
regulations applicable to surrounding sites and therefore the proposed amendments
can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said
development.
IX. APPROVAL OF SPA AMENDMENTS
In light of the findings above, the City Council approveS the EastLake Business Center II
SPA amendments as presented in Exhibit C subject to the conditions set forth below:n
5
1. Implement all environmental impact mitigation measures identified in Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS 07-015 and Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project.
2. Install all public facilities in accordance with the Eastlake Business Center Supplemental
Public Facilities Plan 2007 Amendment or as required to meet the Growth Management
Threshold standards adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of
improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
3. Implement the Federal and State mandated conservation measures outlined in the Water
Conservation Plan for Eastlake Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan and 2007
Addendum.
4. Prior to approval of building permits for each phase of the Project, the Applicant shall
demonstrate that air quality control measures outlined in the EastLake Business Center II
Supplemental Air Quality Improvement Plan and 2007 Addendum pertaining to the
design, construction and operational phases of the project have been incorporated in the
project design.
5. Prior to the 30th day after the Ordinance becomes effective, the Applicant shall submit to
the Planning and Building Department 20 copies and a CD of amended EastLake II GDP,
EastLake Business Center II SPA, EastLake II Planned Community (PC District
Regulations), Design Guidelines, Air Quality Improvement Plan, Water Conservation
Plan and Eastlake Business Center Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan 2007
Amendment. Specific document format, table of contents, and titles shall be as
determined by City Staff.
6. Prior to the 30th day after the Ordinance becomes effective, the Applicant shall clean-up
the SP A document by deleting all strike out underlines and shading. Where the document
contains both an existing and proposed exhibit, the previous existing exhibit should be
removed and substituted. In addition, the following text, document format, map and
statistical changes shall be incorporated into the document:
SP A Pl:m
1. Following Page 1-10, Add sections 11.2.1.6.2 through II.2.1.6.5 back into the
document
2. Change pagination on Pages 1-10 through 1-12.
pr District ReEJll::Jtions
3. On Page I-II Change BC-4 designation from Core Professional District to Core
District
4. On Page IV-I Incorporate BC-4 into the definition of Business Center Core
District.
6
5. Page IV-7 Regarding new footnote 5(A)-add the following language: "as
measured from the Property Line (except along Otay Lakes Road measured from
top of slope, irregardless of where property line is located")
6. Page VIII-2 Re-order footnotes. Make new footnote for furniture store parking as
footnote 2.
DesiVl Guidelines
7. Following Page IV-18, the next page should be numbered V-I with consistent
page numbering to follow. Remove duplicated pages.
x. PFFP FINDINGS/APPROV AL
A. THE AMENDMENT TO THE EXISITNG PFFP COMPLIES WITH
SECTIONS 19.09.050 THROUGH 19.09.100, REQUIREMENTS FOR
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN.
The amendment to the Eastlake Business Center II Supplemental PFFP has been
prepared according to the contents and details outlined in the Municipal Code. It
has been submitted to and reviewed by the Director of Planning and Building. The
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed amendments and recommends
adoption by the City Council. Public facilities needed to serve the project were
identified and will be guaranteed by conditions of approval, implementation of
required mitigation measures identified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-
015, payment ofDIF fees at the building permit stage, and/or utilizing Community
Facilities to finance or maintain the public facility.
B. THE PROPOSED PFFP AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
OVERALL GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, THE AMENDED EASTLAKE II
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE AMENDED EASTLAKE
BUSINESS CENTER II SPA PLAN.
The Eastlake II General Development Plan and Eastlake Business Center II SPA
outline the necessary public facilities required to meet its land use and circulation
objectives of the General Plan. The amendment to the existing PFFP outlines
detailed plans for the provision of these public facilities as they relate to the
proposed Project.
The amended PFFP identifies required Development Impact Fees (DIF) fees
which must be paid to help defray costs of facilities which will benefit the project.
The estimated fees required by this project are $2,627,009 for Transportation
Facilities and $2,850,622 for other applicable Facilities.
7
While net fiscal impact of the Project on public facilities is negative in 2007
($91,800 Loss) and 2008 ($57,400 Loss), the fiscal impact becomes positive in
2009 ($306,500) and positive at build out ($345,000).
c. THE AMENDMENT TO THE EXSITING PFFP ENSURES THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT WILL NOT ADVERSELY
AFFECT THE CITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE STANDARDS.
As required by the City's Growth Management Ordinance, the PFFP amendment
analyzes the impact of the project on public facilities and services and identifies
the required public facilities and services needed to serve the project to maintain
consistency with the City's Quality of Life Threshold Standards. The PFFP
describes in detail the cost, financing mechanisms and timing for constructing
public facilities required to ensure that development occurs only when the
necessary public facilities exist or are provided concurrent with the demands of
the new development. Certain facility improvements have been identified as
project impacts based upon Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-07-015) and
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program. These include the requirements
for the construction of a signal at the intersection of Fenton and Showroom Place
prior to development of Area B. Other required mitigation measures are related to
aesthetics/visual quality, air quality, paleontological, hydrology and water quality,
noise, and traffic. Implementation of these mitigation measures along with
payment of required DIP fees will ensure the Project will maintain consistency
with the City's Quality of Life Standards.
In light of the findings above, the City Council approves the Eastlake Business Center II
Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Amendment as presented in Exhibit D.
XI. APROV AL OF AMENDMENTS TO ASSOCIATED REGULATORY
DOCUMENTS.
The City Council approves the amendments to the associated regulatory documents
including: the Design Guidelines for Eastlake Business Center II Supplemental SPA
as shown in Exhibit C.
XII. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUMS TO ASSOCIATED REGULATORY
DOCUMENTS
The City Council approves 2007 addendums to the Air Quality Improvement Plan
and Water Conservation Plan for Eastlake Business Center II Supplemental SPA
Plan as shown in Exhibit C.
8
XIII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to the their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of future
building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued
under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigate or compel
their compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by
Applicant or successor in interest by the City approval ofthis Resolution.
XIV. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
enforceability of each and every term provision and condition herein stated; and that in the
event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by the Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the city so determines in its
sole discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be revoked and no further in force or in
effect.
Presented By:
Approved as to form by:
Jim Sandoval
Director of Planning
Ann Moore
City Attorney
J:\Planning\case fiiJe\06-07\PCM 07-04\City Counc1 Resolutions
9
/ /
!.....
~" ~} y
c: ,~
.-GJ .~~ I
U'lfl /
',' '~
,:,q),t: /
'..dJ'Q)
"', ~",CZ
. ~., "t::'
" -ti)'i::t
~ ill1J? 0 " ::S-': C: -<
~';':fP aJ,/
"...E
' :~?'~; <
"'~"
'tri<::ib:' ~
J3 ~~',
'r:.~i-',
.,1,;,: .
?,>
~~:~4
,/ /:" 'u)
, ,/~, /(~}',;
';":< .~.":'..
// / ,,~ / '
[ (i:!~'~,~ -
j. ,) /8.:::,: ~
~~?I;, -
"'CJ/ \
~~:~\(::
. \ ......
m ~
ft q
ct ~
.,;
;~"~-li:',,' ' i
..,. ~
i (I),
U
<D
11)'
"'"
as
;:0
UJ
as
!:Y
11)
~/!
'~8'- -. ~
~ " "I-
.U.J ~
go' Z
EXHIBIT A
_ _ca
..... 1'-
C == (,)
ca -...-
-I E - (1) 0::
(1) 0 "C .~ E (J
tn...(1)....E-
clt-....tno=
ca Q) .E- ~ (J ca
.c t/) "C ....
(J ::>> .- c 0 Q)
-1_....0::
~
,0
..J
--
:E .!!! E
..,::1
-I C'-
IV cu "C
101. "C cu
'in ~
~
......
_-:...,
"'0
0::
~
~
-
CU
~
""-
J;J
()
~
Q
1
d\
~
~
~
t>
~
o
. ..J
'\ --
':E ,!!! E
..,::1
-I C.-
IV cu "C
101. "C cu
'in ~
cu
~
......
EXHIBIT B
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CHAPTER 5
TABLE 5-6
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRIBUTION IN 2030 BY PLANNING AREA
(ACRES)
Total East
General Plan Land Use General Bay- North- S outh- East U ni ncorp. U ni ncorp.
Designation Plan front west west Chula Sweet- Otay
Area Vista water Ranch
Subareas Subarea Subarea
RESIDENTIAL
Low 6,972 64 1,555 2,453' 2,900
Low Medium 8,200 1,354 1,401 4,927 307 211
Medium 1,201 187 288 622 32 72
Medium High 734 143 113 381 97
High 417 17 124 253 23
Urban Core 84 84
COMMERCIAL
FJr1aj'1 ~~z:tg~ 121 115 202 ~Jitr~t~ 32
~ ~~,~-
Visitor 75 44 11 2 18
Professional & Admin. 160 21 61 7 59 12
MIXED USE
Mixed Use Residential 727 174 98 405 50
Mixed Use Commercial 110 37 58 15
Mixed Use Transit Focus A rea 122 83 39
INDUSTRI AL
"'~'^""'~Qg~siI !:Z-2Q:lm~ 86 116 384 j)J'20~1fnF
~;.~ltnL,. i,~ Q~Ji;I i:-,;Lj:...,..,'','"' '$:~;;'i.~ir&
Regional Technology Park · 200 200
General Industrial 218 218
PUBLIC, QUAS PUBLIC
AND OPEN SP A<E
Public/Quasi-Public 3,021 27 225 321 2,028 381 39
Parks and Recreation 931 60 73 106 573 88 31
Open Space 6,303 23 215 617 3,886 1,099 463
Open Space Preserve 17,910 362 18 97 5,200 2,008 10,225
Open Space- 367 44 323
Active Recreation
Water 2,672 1,498 9 1,165
SPECIAL FLANNING AREA
Eastern Urban Center 240 240
Resort 275 45 230
Town Center · 169 169
OTHER~ 4,553 98 866 829 2,291 408 61
TOTAL ACRES 58,422 2,620 3,994 4,815 24,620 6,829 15,544
1- The unincorporated portion of the Northwest Planning A rea (87 acres of Residential Low) is included in the Unincorporated
Sweetwater Subarea column only.
2 - Streets, freeways, utility right-of-ways
.Please see Page LUT-285 for Final Action Deferral Areas information
EXHIBIT B-1
Page LUT-59
~!~
- -
~ ~::'O>-
CJJY Of
QiUIA VISTA
EXHIBIT C
(SEE ATTACHMENT 8)
EXHIBIT D
(SEE ATTACHMENT 9)
.
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE II PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICT MAP.
1. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Ordinance are
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached to and incorporated into this
Ordinance, and commonly known as EastLake Business Center II, and for the
purpose of general description herein consist of 44 acres divided into 3 separate
properties: I) Area A consists of 16.7 acres located at the eastern portion of the
Business Center, at the northeast comer of Fenton Street and Showroom Place and
contains the existing (phase 1) 234,000 EastLake Design District; 2) Area B consists
of 17.7 acres located at the northwest comer of Fenton Street and Showroom Place.
Area B is currently vacant; 3) Area C, located south of Fen ton Street, consists of9.6
acres and is currently vacant ("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, IRE Development ("Applicant") filed an
application requesting approval of amendments to the EastLake II Planned
Community District Regulation and Land Use District Map; and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various
entitlements and agreements, including I) amended Eastlake II General
Development Plan (GDP) approved by City Council Resolution No. 2005-288 on
August 23, 2005; Business Center II Supplemental SPA approved by City Council
Resolution No. 19666 on November 16, 1999; and 3) amended Eastlake II Planned
Community District Regulations approved by City Council Ordinance No. 3018 on
September 13,2005. and,
D. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on the
Project, and notice of the 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 ft. of the exterior boundary of the Project, at least ten
(10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on November 28, 2007 and voted to forward a
recommendation to the City Council on the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on the Project held on November 28, 2007 and
the minutes and resolution resulting thererrom, are hereby incorporated into the
record ofthis proceedings; and,
E. City Council Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project
application and notices of the 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 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the Project at least ten
(10) days prior to the hearing.
WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held
before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on 2007, in the Council
Chambers in the City Hall, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, at 6:00
p.m. to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear
public testimony with regard to the same.
F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance
WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at which this Ordinance was
introduced for first reading on December 18,2007, the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista approved Resolution No. by which it approved amendments to
the General Plan, the EastLake II General Development Plan, the Eastlake II
Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, the Design Guidelines, the
Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan, and the Air Quality and Water
Conservation Plans
G. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted
an Initial Study, IS-07-015 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the
environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the
applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator
has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-07-015. Pursuant to the
Resolution , the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration
IS-07-015.
II NOW, THEREFORE, the City ofChula Vista finds, determines and ordains as follows:
A. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
The City Council finds that the proposed Amendments to the Eastlake II Planned
Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map are consistent with the
City of Chula Vista General Plan, as amended.
B. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The City Council approves the amendments to the Eastlake II Planned Community
District Regulations and Land Use District Map as represented in Exhibit B.
III. EFFECTNE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Jim Sandoval
Director of Planning
Ann Moore
City Attorney
J: \Planning\casefiles\06-07\pcm 07 -04 \oridnancesc
"~
Q) v)
.J-J' Q):
c: ,~
Q) ,.-....;.;
, ,',' I
U. Y'),' /
','. ' .J.:-I
> V).C /
,,'(1J.'QJ,
,,' E
.,'~~:'.',i:j::
~ ill Q? eJ ".,::f ~ c:: -<
~ )'FP c(j/
,"I'CIJ', E"
b~~,. .:/>~"
,.'rtJ ~'"
~(;~;
V)\'.b::.:' '
CO t;i:)"
UJ "'.>.
\~~t..~,
<:/>.
~:~:~"
,,/,/-"'tJ)
, ; (I),
!c)-I}':
_1,...../ I j'lII/lf/fl',_./
\i&:~S~-
-" ,.B~...,
-__L~) ,~'i\ ':\
.,--: '.. ": \
", \ -...:~ .
'III
...
c(
;'~~i,i,,"
"iii
.,;
CD
-< ""
(f)
'0'
c:
CI)
E
<(,
It
<n
U'
<D
(1)'
.>:
~
U>
0>
W
a;
~/J
u
'~8'- -.,.~,
<t: ,l-
.0) :5
go' . Z
EXHIBIT A
/ /
....
o
N
o
~
~
','
EXHIBIT B
(SEE ATTACHMENT 8, PC. DISTRICT REGS TAB)
ATTACHMENT 3
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
Eastlake Business Center
PROJECT LOCATION:
North side ofOtay Lakes Road, west of Hunte Pkwy.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
595-711-09,595-710-09,10,11 & 12,595-711-03
PROJECT APPLICANT:
IRE Development & Innkeepers
CASE NO.:
IS-07 -015
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT:
October 17, 2007
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERV AnON COMMISSION MEETING: November 5, 2007
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
Prepared by: Benjamin Guerrero, Senior Planner
A. Proiect Setting
The project site consists of 43.7 acres located on the north side of Otay Lakes Road and west of
Hunte Parkway. The project site can be described as containing three distinct areas (See Exhibit 2).
Area A contains the existing Eastlake Design District which consists of existing furniture stores and
showrooms related to home improvement with ancillary commercial uses. Area B consists of
relatively flat vacant building pads. Area C is vacant land and is located at a higher grade (about 28
feet) than Otay Lakes Road. The project site is in an urbanized area in the eastern portion of the City
ofChula Vista (see Exhibit 3 - Aerial Map). Topography across the project site is relatively flat and
the property is devoid of vegetation. The site is surrounded by residential and commerciallindustrial
development as follows:
Design District (Area "A '') and Eastlake Design Center (Area "B '')
North: Single Family Residences
East: Single Family Residences
South: Otay Lakes Road, Single Family Residences
West: Medical Offices & Industrial Businesses
Eastlake Corporate Center Area C:
North: Commercial, Multi-Family residences, Single Family residences
East: Medical Office Buildings
South: Otay Lakes Road, Single-Family Residences
West: Hitachi Business
B. Proiect Description
The project consists of an amendment to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GP A) to change the land
use designation of approximately 16.7 previously developed acres at the northeast comer of Fenton Street
and Showroom Place (851-891 Showroom Place) within the Eastlake Business Center (hereafter referred
as Area "A") from Limited Industrial to Commercial Retail. The GP A amendment would allow
additional commercial retail types of uses to complement the existing tenant mix.
1
"
"-
-~''-
8
><
U.I
2
Iloo 0
o en
~ .9:!
+lC
c
~ c
o I'a
Uti)
Iloo 0
o en
~ .9:!
'CC
~ c
o I'a
Uti)
---~.--
~.=.....~
\
\
\
r
,
IJ
d
II,
Ii
'I
~
1
\
\
\
------
-~--~
~--
,~
,/"
r
<I>
m
o
U)
.B
(5
z
'""
...
-
m
-
:I:
><
w
~ 0..
Q) ro
=~
Q) .b
U -2
--
rJ'.J U
rJ'.J --
Q) >
= cd
.~ t)
rJ'.J __
~ >
~ cd
~
Q) ;j
~~
~ u ~
P-( ~ ~
~ 0 0
rJ'.J .b OJ
~ --
~u
E
E
)(
J,!!
'"
]!
Oi
~
"'
c
Q)
lJ
'"
::>
II]
Q)
"'"
'"
't5
'"
ill
o
~
Oi
::>
C)
c:
Q)
9:!
o
<n
"'
::>
r:T
Q)
0::
>-
.a
'"
t5
"'
0'
9;
'"
8i~
.:.;
r::
o
.r!
.w
cO
o
o
H
.w
o
ill
T.
o
~
P<
I
- ,
/~
....- .---.
//"/
./
//
'"'
\
~'
~ ./-
'"'
\.. ;y<-"'"
~ /~~;;~~'"
1-'---
If
--'/
./
------ -
.-\~',"
~1)1y, "
,/
/
/"
/
../~-{ ./
../-;;~ '?~/
/' y..V /'
/'
~.-'..,
."
~\::.I,::>..;
*6...; -"'- "~
" , 6-"" ....- ..,-, .........
~
-../
./
. -. -.-..--.-
...z
CJO
W _I-
"')c:(
OCJ
..,.._a: 0
A..,J
HAROlDPL
,...<r:... -
,0
. .~,=1:~_.
--..X,__
,:--..__..~-_._..,_1_
'~=J ~-=:,\
/>..;'",)\
'..j--~~_/
. ./' .'
:I~~(~:/
'.......)'Yp{. ."'/
',,/>.?~t/)
"(/'~I>/
U'/'
""/
" '../
\ij
z
~
z
'"
IL
~ ---.------..--..-
AV3N\f1
-------- -'" -
"
/
. ,_./~ ~;:--_.~-.;'
/~..
.//
/
o
<r
..J
..J
'"
~
o
m
- ,,~. ~----- \
/
./
./
../-~
~1\l'\<.\O.../" "
/~/
/~<J '
,~"
...-""'-
"
....
-,
\ -"-'
../
./
-.
N
t-
-
~
-
:c
><
w
;..c
Q) ~
-S ~
Q) b
U .......
0
U1 .....
U
U1 .....
Q) >
= C\S
.1'""4 .....
In rf)
= .......
>
~ C\S
.......
Q) ;:j
~ ,J::::
0
~ '+-I
';:j 0 .;
In b
,~ ......
~ 0
&! !!J m ~
15 15 g ~
I'-:I'-:<q-.;t
~~O>~
15
:s
'"
i5
<=
.2'
m
c
0> ~
~ .1
o<(L>
~g~
e.90
~Q)~
i ~Q)
!ij-5~
~"U"U
~ m m
<5..00
e~~
n. a.. a..
<iC:iu
~-
~8:r
I- I-
<t: rr
U 0
o Z
..J
J
m
~
....
o
en
o
- 0
m
N
.,!..
:0
:c
x
!!!
'"
~
~
2
<::
OJ
U
'"
:J
(!)
OJ
... .:.:
.!'1
.. Q)
co
w
-0
~
Q;
:J
C)
<::
OJ
(!)
~
OJ
:J
0-
OJ
a:
>.
.c
'"
13
OJ
"0
~
'"
~
u::
OJ
.c
co
9
~
M
I-
-
m
-
:I:
><
W
f-,( ro
Q) <l.)
~ ~
=
Q) ..j..J
U u
CJ.)
........
l7.J 0
~
l7.J ~
Q)
= ro
.~ ..j..J ""
l7.J rJ) 0
c>>
.- 0
:= > ci
~ ro "m
........ 2
Q) ;:j :a
..r::: :c
~ x
U ':!!
<I)
~ ro
'+-I .~
,..-..! 0 ~
~ .b '"
l7.J 'E
~ '"
.- 0
U '"
~ :>
m
'"
x
.!'!
Ui
co
ill
e
~
(;;
:>
C)
<::
'"
m
-c
0
u;
'"
:>
Q"
'"
a::
>-
.D
<I)
E)i t;
'"
"0
a:
"'
.!'!
iL
'"
'"
'"
52
.:i
-- ~--.l __
, ,
i_:'
l-
V)
<:
f2
<:
It
{/
~
t-
-
m
-
%:
><
w
o
<(
o
ex:
VI
~
<(
--'
~
b
...--...
U
~
Q)
~~
~ <l.)
Q) 0..
;...J (\j
== ~
Q) "'d
U ~
Q) ~
;...J (\j
C'd ~
~ .~
o >
~ro
~ .........
o ~
Uu
~
Q) 0
~b
C'd ._
,....(u
;...J
00
C'd
~
Q)
ro
o
en
.8
o
z:
It)
I-
-
m
-
:c
><
w
~
Q)
-+-I
=
Q)
u
!:1
ro
p:;
~
u
.-
~
~
bJ)
o
0..
o
~
r:I'J
r:I'J
Q)
=
.,...j
r:I'J
=
~
Q)
~
C'd
~
-+-I
r:I'J
C'd
~
ro
~
rn
.-
:>
ro
.......
::J
~
U
~
o
b
.-
u
....
o
cr;
'"
o
'ct!
~
:0
:c
x
':!!
</)
~
w
:2
<IJ
E
Q)
lJ
'"
::>
rn
Q)
-'"
ro
t;
CO
W
-0
~
W
::>
(9
<::
Q)
rn
15
"'
Q)
::>
D"
Q)
a::
>-
.0
</)
U
Q)
B
a:
<ii
.5!!
u::
Q)
.0
ro
52
.:..;
CD
I-
-
fA
-
::c
><
w
..--...
~
<
00.
C'd
~
<
'--'"
~ ~
Q) Q.)
~ .-
= :>
Q) ~
U .t::
Q.)
= ~
bJJ
_1""'1 CI:I
00 ~
Q) .~
Q~
........
Q) ;:j
~~
C'd U
~ '+-I ::;
~ 0 g
00 >,. 0;
cU .B- 70
r....l U ~
~ :a
:E
)(
~
'"
(;j
.~
::!:
OJ
c
Q)
o
'"
:J
OJ
Q)
~
'"
t;
'"
w
o
~
OJ
:J
(')
C
Q)
g;1
o
a;
Q)
:J
tOT
Q)
c::
>.
.0
'"
U
'"
o
a.
-;;;
E)~ ~
S2
.:..;
Concurrent amendments to the Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP), Eastlake Business Center II
Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated regulatory documents are also
proposed for Area A above and parcels identified as Lot 2 of Map 13971 and Lots 5-8 of Map 14395
(herein after referred to as Area B) and 2430 Fenton Street (hereinafter referred to as Area C). The GDP
and SPA amendments consist of changing the land use designation of Area A from BC-l (Business
Center Manufacturing Park District) with Design District Overlay to a new commercial ( VC-5) land use
district; and Area Band C from BC-l (with area B currently including a Design District Overlay) to BC-
4 (Business Center Core District). Also included are certain modifications to the adopted property
development regulations in order to accommodate greater design and land use flexibility, including an
increase in building height from 35 to 60 feet up to a maximum of 76 feet for Areas Band C.
The project further proposes repeal of the previously adopted Master Use Permit PCC-05-070 for Area A
and B and includes approval of conditional use permit and design review for a new hotel and office
building on Area C (see Exhibit 2).
The conditional use permit application requests permission to establish and operate an approximately
148,024 square foot, five-story hotel with 156 rooms and 10,000 square feet of conference rooms and
other amenities on Area C. The hotel will also provide a restaurant for its guests and a total of 163
parking spaces.
A design review application was also filed for the construction of an approximately 122,071 square foot,
four-story Class A office building providing approximately 433 parking spaces in Area C. Both the hotel
and office buildings will be served by a reciprocal access and parking agreement.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The existing zoning of the project sites is follows: Areas A, B & C: BC-l (Business Center
Manufacturing Park District). Areas A and B also include an existing Design District Overlay. The
applicant proposes a change of zone as follows: Area A from the existing BC-l to VC-5 Land Use
District; Area Band C from BC-l to BC-4 (Business Center Core District); The General Plan
designation for Area A is presently Limited Industrial and it is proposed to be amended to
Commercial Retail. The project further proposes repeal of the previously adopted Master Use Permit
for Area A & B and approval of a conditional use permit and design review for a new hotel and
office building for Area C.
D. Public Comments
On July 23, 2007, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot
radius of the project site. The public comment period ended on August 2,2007. No comments were
received. On October 17, 2007 a Notice of Availability was posted with the County Recorder's
Office and circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius ofthe project site. The Draft MND
was also made available at the PSB building, the main public library, the Eastlake public library and
the eastern Chula Vista Governmental offices. No comments were received during the thirty-day
public review period ofthe draft MND [October 17,2007 through November 16,2007].
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental
effect because mitigation measures incorporated into the project have eliminated possible significant
2
impacts or reduced them to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Aesthetics/Visual Character
Area A {Eastlake Design District}
The Eastlake Design District Area (Area A) is fully constructed and developed at a height of 35 feet.
No increase in height is proposed for Area A. There are no physical changes or impacts to aesthetics
or visual character from the proposed change in land use to VC-5 and the repeal of the Design
District Overlay.
Area B (Vacant Building Pads)
Development of this Area is not proposed at this time; however, the applicant is requesting an
increase in building height from 35-feet currently permitted to 76-feet in the BC- 4 district with
increased setback requirements. The firm of Focus360 has provided photo simulations of a
conceptual project to illustrate the potential visual impact of future development containing buildings
with a height of76 feet at a building setback of210 feet from the north property line and 80 feet from
the easterly property line. The photo simulations were taken from six observation points. Three
observation points are located within the Rolling Hills Ranch residential development that abuts Area
B to the north and the remaining three points from Eastlake Woods West residential development,
which abuts Area B to the east. The photo simulations illustrate that a combination of increased
building setbacks, architectural design and less vertical building massing will avoid any adverse
visual impacts (see Appendix A). At the time when actual development is proposed, the applicant
will be required to prepare additional visual analysis in conjunction with a request for approval of
Design Review entitlements by the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee (DRC). Therefore
no immediate and direct impacts are associated with the change in land use and change in allowable
height as part of the current amendments.
The following mitigation measure would ensure that future development of Area B is subject to City
adopted land use and design criteria:
At the time when actual development is proposed for Area B, the applicant will be required to
comply with the intent and purpose of the PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines and to
prepare additional visual analysis in conjunction with a request for approval of Design Review
entitlements by the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee (DRC).
Area C (Eastlake Corporate Center)
A Visual Analysis Report was prepared by Jones and Stokes (June 2007) to analyze the Corporate
Center (Area C). This report analyzed the impact of the proposed development from 10 Key
Observation Points (KOP). Visual Simulations of the project were created and analyzed to determine
the aesthetics of the height and mass of the buildings upon completion of construction. While the
report did identify that the proposed development is taller than surrounding development, it
concluded that the development would be compatible with the surrounding development. Impacts to
all 10 of the KOPs were determined to be less than significant as the view shed from the KOPs were
low to moderate scenic quality based upon the proposed fifty (50) foot building setback from the
southern property line, which faces Otay Lakes Road. The City of Chula Vista General Plan
identifies Otay Lakes Road as a Scenic Roadway. No impacts to Otay Lakes Road were identified by
3
the report as part of the Corporate Center Project and therefore no mitigation is proposed with
respect to this roadway. Although the proposed building height exceeds that of surrounding
development, visibility of the proposed hotel and office building will be minimized by a combination
of greater building setbacks and reduction in vertical massing as viewed from the south.
The considerations contained in the development standards and within the Design guidelines for
Eastlake Business Center II for the BC-4 lots and which are applicable to this project are:
For commercial and industrial buildings greater than 35 feet in height, the Design Review
Committee shall consider the following special design objectives in addition to those contained
in the Eastlake Business Center II Design Guidelines:
1. Ensure high quality and fully finished architecture on elevations facing adjoining
residential development and properties equal to that of the other sides of the building.
2. Provide enhanced screening via increased size and/or amount of buffer landscaping
and/or screening walls.
3. Maintain comparable access to light and air at the perimeter lot line based on a 35'
building height at the minimum setbacks.
a. Establish a height to setback ratio that achieves the negligible visible impacts of tall
buildings as exemplified in the visual simulations conducted for Areas Band C.
b. Maintain a comparable fa9ade area (maximum building width X base height of35
feet) for elevations facing residential developments or adjoining residential lots. This
may be accomplished by reducing the total building width as the height of the building
increases so that the total fa9ade area remains roughly the same.
Example: 35' height X 100' width between side yard setbacks = building area of 3,500
square feet. A 70' tall building would have a target width of approximately 50 feet
wide (70' X 50' = 3,500' square feet).
All future development in the BC-4 Land Use District will be required to comply with these
measures. In addition, all development in the area must obtain approval from the City of Chula Vista
Design Review Committee. Proposed changes to allow the additional height have been evaluated for
consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed increase in
height will allow for development that is consistent with the General Plan and is well planned with
appropriate building setbacks and design criteria.
The following mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed building height increase would not
result in an adverse impact to the various view sheds:
Height limit for buildings proposed for Area C may be increased up to 76 feet contingent upon
compliance with all proposed revisions to the PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines which
include a combination of increased building setback, architectural design treatment and reduction of
vertical building massing. The Design Review Committee may authorize deviations from these
requirements where otherwise consistent with the intent and purpose of the PC District Regulations
and Design Guidelines.
4
Air Quality
An air quality impact analysis was prepared by Jones & Stokes (July 2007) for the proposed project.
Following is a summary of the results and conclusions of this air quality report.
Short- Term Construction Impacts
The proposed project will result in a minor increase in air pollutants during the construction phase of
the proposed hotel and office building. Fugitive dust would be created during grading and
construction activities. Air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations are
considered short-term in duration since construction-related activities are temporary. Construction-
related emissions would originate from proposed construction activities related to Area C and would
consist of equipment exhaust, workers vehicle exhaust, dust from grading, and exposed soil eroded
by wind. Dust control measures required during construction operations would be implemented in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) and the California Air Resources Board.
Construction
onstructlOn mISSIons - ea orporate enter
Max. Daih Pollutant Emissions (pounds)
Construction Activity ROG NOx CO PMIO
Site Grading 4.34 31.31 33.71 24.34
Building Construction 11.37 75.62 91.31 26.00
2008 Maximum Value 11.37 75.62 91.31 26.00
Building Construction 53.91 98.34 132.19 3.70
2009 Maximum Value 53.91 98.34 132.19 3.70
Significance Criteria >75 >100 >550 >150
Significant? No No No No
C
E . .
Table 1
Ar CC
C
Source: California Air Resources Board-URBEMIS2002 Model
Mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate short-term construction-related air
quality impacts to below a level of significance.
Long- Term Operational Impacts
The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Based on the Traffic Impact
Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (August 2007), the hotel and office building would
generate approximately 3,950 new daily trips. The morning peak hour traffic resulting from the hotel
and office project would be equivalent to 429 in and out driveway trips and the evening peak hour
would result in 436 in and out driveway trips being generated.
The City has traditionally used the significance emissions thresholds of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD), which is responsible for air quality in the urbanized areas of Los
Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The air quality in the SCAQMD is much
worse than the San Diego Air Basin; therefore, the SCAQMD thresholds are very conservative for
the San Diego area.
5
The estimated operational emissions for this project are shown in Table 2 below. As shown on this
table, none of the CEQA significance thresholds would be exceeded during operation of the project.
The URBEMIS model for urban emissions was used to calculate the input and output data.
Table 2
Ef tdO
t
IE' .
(F 11 B 'ld t C d'f
Ar CC
t C t )
sIma e pera lOna mISSIons - u U1 ou on I Ions - ea orpora e en er
Max. Dail) Pollutant Emissions (pounds)
ROG NOx CO PMIO
Summer Period
Area Source Emissions .66 2.83 3.63 0.01
Vehicular Emissions 30.35 40.24 396.55 50.89
Total Emissions 31.01 43.08 400.18 50.90
Winter Period
Area Source Emissions .48 2.82 2.36 0.00
Vehicular Emissions 31.60 50.83 360.40 50.89
Total Emissions 32.08 53.65 362.76 50.90
Significance Criteria >55 >55 >550 >150
Significant? No No No No
Source: California Air Resources Board-URBEMIS2002 Model
A CO hot spot analysis was conducted to determine whether the proposed hotel and office-building
project would contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality standards for CO at any local
intersections. Three intersections having high a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes (per LLG Traffic
Impact Analysis; August 2007) were modeled for CO impacts. The table below shows the three
selected intersections. The results show that the State one-and eight-hour standards of 20 ppm and 9
ppm, respectively, would not be exceeded at any of the three intersections.
COH
M d r C
Table 3
( )
otspots o e mg oncentratlons lPpm
I-hour 8-hour I-hour 8-hour
Intersection AM AM PM PM
Otay Lakes Rd/ 6.4 4.2 6.7 4.5
V ons Driveway
Otay LakesRd/ 6.3 4.2 6.9 4.6
Eastlake Rd.
Fenton St! Harold 4.4 2.8 4.4 2.8
PI-Hitachi PI.
CAAQS Standard 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0
Significant? No No No No
Note: Background concentrations of 3.9 ppm and 2.48 ppm were added to the modeling I-hour and 8-hour
results, respectively.
Paleontological
Data compiled by the San Diego Natural History Museum, Department of Paleo Services was used to
assess paleontological resource sensitivity issues in relation to proposed project grading,
construction, operation and maintenance activities. The assessment was based both on known
paleontological sites within the project area, as well as extrapolated biostratigraphic information
derived from rock units in adjacent areas or areas of regional context which indicate the potential for
a fossil resource to occur in particular geologic unit. Even though there are no known significant
6
fossil resources found at the project site, the general vicinity has been identified as forming part of an
area considered by experts in the field of paleontology as having a "high paleontological resource
sensitivity". This rating would require a paleontological monitoring and mitigation program. This
means that an approved monitoring program would be available for implementation during grading
and excavation activities related to this project. Subsequently, if unique paleontological resources are
discovered, all significant fossil material will need to be collected, prepared, identified, and curated,
and then placed into a state-designated scientific repository. Compliance with the mitigation
measure contained below in Section F would avoid significant impacts to paleontological resources.
Geology and Soils
Geotechnics INe. prepared geotechnical/soils reports (August 2007) for the proposed development of
Area e. The report, approved by the City Engineering Department, states that no adverse
geotechnical conditions were encountered which would prohibit the proposed development of project
Site e. The preparation and submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of a
grading permit as a standard engineering requirement.
Project Site "C", where development is proposed has been previously mass graded. There are no
known or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site. The project site lies about four
miles west of the La Nacion Fault Zone (an inactive fault zone). The closest recently active fault is
the Rose Canyon Fault, located about 14 miles west of the site. The site is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Therefore, project compliance with applicable Uniform
Building Code standards would adequately address any building safety/seismic concerns.
The proposed project site C Area is not located within a landslide hazard area or liquefaction hazard
area. Landslide hazard areas are areas containing active land-slide-prone terrain. These are typically
areas that contain unstable sedimentary rock formations, contain slopes exceeding 25 %. Likewise,
liquefaction hazard areas are characterized by shallow ground water tables and poorly consolidated
sediments subject to hazards associated with seismically induced liquefaction. No adverse impacts
related to landslide or liquefaction is anticipated from development of Area e.
In order to prevent silt discharge during construction, the developer will required to comply with best
management practices in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit. The appropriate
standard erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with preparation of final
grading plans and would be monitored and implemented during construction by the Engineering
Division. Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into city drainage systems would be less
than significant.
Hydrology
A Drainage report was prepared by K&S Engineering (September 2007) and approved by the City's
Engineering Department. The study evaluated storm runoff under existing conditions and compared
it to the existing conditions plus project conditions (50-year events). The report assessed any
potential drainage impact that could be caused, or aggravated by project development. The project
proposes to add 8.14 acres of impervious area in the form of rooftops, parking lots, access drives,
sidewalks, etc.
The Eastlake Design District Area (Project site A) is fully constructed and developed. Area B is
presently vacant and no specific development is proposed. The hotel and office building is proposed
for Area C which is presently vacant. Area C has been previously sheet graded, and gently slopes
towards an existing de silting basin located in the northwest comer of the project site. The slope
7
along the southern boundary is landscaped with trees, shrubs and grass. The onsite drainage is
proposed to be collected in curb, gutters and inlets and discharged at a low point from which it enters
a grassed bio swale, clean water filter system units, downspout and stormwater bioretention filtration
system (Filterra), located at different comers of the property. Once the runoff is treated, it will flow
via an onsite 24-inch lateral pipe towards Fenton Street to an existing 36" storm drainpipe, which has
a design capacity of Q50 with an ultimate design capacity ofl 07 .97 cfs.
The results of the Drainage Report (September 2007) and Water Quality Technical Report
(September 2007) prepared by K&S Engineering were compared with the City of Chula Vista
Eastlake Business Center II Master Study. The comparison results indicate that the project run-off
flow rate, volume, velocity and duration for the post development condition will not exceed the
ultimate design condition of the existing drainage pipe system for 2, 10 or 50-year storm frequency.
The proposed development will not alter the natural drainage path or divert any drainage from the
current condition or drainage boundaries. Based on these calculations approved by the City of Chula
Vista Engineering Department, the project would meet City approved standards and, therefore, would
not result in any adverse impacts to public facilities or surrounding properties.
Table 5
Storm Frequency
Design Velocity
Ultimate Developed
Pipe Design Fenton
Street for 50-Year
Event Per Hunsaker
Study
107.97 CFS
23.0 FPS
Ultimate Developed
Condition Calculated
per K& S Engineering
50-Year
50-Year
26.7 CFS
17.67 FPS
Water Quality
A Hotel and Office building are proposed for Area C, which is presently vacant. The proposed
development will result in 8.14 acres (85%) of impervious area (roofs, parking lots, roadways,
sidewalks, etc.). As stated above, Area C has been previously sheet graded, and gently slopes towards
an existing de silting basin located in the northwest comer of the project site. The slope along the
southern boundary is landscaped with trees, shrubs and grass. The onsite drainage is proposed to be
collected in curb, gutters and inlets and discharged at a low point from which it enters a grassed bio
swale, clean water filter system units, downspout and stormwater bioretention filtration system
(Filterra), located at different comers of the property.
Construction Best Management Practices
In order to properly manage water runoff from the proposed project during the construction phase,
the project proposes to incorporate the following management facilities and best management
practices:
. Storm Drain Inlet Protection
. Stockpile Management
. Solid Waste Management
. Stabilized Construction Exit
. Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
. Erosion Control Mats and Spray-on Applications
. Gravel Bag Berms
8
. Material Delivery and Storage
. Spill Prevention and Control
. Concrete Water Management
. Water Conservation Practices
. Paving and Grinding Operations
. Stabilization of Disturbed Areas
. Permanent Re-vegetation of Man-Made Slopes
BMPs shall be selected, constructed, and maintained so as to comply with all applicable City of
Chula Vista Ordinances, policies and regulations and regulatory agency regulations and will be
subject to the approval and continued monitoring ofthe City of Chula Vista.
Post-Construction BMPs
. Limit road widths, parking lot and driveway areas spaces.
· Include as part of the project design self-treating areas such as: large landscaped areas, grass
or vegetated swales, and turf block paving areas.
. Directing roof runoff to landscaped areas before discharge to storm drains.
. Propose a Jensen Precast Interceptor and Filterra and storm water system subject to the
approval of the City ofChula Vista Engineering Department.
The applicant/developer shall be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations including the preparation and implementation of a Water
Quality Technical Report (WQTR) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The
implementation of water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described above will be
required in accordance with the NPDES General Permit and as approved by the City Engineer.
Based upon the implementation of standard engineering requirements and compliance with
requirements of the WQTR, SWPPP and BMPs, water quality impacts would reduce to a level below
significance.
Land Use Analysis of Proposed Amendment from Light Industrial to Commercial Retail for Area A
The existing land uses presently found within the 16.7 acres of the Design District (Area A) consist
primarily of furniture stores and wholesale/retail distribution and showroom businesses related to
home improvement merchandise. The existing land uses are not typically representative of light
industrial land uses such as warehousing, light manufacturing, and public storage with some offices.
A previous amendment to the Eastlake Business Center II SPA was approved in 2005, which created
a Design District Overlay zone that permitted the existing land uses.
In terms of actual land designated for industrial land use, the 16.7 acres represents 7.4 percent of
industrial land within the Eastlake Planned Community. Further analysis shows that the 16.7 acres
represents less than 1.3% of the industrial lands in eastern Chula Vista and less than 1 % of the
overall industrial lands within the City. Therefore, the percentage reduction of industrially
designated land is fairly small in comparison to the total amount of industrial land available in the
City.
The establishment of the Eastlake Design District allowed for an increase in the amount of land uses
oriented more towards commercial retail, which is consistent with the current request to change the
existing General Plan land use designation from Light Industrial to Commercial Retail. The proposed
amendment would reflect more accurately the existing representative commercial/retail uses, which
have already begun to be established within this site and would also allow an increase in
9
commerciallretail use. The proposed amendment therefore, is essentially a necessary action to bring
consistency between the General Plan and the Eastlake II Business Center SPA.
No adverse impacts as a result of the proposed general plan amendment are anticipated and therefore
no mitigation is required.
Noise
Eastlake Corporate Center Proposed Hotel and Office Building
Noise Consultant Jones & Stokes, Inc., prepared an acoustical analysis (August 2007) for the
proposed hotel and office development project. The study identified the primary noise source
generator as traffic noise from Otay Lakes Road. Additional noise sources identified by the study
were from children playing in the distance, and aircraft overflights.
The noise study also assessed potential project impacts from short-term and long-term stationary and
mobile noise sources. The sources included onsite construction activities and on-site and off-site
operations. An evaluation was made as to whether on-site operations could affect local residences or
other noise-sensitive land uses. Additionally, the effects from noise on on-site and off-site noise-
sensitive receptors as a result of future traffic volume increases were analyzed.
A noise impact generated by construction or operation activities related to the project would be
considered significant if it would result in:
. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in
local general plans. The City's exterior noise standard for office buildings and commercial
/retail property is 70 CNEL.
. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise in the project vicinity (an increase of 5 to
10 dBA is generally considered substantial); or
. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
(an increase of 15 dBA is generally considered substantial for this type of increase).
Construction Noise
The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are residential land uses to the south of the
project site. Construction activities could occur as near as 250 feet from existing residences and as
far as 950 feet. A construction noise level of 89 dBA Leq at 50 feet would attenuate to
approximately 75-dBA leq at a distance of 250 feet from the source. The City's noise ordinance
exempts construction activities from the noise standard (providing that such activities take place
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on
Saturdays and Sunday). This provision of the Municipal Code would ensure that surrounding
residents would not be disturbed by construction related noise during the most sensitive periods of
the day. Project construction work is anticipated to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. weekdays only. Provided that the project's construction activities are limited to the allowed
hours, the project's short-term noise impact would be less than significant.
Traffic Noise
Based on the acoustical report prepared by Jones and Stokes, potential operational noise effects
would be limited to project-related traffic. The results of the predicted traffic modeling results are
shown in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, modeled traffic noise levels in the future (Year 2009) with
project scenario would range from 58 dBA CNEL to 68 dBA CNEL.
10
On-Site (Hotel & Office Uses - Area C) Potential Impacts from Traffic Generated Noise (Otay Lakes
Road)
The proposed hotel and pool area are considered to be noise-sensitive areas and would therefore be
subject to the City's exterior noise standard of 65dBA CNEL. Based on the site design, the pool area
would be located about 220 feet away from the centerline of Otay lakes Road and would be
surrounded by a solid six foot high wall. The pool area is also located about 28 feet above the local
roadway grade, and would receive acoustical shielding by being located at the top slope. As shown
on Table 4, the exterior traffic noise level at the pool area is projected to be approximately 62 dBA
CNEL, and thus less than the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard.
The office-building project proposes to have employee break areas along the southeast and southwest
comers of the building. These areas would be located about 250 feet from the centerline of Otay
Lakes Road, and would also benefit by acoustical shielding by virtue of the difference in elevation
between the top of slope and the street grade. As shown on Table 4, the exterior traffic noise level at
the pool area is projected to be approximately 62 dBA CNEL, and thus less than the City's 65 dBA
CNEL exterior noise standard.
The portion of the proposed hotel that would be closest to Otay Lakes Road centerline would be at a
distance of approximately 220 feet. The guest rooms of the hotel would be subject to the City's
standard of 45 dBA CNEL. As shown in Table 4, the predicted noise level at the southern side of the
proposed hotel would be 66 dBA CNEL in the future, which would exceed the city's exterior
standard. As a mitigation measure, where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNEL, the project
will be required to submit at the building permit stage an acoustical report containing attenuation
features that demonstrate that interior noise levels will be maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL.
Modem sound-rated construction assemblies as well as the provision of forced-air mechanical
ventilation or air conditioning systems (operated with the windows shut) typically provide
approximately 20 to 25 decibels of exterior-to-interior noise reduction. Such assemblies and
techniques include but are not limited to sound-rated windows and doors and sound-rated exterior
wall assemblies. With the implementation of the sound-rated construction materials and a central air
conditioning system, noise impacts from traffic sources would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Parking
Area A (Eastlake Design District)
The Eastlake Design District (Area A) is an existing development that is proposing an amendment to
allowable uses within the existing buildings. A Traffic and Parking Study was prepared by Linscott
Law & Greenspan (March 16, 2007) for Area A. This study assumed an increased mix of
commercial uses typical of what the proposed amendments would allow. The study concluded that
there would be adequate parking. Further, additional uses cannot be approved absent evidence of
adequate parking availability. The study included a 15% mixed-use reduction and credit based on
patrons from the same vehicle patronizing more than one business per trip.
The project proposes an amendment that would change the existing BC-l (with design district
overlay) to a new land use district category to be named Village Center 5 (VC-5) District. Area A
would be the only property within the Eastlake Business Center II with the VC-5 Land Use District
designation. Although the current proposal is to allow the entire Area A to be converted to
11
commercial retail, this is predicated upon the project meeting the parking standards for each
individual type of land use proposed under the VC-5 District.
The PC District Regulations have been amended to require that future changes in use within the
development that will alter parking requirements are required to demonstrate adequate parking to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. The change to the VC-5
District Planned Community District Regulations for Eastlake II will ensure that no adverse impacts
to parking will result within the existing shopping center and therefore no parking mitigation is
required.
The parking requirements for the proposed VC-5 and BC-4 Districts will also be amended to provide
a new standard for furniture stores and to allow for shared parking subject to a specific procedure for
demonstrating adequate parking. The new requirement is based on a parking analysis approved by
the City of Chula Vista that determined the appropriate number of required spaces for furniture
stores. The new standard is a refinement to the development code and will not result in adverse
impacts to the overall parking requirements.
Area B (Vacant Building Pads)
Specific development is not proposed for the Area B at this time. However, when development is
proposed, the project will be required to provide parking on-site that is consistent with the Eastlake
Business Center II Planned Community District Regulations. Therefore there are no impacts related
to parking at the Design Center associated with this amendment, and therefore no mitigation is
proposed.
Eastlake Corporate Center (Area C)
A parking study was prepared by the traffic engineering firm of Linscott, Law & Greenspan
(September 2007) to determine the adequacy of proposed parking on-site. In particular, the parking
study sought to address the parking needs for a proposed meeting/banquet room space proposed by
the hotel land use. The City of Chula Vista does not have parking standards that specifically address
hotels with conference room space. A survey of other municipal jurisdictions was also conducted in
order to obtain clearer requirements for meeting/banquet room place. For the purposes of
determining the parking demand, the City assumed that dedicated conference space would require
parking in addition to the City's standard requirement for hotels. The parking study determined that
adding the requirement of 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area of dedicated conference space in
a hotel would adequately address the overall hotel parking requirement.
The parking study took into account the fact that hotel, conference center and office uses peak at
different times of the day. It also noted that the proposed hotel is a business hotel, not a tourist hotel.
The target market for the hotel is business travelers visiting local companies to conduct business or
corporate executives visiting a satellite office in Chula Vista. Business travelers and local companies
holding small conferences or meetings in a space larger than the typical office conference room will
use the conference room space. The hotel peak demand occurs from 10:00pm to 6:00am while the
office peak demand occurs at 8:00am to 5:00pm. The study demonstrates that, even assuming an
additional 88 parking spaces need to be provided for the conference rooms independent of the
standard hotel parking requirements, there is adequate parking for the hotel (with conference rooms)
and the office building to operate independently. The owner's of the Corporate Center hotel and
office buildings will be entering into a private reciprocal parking agreement to share parking as
needed between the properties in order to take advantage of their different peak demands and the
minimum of 35 excess parking spaces that are available at any given time. This agreement will be
12
incorporated into the CC&Rs for the subject properties and recorded with the County Recorder. This
will ensure that adequate parking is being provided for conference use on evenings and weekends.
Using the most conservative and restrictive of scenarios and parking requirements, the study
demonstrated that the total peak parking demand of 561 spaces would occur at 10:00am. The
Corporate Center is proposing 596 parking spaces, which results in an excess of 35 spaces at the peak
hour over the theoretical maximum demand. Therefore the study concluded that the 596 spaces are
adequate for the proposed land uses at the Corporate Center and therefore no mitigation is required.
Furthermore, a condition of approval for the required conditional use permit for the hotel will allow
the City of Chula Vista to require a Shared Parking Agreement if the City determines that there is a
demonstrated need for more parking on one or both of the sites after the hotel is in operation.
Traffic
The traffic-consulting firm of Linscott, Law and Greenspan (LLG) performed a traffic impact
analysis for Areas A, Band C (September 2007). For Area A the traffic report analyzed a project
proposing 125,100 square feet of furniture stores, 39,350 square feet of office floor space, 39, 350
square feet of specialty retail/Strip commercial and 27,800 square feet of restaurant space for a total
of 231,566 square feet. For Area B the traffic report analyzed a high intensity land use consisting of
160,000 square feet of specialty retail/strip commercial simulating a daily worst-case scenario for the
future potential development of this site. For Area C, the traffic report analyzed a proposed 155-
room hotel with 10,000 square foot of convention/meeting rooms and a 120,000 square foot office
building.
Eastlake Design District (Areas A & B)
The Eastlake Design District is located in the northeastern quadrant of the Otay Lakes RoadlFenton
Street intersection. Otay Lakes Road, a classified Six-Lane Major, west of Pas eo del Rey, and a Six-
Lane Prime Arterial from Paseo del Rey to the SR-125 alignment, provides the east-west access to
Areas A& B. From Otay Lakes Road, the only access to the site is from Fenton Street via Showroom
Place. Showroom Place is a 40-foot wide unclassified two-lane cul-de-sac providing access to the
project site.
Area A is an existing development consisting predominantly of furniture stores. This development is
complete and most of the buildings are occupied. The traffic study prepared by LLG (August 2007)
analyzed the proposal to modify the present permitted land uses to allow for a mix of office,
restaurant and specialty retail. While the current proposal is to allow the entire Area A to be utilized
for commercial retail uses, the amount of available on-site parking will limit the actual amount and
type of commercial retail uses which may occur.
Area B is presently vacant and even though no site-specific project is proposed, the traffic impact
report analyzed a worst-case scenario, which included specialty retail uses. Subsequent changes to
the applicant's proposal have resulted in Area B being proposed for BC-4 uses instead. BC-4 uses
are industrial in nature and have less daily trip generation potential then specialty retail, which were
analyzed in the traffic study. The City Engineering Department has determined that this change will
not result in any additional daily trip generation.
The existing land uses of Area A are calculated to generate a total of 1,110 ADT with 44 trips during
the AM peak hour (31 inbound and 13 outbound) and 100 trips during the PM peak hour (50 inbound
and 50 outbound). With the proposed land use change, Area A would generate a net 3,900 ADT with
13
139 trips during the AM peak hour (110 inbound and 29 outbound) and 355 trips during the PM peak
hour (189 inbound and 166 outbound).
Area B site land uses were calculated to generate a total of 5,440 ADT with 163 trips during the AM
peak hour (98 inbound and 65 outbound) and 448 trips during the PM peak hour (224 inbound and
224 outbound).
The traffic study calculated the traffic for Areas A & B to be a net of 9,340 ADT with 302 trips
during the AM peak hour (208 inbound and 94 outbound) and 803 trips during the PM peak hour
(413 inbound and 390 outbound), with the pass by reduction.
Short-Term Impacts (Year 0 to 4)
Based on the traffic impact study results, in the near term with the project, all intersections are
calculated to operate at Level of Service D (LOS) D or better except the Otay Lakes Rd/V ons
Driveway intersection, which is calculated to continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour.
The impact at this intersection is considered to be cumulative in nature. Since this is a cumulative
impact, the following recommended traffic mitigation is tied to development of Area C and would
result in this intersection operating at an acceptable LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D
during the PM peak hour:
. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area C the ApplicantlDeveloper shall
pay the required amount of Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) as confirmed
by the City ofChula Vista City Engineer to cover its share of the cost of improvements at the
intersection of Otay Lakes RdNons Driveway, as described in the Project's Traffic Impact
Analysis (September 2007).
In the near-term with development of Area A, all segments are calculated to operate at a LOS C or
better. The segment of Eastlake Parkway between Fenton Street and Otay Lakes Road is calculated
to operate at an LOS D.
Long-Term Impacts (Horizon Year 2(30)
Based on the traffic study, all intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better in the Year
2030, except the following:
· Otay Lakes RoadN ons Driveway (LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the
PM peak hour) - Cumulative Impact (without mitigation)
. Fenton Street/Showroom Place (LOS F during the PM hour) - Direct Impact
In addition to the above-mentioned mitigation measure for Area A and Area B, the following
mitigation will be required to address a long term direct project impact. Once this mitigation is
implemented the intersection of Fenton Street/Showroom Place is projected to operate at an
acceptable LOS B:
· The ApplicantlDeveloper shall be required to enter into an agreement to design, construct,
and secure a fully actuated traffic signal including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal
heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries prior
to completing development of Area B at the intersection of Showroom Place and Fenton
Street or as determined and approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer shall
bond for the signal improvement prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area B.
14
The bond shall be in an amount equal to 200% of the engineer's estimate for development of
Area B. If signal plans are submitted prior to the first building permit for Area B with an
approved engineer's cost estimate, then the bond may be reduced to as low as 100% of the
estimated cost. The Applicant/Developer shall also provide one shared through/right-turn
lane and one left-turn lane on southbound (outbound) Showroom Place. The
Applicant/Developer shall also provide one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane on
northbound Fenton Street with right-turn overlap phasing.
Hotel and Office Buildings (Area C)
To identify potential traffic impacts associated with the development of the project, a Traffic Impact
Analysis was prepared by the traffic engineering firm of Linscott, Law & Greenspan (September
2007). The traffic study projected that the proposed hotel and office building will generate an
estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 3,950 driveway trips, with 429 trips occurring in the
AM peak hour (358 inbound and 71 outbound) and 436 trips occurring in the PM Peak hour (136
inbound and 300 outbound).
The proposed project will take access from an existing driveway on Fenton Street (see project site
plan Exhibit B). The City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan classifies Fenton Street as Class I
Collector. Otay Lakes Road will provide the east-west access to the site. Otay Lakes Road is
classified as a Six-Lane Major west of Paseo del Rey, and as a Six-Lane Prime Arterial from Paseo
del Rey to the SR 125 alignment.
Short-Term Impacts (Year 0 to 4)
Based on the traffic impact study results, in the near term with the project, all intersections are
calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the Otay Lakes RdN ons Driveway intersection,
which is calculated to continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The impact at this
intersection is considered to be cumulative in nature. The following recommended traffic mitigation
would result in this intersection operating at a LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during
the PM peak hour:
· Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area C the ApplicantlDeveloper shall
pay the required amount of Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) as confirmed
by the City of Chula Vista City Engineer to cover its share of the cost of improvements at the
intersection of Otay Lakes RdNons Driveway, as described in the Project's Traffic Impact
Analysis (September 2007).
Long-Term Impacts (Horizon Year 2030)
Based on the traffic study, all intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better in the Year
2030, except the following:
· Otay Lakes RoadN ons Driveway (LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the
PM peak hour)
The mitigation measure proposed to address short term impacts for development of Area A & B
above will consequently adequately address the same identified long-term impact to this intersection.
15
Conclusion
The identified traffic impacts for Areas A, Band C have been adequately analyzed by the traffic
engineering firm of Linscott, Law & Greenspan and said analysis has been reviewed and approved by
the traffic engineering section of the City of Chula Vista. The implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures for the identified short term, long term, cumulative and direct traffic impacts
will result in acceptable levels of operation of these intersections.
Sewers
Sewer flows from the proposed project have been identified in the sewer capacity studies (August
2007) prepared by K&S Engineering for the existing Eastlake Design District (Area A) and for the
multi-story hotel and office building proposed for Area C. Any proposed change in land use
development of Area B would be subject to further sewer analysis as determined by the City
Engineer. The sewer study for the Design District (Area A) analyzed the existing development and
two proposed restaurants for the project site. The sewer study for Area C analyzed the proposed
flows of the hotel and office building. No further sewer analysis was performed either for Area B or
for additional restaurants that may be proposed for Area A. Based on the off-site sewer analysis for
Area A and C, the proposed projects as described above would not significantly impact the existing
off site downstream wastewater facilities and would not trigger additional sewer improvements.
However, additional sewer analysis would need to be performed by the applicant/developer, if there
is any change in land uses associated with the future development of Area B.
No adverse impacts to City sewer capacities or facilities are noted, therefore no mitigation IS
required.
E. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
AestheticsNisual Quality
I. Height limit for buildings proposed for Area C may be increased up to 76 feet contingent upon
compliance with all proposed revisions to the PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines
which include a combination of increased building setback, architectural design treatment and
reduction of vertical building massing. The Design Review Committee may authorize deviations
from these requirements where otherwise consistent with the intent and purpose of the PC
District Regulations and Design Guidelines.
2. At the time when actual development is proposed for Area B, the applicant will be required to
comply with the intent and purpose of the PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines and
prepare additional visual analysis in conjunction with a request for approval of Design Review
entitlements by the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee (DRC).
Air Quality
3. The following aIr quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during grading and
construction:
a) Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units
b) Use aqueous diesel fuel and lean NOx catalysts for all heavy diesel engine construction
equipment
c) Use electrical construction equipment as practical
d) Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment
16
e) Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust
f) Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust
g) Use electricity from power poles as opposed to mobile power generators
h) Pave last 100 feet of internal travel path prior to exiting onto a public street
i) Install wheel washers by a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads
j) Remove any soil/dirt from public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence
k) Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph.
The air quality mitigation measures shall be shown on all applicable grading, and building plans and
details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in advance
in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator.
Paleontological
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Area C, the applicant/developer shall have a
paleontological monitoring program approved by the Environmental Review Coordinator. Said
monitoring program shall be implemented during grading, excavation, and utility trenching
activities in order to mitigate potential impacts to any undiscovered nonrenewable
paleontological resources (i.e. fossils).
Hydrology and Water Quality
5. In order to reduce potential water quality impacts, the applicant/developer shall be required to
comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations
including the preparation and implementation of a Water Quality Technical Report (WQTR) and
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The WQTR shall be prepared pursuant to
the provisions ofthe City ofChula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water
Management Standards Manual. The SWPPP shall be prepared pursuant to the provisions of the
NPDES General Construction Permit. The applicant/developer shall also implement water
quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) as approved by the City Engineer.
6. All runoff from the project area shall be directed to, and pre-treated by, a Treatment Control
BMP before discharge to public storm drainage systems. The design of high efficiency BMP's
such as vegetated swales shall be in accordance with criteria established by the California
Stormwater Quality Association in the California Stormwater BMP Handbook (BMP#TC-30).
7. Prior to commencement of grading, temporary de silting and erosion control devices shall be
installed. Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment
from entering the storm drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and
improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review
Coordinator.
Noise
8. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related construction
activities shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through
Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays.
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the ApplicantlDeveloper shall submit a noise report
supported by data identifying specific noise attenuation features to be included in the project
design, to the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Coordinator and the City Building
17
Official demonstrating that noise levels will be less than 45 dBA for those hotel guest rooms
facing south towards Otay Lakes Road.
Traffic
10. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area C, the Applicant/Developer shall pay
the required amount of Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) as confirmed by the
City of Chula Vista City Engineer to cover its share of the cost of improvements at the
intersection of Otay Lakes RoadNons Driveway, as described in the Project's Traffic Impact
Analysis (September 2007).
11. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall be required to enter into an agreement to design, construct, and
secure a fully actuated traffic signal including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads and
associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries prior to completing
development of Area B at the intersection of Showroom Place and Fenton Street or as determined
and approved by the City Engineer. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall bond for the signal
improvement prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area B. The bond shall be in
an amount equal to 200% of the engineer's estimate for development of Area B. If signal plans
are submitted prior to the first building permit for Area B with an approved engineer's cost
estimate, then the bond may be reduced to as low as 100% of the estimated cost. The
ApplicantlDeveloper shall also provide one shared through/right-turn lane and one left-turn lane
on southbound (outbound) Showroom Place. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall also provide one
left-turn lane and one right-turn lane on northbound Fenton Street with right-turn overlap
phasing.
E. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Jeff Steichen, Planning and Building
Steve Power, Planning and Building
Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building
Jim Newton, Engineering
Luis Pelayo, Engineering
Sandra Hernandez, Engineering
Tom Adler, Engineering
Khosro Aminpour, Engineering
David Kaplan, Engineering
Richard Preuss, Police Department
Sam Escalante, Fire Department
Dan Wery, Project Planner, RBF
ApplicantlProperty Owner: IRE Development
Agent: Michael A. V ogt, President
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan, (December 2005)
18
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Air Quality Impact Analysis, Jones & Stokes, July 2007
Visual Analysis Report for Eastlake Corporate Center, Jones & Stokes, July 2007
Sewer Capacity Study, Eastlake Corporate Center, K&S Engineering, August 2007
Sewer Capacity Study, Eastlake Design District, K&S Engineering, August 2007
Water Quality Technical Report, Eastlake Corporate Center, K&S Engineering, August 2007
Drainage Report, Eastlake Corporate Center, K&S Engineering, August 2007
Geotechnical Soils Rpt, Vol. I & II, Eastlake Corporate Center, Geotechnics Inc., August 2007
Noise Analysis, Eastlake Corporate Center, Jones & Stokes, August 2007
Noise Analysis, Eastlake Design Center, Jones & Stokes, August 2007
Parking Study, Eastlake Corporate Center, LLG, August 2007
Parking Study, Eastlake Design District, LLG, August 2007
Traffic Impact Analysis, Eastlake Corporate Center, LLG, August 2007
Traffic Impact Analysis, Eastlake Design Center, LLG, August 2007
Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any comments
received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment
of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this
roject isavailable from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
hula Vist~ 1910.
Date: NoJev...\.~ O\~ we}
J :\Planning\BenG\EastlakeBusinessCenter _ MND .doc
19
.,.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
~!~
-..-
- ~
my OF
CHUIA VISfA
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
~. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent:
4. Name of Proposal:
5. Date of Checklist:
6. Case No.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, ~ess, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create new source of subStalltiallight or glare, which
would adversely affect day/night views in the area?
1
Michael A. Vogt
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Eastlake Corporate Center LLC
821 Kuhn Drive, Suite 100
Chula Vista, CA 91914
(619) 591-2424
Eastlake Business Center
October 11,2007
IS-07-015
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
,
". '.~
Less Than
Significant
Impact
.
o
o
.
No Impact
o
.
o
o
?
Issues:
Poten tialIy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project sites are located in a developed area containing a mix of commercial, residential and industrial uses.
Immediately surrounding the project site are office buildings, industrial buildings, retail, residential, and roadways. The
projects will alter existing views, however there are no designated scenic ':'istas on or near the project sites. Therefore, no
impact to a scenic vista would occur as a result of this project.
b) The site was previously graded as part of a mass grading effort for the entire Business Center II. There are no scenic
resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or designated historic buildings on the project site or within the immediate
-project area. The Corporate Center (Area C) project is located along Otay Lakes Road, which is designated as a Scenic
Roadway by the City of Chula Vista. Scenic Roadways in the City of Chula Vista have unique roadway characteristics,
such as enhanced landscaping adjoining natural slopes and special design features that make traveling a pleasant visual
experience. The proposed project will not impact the existing slope p'lanting or improvements along Otay Lakes Road and
therefore no impacts to the Scenic Roadway will occur. There are no State scenic highways in the project vicinity.
Therefore, there are no impacts related to this issue, and no mitigation is required.
c) The proposed project would improve the existing visual character and quality of the sites, which are currently vacant.
The Corporate Center (Area C) is envisioned as a well-designed and attractive urban development, consisting of a hotel
and office building. The Design Center will be required to have further environmental review under CEQA when site-
specific development is proposed.
The Design Center (Area 'B) project will not degrade the existing visual character or"'-quaIity of the site and its
surroundings. Although the project will change the visual character of the site, it would not be considered degrading
given the use of the existing site. Mitigation measures include the review of the projects by the City of Chula Vista's
Design Review Board, observation of the special design objectives of the Design Guidelines for Eastlake Business Center
II Supplemental SPA and the City of Chula Vista Design Manual. Less than significant impacts to the visual character or
quality of the site and surroundings would result from the implementation of this project with the mitigation measures.
d.) Proper architectural design would ensure compliance with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code. Exterior lighting would not be directed upward and would be designed and installed
with appropriate shielding if necessary, to ensure that light does not spill horizontally beyond the
limits of the development area onto adjacent roadways, and surrounding residential uses.
Miti2"ation: Mitigation Required. See Section F of the MND.
ll. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
o
o
o
.
2
-.
Issues:
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature; could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
Less Than
Significant
, Impact
o
No Impact
.
a-c) The project site is presently located in a fully urban setting. The graded project site is neither in current
-agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural
resources or designated farmland are~s.
Miti2:ation: No mitigation measures are required.
ID. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result ill a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project regIOn IS non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
3
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
"
.
.
.
o
o
o
o
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
D. 0 0 .
Issues:
Comments:
a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Miti1!ation: Mitigation measures are required. See MND, Section F.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or D 0 0 .
through habitat modifications, . on any speCIes
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species ill local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish' and Wildlife Service? "
.. '.-!-
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian D 0 0 .
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other"means?
D
o
o
.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory :fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corrid<?rs, or impede the use Qf native wildlife nursery
sites?
D
o
o
.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
D
o
o
.
4
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a) The project site is located in a fully urbanized developed area. Based upon a site visit conducted on July 20, 2007
by City staff no candidate, sensitive, or special status species are present within or immediately adjacent to the
proposed development area A.
b) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are
present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project site. Project sites B & C have been mass graded
and site B is fully developed with wholesale/commercial businesses.' .'..,
c) No wetlands are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area.
d) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan no native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or native
wildlife nursery sites exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area.
e) No impacts to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance would result rrom the proposed project development.
f) No impacts to local, regional or state habitat conservation plans would result since the project site is a designated
development area pursuant to the adopted ChUla Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
:Miti2:ation: Mitigation measures are not required.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the' project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA
Guidelines ~ 15064.5?
o
o
.
o
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA
o
o
o
.
5
Issues:
Guidelines 9 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those. interred
outside of formal cemeteries.
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
.
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
o
o
o
.
a) There are no buildings of historic value proposed for removal project sites B & C are presently vacant of
all structures.
b) Project site A is fully developed and proj ect sites B & C have been mass graded. Based on this grading
no cultural resources were identified within the project area, and no preViously recorded sites are
located within the project boundaries. Therefore, no cultural resources will be impacted by the
proposed construction, and no further archaeological investigations are recoII1Iliended for this project.
c) The project area and surrounding area is considered to be paleontological sen~itive pursuant to the San
Diego Natural History Museum records.
:Mitigation: Mitigation is required. See Section F of the :MND.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
1.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
11.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
111.
. .
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
6
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
o
.
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
IV. Landslides?
o
o
o
.
b) Result in substantial soil erOSIOn or the loss of
topsoil?
o
.
o
o
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result" in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
o
o
o
.
d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial
risks to life or property?
o
o
.
o
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
o
o
o
.
.
. "..
Comments:
a-e) Project site "C", where development is proposed has been previously mass graded. There are no known or
suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site. The project site lies about four miles west qf the
La Nacion FaultZone (an inactive fault zone). The closest recently active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault,
located about 14 miles west of the site. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone. Therefore, project compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code standards would adequately
address any building safety/seismic concerns.
Geotechnics INC. prepared a Geotechnical/Soils report on August 2007. The report, approved by the City
Engineering Department, "states that no adverse geotechnical conditions were encountered which would
prohibit the proposed development of project site C. The preparation and submittal of a final soils report
will be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit as a standard engineering requirement.
In order to prevent silt discharge during construction, the developer will required to comply with best
management practices in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit. The appropriate
standard erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with preparation of final grading plans
and would be monitored and implemented during construction by the Engineering Division. Therefore, the
potential for the discharge of silt into city drainage systems would be less than significant.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures are required. See Section F of the MND.
7
"-
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
VIT. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
o
o
o
.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 0 .
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 0 0 0 .
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter n;rile of an existing or proposed
school? .'....
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 0 0 0 .
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 0 0 0 .
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the proje~t area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 0 0 0 .
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Imp.air implementation of or physically interfere 0 0 0 .
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
8
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbaniz~d
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a=d) Project Site A is a fully developed wholesale business center. Project Site C has been mass graded and the
project proposal does not involve the handling or emissions of hazardous materials.
e-f) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.
g). The project as proposed and based on its location would not interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan. No impacts are noted.
h) The project site is not adjacent to a wildlands area. No impacts related to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fIres are noted.
Miti2:ation: Mitigation measures are not required.
,
".'-!
VITI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving 0 . 0 0
waters (including impaired water bodies pursuant to
the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list), result in
significant alteration of receiving water quality during
or following construction, or violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements?
a) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 0 0 0 .
substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer' volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse
impact on groundwater quality?
b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 0 . 0
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
9
...
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the D D . D
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-. or off-site, or place
structures within a lOO-year flood hazard area which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
d) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, D D D .
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed D . D D
the capacity of exi~ting or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional .,
"': ';~
sources of polluted runoff?
Comments:
a) The proposed grading and development of vacant site C would result in changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. There is a potential for an increase in pollutant
discharges. However, standard BMP requirements will reduce any potential impacts to water bodies to less
than significant.
b) The project would not result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge.
c) The proposed grading and development of vacant site C would result in changes ill absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff but would n9t result in adverse impacts to
streams or rivers that would result in substantial erosion or siltation.
d) The proposed grading and development of vacant site C would result in changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff but would not result in adverse impacts to
streams or rivers that would result in substantial flooding or place structures in a flood zone.
e) The proposal would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss or injury or death involving
flooding.
f) The proposed grading and development of vacant site C would result in changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff but would not exceed the capacity of existing
stonnwater drainage facilities.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures are required. See Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
10
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proj ect:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 .
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
o
o
.
o
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conseryation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
o
o
:'....
o
.
Comments:
a. The project site is within an established industrial/residential community. The proposal would not result in a
community being physically divided.
b. The General Plan designates the project sites A, B & C as Business Center Manufacturing Park District. The
project proposes a General Plan amendment from Limited Industrial to Commercial Retail for Area A only.
Development on Area C will be subject t? approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and design review.
c. The project would not conflict with the adopted City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
X. MIN.ERAL RESOURCES. 'Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
o
o
o
.
11
Issues:
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally impo:rta.D.t
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other lan~ use plan?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
No Impact
.
a-b) The proposal would not result in any loss of any known mineral on-site. Pursuant to the Enviromnental
Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the State of California Department of Conservation
has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection.
Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required.
--- -- - "-.-.-------------....-.-..
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
ex<;;ess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles' of a public airport or' public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
12
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
o
.
o
.,
~ '.~
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
-'
Issues:
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Potentially
Significant
Impact .
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
No Impact
.
e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan. nor within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels.
f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airs1rip; therefore, the project development would not
expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures are required. See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F:' ,.~
XU. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of road or other infi:astructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacemep.t housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
13
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
.
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Signifi.cant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a-<:) The proposal would not induce population growth or displace housing stock or people.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIIT. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of' new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other perfonnance
objectives for any public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
. Parks?
Other public facilities?
14
o
o
o
o
o
0 :'.... . 0
0 . 0
0 0 .
0 0 .
0 0 .
,-
Issues:
Potentially
Signifi~ant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) According to the Fire Department, the proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for
new or altered fire protection services. The CVFD currently meets the City's threshold standard in the vicinity of
the project A fire station (#8) is located less than a mile from the project area. The payment or credit of fees will
adequately mitigate potential cost impacts associated with the project.
b) According to the Police Department, the proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for
- .substantial new or altered police protection services. The CVPD currently meets the City's threshold criteria for
Priority I Calls for Service (CFS). The payment of fees will adequately mitigate potential cost impacts associated
with the project. -
c) The proposed project is not residential in nature and as such would not induce population growth.
d) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not create a demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or impact existing park facilities.
e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in -a need for new or expanded
governmental services and could continue to be served by existing public infrastructure.
Miti2:ation: No mitigation measures are required.
"'
.. '../
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
o
o
o
.
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
o
o
o
.
15
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Signifi,cant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not create a demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or facilities nor impact existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities.
b) The project does not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Miti!!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing ti:affic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change ill
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)!?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
16
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
o
o
o
o
o
:"1,-,
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
.
.
.
o
Issu es:
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Miti2:ation: Mitigation measures are required. See Section F of the MND.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project ITom existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to. the provider's existing
commitments?
17
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
D
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
,
".'.,l
.
.
o
.
No Impact
.
.
o
o
.
o
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact .
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
o
o
.
o
gl Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
o
o
.
o
Comments:
a) The project is located within an urban setting presently served by all utilities and service systems and would
not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Therefore, no adverse impacts to
wastewater treatment facilities would occur as a result of the proposed project for Area C.
b) The proposal would not require new construction nor expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Development of the project will not impact existing water or wastewater treatment facilities.
c) No construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be necessary
as a result of the proposed project. The project is required to implement Best Management Practices to
prevent pollution of storm drainage systems and comply with the City Storm Water Management
Requirements therefore; environmental impacts would be less than significant.
d) The project site is within the Otay Water District service territory. The Water District has provided a letter
stating that they have the capacity to serve the proposed project.
e) The City ofChula Vista has sufficient wastewater capacity to serve this project. No impacts are noted.
f) The project will be served by a local landfill that has adequate capacity.
g) The proposed project will comply with all state and local solid waste requirements. No impacts are noted.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVll. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Standards?
A. Library
o
o
o
.
The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF)
, of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF
total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The
construction of said facilities shall be phased such that
the City will not fall below. the city-wide ratio of 500
GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be
adequately equipped and staffed.
18
"
Issues:
B) Police
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One"
emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an
average response time to all ''Priority One" emergency
calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
b)_ Respond to 57 percent of ''Priority Two" urgent calls
within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average
response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes or
less.
C) Fire and Emergency Medical
Emergency response: Properly equippeq and staffed fire and
medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually).
D) Traffic
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the
exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during
the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections.
Signalized intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a
LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS
"E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterial~ with fi-eeway ramps are exempted
n-om this Standard.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
.
o
.
o
o
o
,
~ '..1
E) Parks and Recreation Areas 0 0 0 .
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres
of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate
facilitiesfl,OOO population east ofI-80S.
F) Drainage 0 . 0 0
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual.
projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with
the Drainage Master Plan( s) and City Engineering Standards.
19
Issues:
G) Sewer
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual
projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with
Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards.
H) Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula
Vista has in effect at the time of building pennit issuance.
20
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
. Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
.
o
.,
:""-'
No Impact
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project would not induce population growth; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would result. No
adverse ~pactto the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
b) No adverse impact to the City's Police threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Police Department states that they can continue to provide service at current levels
c 2 According to the Fire Deparfrnent, adequate :fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be
provided to the site. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the project, the
project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire service demand throughout the City. This increased
demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact. No adverse impact to the City's Fire
threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project. '
d) The surrounding street segments and intersections continue to operate in compliance with the City's Traffic
Threshold Standards at acceptable LOS levels with the exception of the intersections of Otay Lakes Road/V ons
Driveway and Showroom Place/Fenton Street, which operate at an LOS "F'~.oduring PM peak hours with or
without the project. The intersection impacts to Otay Lakes RoadNonsDriveway are considered to be
cumulative. The traffic impacts to Showroom Place/Fention Street are considered to be direct. In order to reduce
the cumulative and dire~t impacts, mitigation is required. See Mitigated Negative DeClaration, Section F.
"
";'~
e) The project does not propose residential development; therefore, this Threshold Standard is not applicable.
f) The applicant proposes new drainage facilities on the project site in order to properly convey stormwater rrom the
developed site to existing city drainage facilities. No adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or
City's Drainage Threshold standards will occur as result of the proposed project.
g) Based on the Sewer study prepared by K&S Engineering on August 2007, the Engineering Division has
determined that the existing sewer facilities are adequate to serve proposed project development on Area C and
existing and proposed development on Area A only. No new sewer facilities are anticipated to be required and no
adverse impacts to the City's Sewer Threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
h) Pursuant to correspondence received rrom the Otay Water District, the District has the terminal long-term water
storage capacity to serve the proposed project. Otay Water District indicates that water service can be provided at
the required pressures once the owner makes all necessary district deposits to cover engineering and inspection
costs. The existing domestic water services and fire service that currently service the project site are adequate and
will not need to be altered. Project impacts to the District's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would
be less than significant.
Mitigation: Mitigation Required (Drainage) See Section E & F of the MND.
21
~
Issues:
xvrn. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
- community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects. of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection -yvith the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current project, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
~, '....'
o
o
.
o
a) The project site presently consists principally of graded land and developed commercial land uses. The
project site is located within an established urbanized community. The site lies within the designated
development area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. There are no sensitive plant or animal
specie~ or cultural resources on the site.
b) As described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, significant direct and cumulative project impacts would
be mitigated to below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures
c) The project does not propose or have environmental effects, which will forseeably cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
22
~
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant
Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-07 -015.
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Qperator stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
c_ontained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction ofthe Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with
the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in
abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact
, Report. .
Eastlake Corporate Center, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: IRE Enterprises, Inc.,
a California Corporation, managing member
~ "...!
/O~I/-{}7
Date
23
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant hnpact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated
by the checklist on the previous pages.
. Land Use and Planning
o Population and Housing
o Geophysical
o Agricultural Resources
_. Hydrology/Water
. Transportationlfraffic
o Biological Resourc'es
o Energy and Mineral Resources
o Public Services
o Utilities and Service Systems
. Aesthetics
o Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
o Cultural Resources
. Air Quality
. Paleontological
Resources
. Noise
o Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
xxn. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the propo~ed project could not have a significant effect on the environment,
and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. :'..,
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
I fmd that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and
an Environmentallrripact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impacf' or "potentially
significant unless Initigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: I) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)
has been addressed by Initigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
Initigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or
Initigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
~,~~,~,~
~a . Guerrero -
Senior Planner
City ofChula Vista
~lN' ,30) (OIJ7
ate
24
o
.
o
o
o
APPENDIX '~A"
Photo simulation for Design District Area B
, ..~'
/
Existing Condition
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chula Vista, California
Conceptual Development
----r
fOCUS3GO
. " ~ , , . . . ~ . . I
r.......... R ,< ~ . . _..,
"
Exi9ting Condition
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chula Vista, California
Conceptual Development
"7-
fOCUS360
L. . . , . ~ . . .. . ~ I
. ~... '" ~. ..... ~.
,\
'.
Existing Condition
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chula Vista, California
Conceptual Development
---r
fDCUS3SD
. . . h ;0 . , I ~ . . I
I "PO.....ftd. t, ~~.
>
Existing Condition
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chula Vista, California
Conceptual Development
'7'
fOCUS36U
... . . .. . , . . . ~ . . I
C u In.. ~.. ."......
"
Existing Condition
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chula Vista, California
Conceptual Development
~
fDCUSJ6D
01 . . .. ;, . . , . , ~ r
( ..........., ~.., ....
!
Existing Condition
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chura Vista, California
Conceptual Development
7-
fOCU5J60
..............,
c...._...... .......
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Eastlake Business Center Development Pro;ect - 18-07-015
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed Eastlake Business Center Development project. The proposed
project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA
Guidelines (IS-07-015). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate
mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
1. Aesthetics
2. Air Quality
3. Paleontological
4. Hydrology and Water Quality
5. Noise
6. Transportation/Traffic
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and
City Engineer. The applicant shall provide evidence in written form confirming compliance with
the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-015 to the
Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator
and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have
been accomplished.
Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-07-015, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if
the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified,
along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant
has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the
date of inspection is provided in the last column.
. . . o.-j
C::T
u -u co c -u ~ c c 9:c CD ~ ~.<D
C OJ CD en OJ en en CD en .Q :::J [
0'< :::J OJ C:::J CO
CD CD C1i ~ CD CD en CD
5'CD -'CD 0 CD ~OJ u'3' CO 5'
enQ) OJ- u D) (j) CD.Q 3 N' ~~.
-CD CD s: 0; CD
-en 00 ~ :::J C CD
Ci!- 3 <D _.:::J
~9: ~ co CD ~ :::JCO
CD ~ 0 ~ -'0 co
-0 0 OJ 0 o' :::J C C en 0>
~ :::J CD en ::1. ~r OJ -.
0 <D :::J Ci! :::J -.
<i!' ~ en 0 0 a. Y'S: o..Q
a 2' a. 0 0 iii' C
!l a C :::J :::J OJ 8 ~
3 ~ ~ ~ en en :::J
q-<D ~~
g OJ 0" o' c- CD
u a. C 0
5' 0 en :::J :::J ~ g.2' C q-3
~ OJ OJ if o' o'~ en C -"
~ oct.
en Ci! :::J :::J !::!:<C
:::J .Q 0> CO CD OJ 0 0 ~
~ u C D) CD .Q :::J U :::J 0'
~ .Q a.
0 o' en C C CD :::J
~ (j) '" o' Q. u' u'(j) ?l
< en -< <D 5" 3 3 OJ o' 3
~ D) OJ a. q> CD CD :::J :::J CD
en en ~" ~z D)
u ~ en
u 0 u -< 0 C
OJ 0 ::;; 0> 0 0 Ci!
s: u X -
u en S" <D en
0 en Ci! ~ @ en
~ en 5' 3 3 en
0' CD (j) 5' a. D) 0; C ::T
-. a. 3' CD ~ ~ ;:;: ~
S" .Q ~ u'
S" S" 3 N' C !if (j)
CD 3 CD u'
x 5' C' 3 if 0 3'
;:;: 0 3' CD 0
5' S!. cg ~ :::J U
CO (j) N' ~ ~ (j)
<D <' 3
0 u <D ::T C
:::J a. <D
S" 0 C a. CD ~ :::J
~ ~ C D) 0' eD
OJ ~ ~ :::J a.
-g.g g-~,C';i ~4'~
~ ~ :1. ~ :::1. g ~. ;s.
~2~ -<~:ga
(') <T S1 &J' :;j
::to '< 3
g ~, 8. g
~.~ g [
"0 ~ ~
;;;
~ "'
R<> :;j
~ ~
"' (1)
c.. 0
5' ='
OQ
X
X
~
'!:!..
0'
~
<::.
t::I
~
(1)
.g
(1)
..,
a?~ ~ s:~ ~
~."Qo.CI>"'O.....
coo;:;:-u=::T
:::J<OO@CD
::O~~0~3
CD 0-_.::;; CD
~. (; ~. 9: == :E
::;;m:!!~gifi
o cO' ~ ::0 -. :::J
O:::J CD<Do>
3::o~co-g~
3CDMS-,C
-. < ~ Q) CD Q)
fir (ii' 6j d: Co -
<D::;;(jj'gS"g.
-CD en <
~:::J5'OJ8~
~ :]30
O(j)8o. u
':-'3:::JO~~
~c'm::;; ~
en ~ eg" s: en'
~g' Q~a
- c
ifi ::;; a:~-g
os:~~g:
~ ffi-o.
oOJen~O'
-. we."'"
oCi!:::Ju)>
::T..c 0. C CD
5.aiu-a Q)
OJenCi!oOJ
~ :-g ~ -.....
Q)Q(b~ffi
"'<"""'m
- 3 ......, :;j
g ~~.~.~.
_."< ..... 0 0
~~~&j~
--- 3
en 0 (1)
- ='
~ [
~ 1 Q
~ a ~
< Jg'
3 R<>
f!
x
x
!'J
-gCi!$I@89.8ijf
-a.g :$. 2t 3 ~ 3. ((5"
g~~~~~~';:s;
<D3 :::JOJ CD=
g~();g-$I~~
s:uro:J :::Scc-a-h
CD 3o.oSoQ
-u::;;3-'-~:J0'
o ifi ~ ~ 5' o' 0 !:.
o-.CDco:::Jo9;
(jj.CDCDg~en~:::J
9:2.3gtA~5r~
~::TCD Q) 0 ~a.:J. ~o
::0 '<- 0
CD~ <O'OCD;
co (jj' D) 3. !:, CD ~ -.
5. CD c -. a: ~. -:. CD
~ g fJ :S'lQ ::;j (")
-.0 0 -co :::J OJ
gO:::J.O' =3
en ~ N C en Qu D)
Q) (i)' CD 5:~~.a~
~CD o.:;.gg.-g g
o~~co ~5'g: 5'
m~.~~OJmo.Q
-......-.rn..., ...,(0
<g::Tg !!!.~::;; ~ ~
G)grn<5 ~=:~:~
5.CD-.' s:1.g.gc
g-S.a ~E; _.mu
S=ar3CD~~OO
~~_~g.[S:~
~cnrnCD(t)-h
~ m cO' cO' -U <D
c'CD:::J:::JOJO!l
:~q ~4'~
~ :3. g t9. <
=:t~g'~ a'
~~..,&J'=,
--- 3
[q 0 f!
~ ~
R<> ;;J 0 z
:;j :;j ~
OJ' (1)
- '"
<
(1)
~
{J
x
x
)>
u
'E.
~r
:J
~
o
<D
C1i
5'
u
~
-u )> Q, s: ;:0 ~ -u -; :J' -U )> :J
~ :g ~ ~ S! ~ ~ @- g:g
~~.....C~cn' 5a.S.~Q
(') [U =r~('t) o"--'S'cu Q) C1.
CD:JCD' -:JCI)!;J<c:J:JCD
en~ -;Oen::E- -~~
"6JO ::r"3 -U;:o:fOO
s:~ ZCD CD 0 -UCD CD Cir~ 0-
-U CD -U CI):J - -U'O '0 0 CD
cnOO~"'" ",:-",0""::;0-'
--cm-u ..... ~{g~u(1)
~~CI)-u~16-;~~'f6~g-
0) -U (Ii' ::r 0) en 0
'Oen eno CD O:::!: m::r CD
'O~G)~liiQ::E-;g=~
a=CD= ':;;:0~0)3;:"8
(ij0)~0'~ -;QO:J5'CDar
a.cn@CDQ~::OQ)a.~-,:]
0' 0 -'0 3 en _3' 0 CD :::!:
'< CD ::r CI) :J.g ~
:f 3' -g::E g ~ Q"*, CI) ~:r
CD "2.9 CD !!!,s'0'3 3'< o..~
()CD:JC.CDWCD<CD~..........
~ 3 ~u ..., <: 3. en 0 ~
mCD2cs:<~0)0)3o
::J 3.SlCi1 Q) cn'~ ~g:_~.D
'9, ::;: <)' !ii ~ liT ~ -U :J Z'O !ii
~O):J:J<C CDOO-U-=<=
CDar :::CDOo..~-O::;:':;;:
"'"I...., 03CD'"tJ.....mm_.
, -U_CD<CO'::EC/):f-.
-g ~ ~ 3. ~ ~ ::J Q) : ::;:-5
0) ~. '0 C/) '0 0) -U ar CD CD 0)
=,......,.....3::::Jco-,cc (")
.:;;:' S! ~ CD -< s'zlii
-'0..:J -CD 00) 0).
OJ f!!.Q).....o:Jc:~s:
co-lo..., .....~Q!.o::::J.....
~16~g.Q016g~~~16
;:5, ~ ~ a;, <i s:: :? ~
~. ~ 0.9 5. ::1. 0 a <
~ Hi::s'e;~~:~fa'
~~ ~&t::s
pP 3' ~ ~
<It> --- ::!
tn ~n g
1> i5..~'8'
'I:t ~ Z,>
~ .,
'" pP ::!
%i 0
1>
P- o
5' ::!
<It>
><
><
~
~
C:;'
~
~
a
C'O
<:
C'O
0"
'I:t
C'O
...
~ Z,>
'I:t pP ~
[C!!i $?
~ C'O
5' 0
<It> ::!
'0 '0 CD CI)"C )>-U
~g.~ ~.a:g 5"
o ~ ~ o.~ =: ...,
3.[f~33~-
~-g'~. ~o
'9. _. - 0- ~ a? Cir
!;J3 O)::!."C< en
--0 ::s ::::J a CD C
CD ~ 0..<C (ij o~
enlii<;.~o.15@
Or:: :0 ...,
., --cc 0-
@ .....~QJ'< ~g,
000'-3_0.>
~. ~(J)~=Q)
!1'~g.~m::rO'
0''< 5' = ~ ~ ~
~ ccga.(t)~
enCO) :JO)<C
,:-",~g,3'3
en' ~ "2. ~ -g 15
(') (6" CD ..... CD ....,
S!en3~03
(T) CD ::s~
CD S" 3. ~ 6"
Coo ~s.gQ'
a (1)_.
:J~g-::;:&l)>
g.....s.o CD
CDo<c830)
~3~ago
~g~~'~~
2: ~cE 0 S" g
CD CD_ ~(QCD
~. ~ g <i S:::? ~
;:;: t'I1 Q ::I, g.g.;:5
r.n ~~~g'~ a'
::! ... 0; ::!
pP~, 3
(J')~ g
_. a" _ or
R' t.< 0 ......
><
><
~
~
C:;'
~
(3
C'O
<:
C'O
0"
'I:t
C'O
...
;:00)00)-;
CD U .....-0 ::r
~. ~ ffi"2. (1)
~ ~ ~jr e!,
oo.~2:~
o CD.a
Q 5'~ ~ ~
~Q)~ ~~
!!!, ~.g 5''<
~ ~ ~.~ ~.
@~~g
0.0)
-' 0) :::!:
::::I :J g g
::;:0.=
::!,en9:3
g~c5 m
<C ="2. ~
~5~@
-en en
=rO'"OJcn
CDCD:J::r
0.0.0)
OCDo.=
~ s. ~ 0'
cn- ~ ~ CD
m 0. ,en en
~~:J5
_.00::;:
a3~:J
:J _
350g
CD _ ~
:J CD
[~~~
::;:CI)
-'C
:J en
0.'0
en CD
CD :J
~o.
CD 0)
CD=
0. en
I\.) Q,
(J1 -
39:
'O~
::rs;
0'
0)
:J
o
CD
0)
:J
0.
.
iiJ
<
~
o
:J
C
:J
'0
0)
<
CD
0.
en
C
ii}
o
CD
en
=;;
.
.
0;:0
g CD
s; g
CD <
:J CD
@ ~
'<
en
Q.
-=:
0.
~
g5"
-g~
0'-
g-~
g~
g.::;:
0)
en
::r
CD
en
0'
'<
0)
'0
0)
<
CD
0.
0)
'0
(3
:J
~
Q"
0-
<
CD
::r
c)"
CD
CD
:J
~
a
3
'0
C
2:
o'
~
CD
CD
Iii
::;:
g
5'
w
o
3
5"
C
ar
en
Q,
O~O-:J(j)"U
Oj~~~Q.~::>.
,<:J o~=Q
:;t;~~!!!.~o
@a.-Q;Q,~3st
(j)(D:JOc-.(I)
:;0 }> CC ~!!!. ;;; (jj'
o_oc-. (j)
~Q~Qj"g555
. =r g. s; CD' Cii' ~
O-~D)CDCD
en a.01c"" 0
(I)(I)miD{g-
~3:J(j)oO'
9.g ~'r-+::1-~.
~~gO~Q;
.aii!3g"O<E
ffi g: ~ :r"8"tJ
~ca nrQ..~~
o S:;o5.o.~.
o~~~~pr
~:J -'-'0.-
O(l):JD>~
o:rCii":e ....._CD
(')(I)o~D>}>
5' ro 8"0 o::g
co ~ a..Q. ~ ~
13(j)5'(I)~g:
s.=E!!!.~-'~
~=Oo.::Jo
-""cnCCco
oO'D>(j)(j)<
~ ~ g, cg'16 ~
...,(1)-- 9.""C
g.~~o~~
i5~CiS::~~
<;;' :S, :1, g .9. <
~ ~ ~ ::;: ~ a'
{J::f ~f;j~
o {JQ 3
;:1~ g
~~g ~
~ :>
'"
'0 Ro .,
~ %i ::I X
~
'" '"
0.
5' g
{JQ
i
(;'
gj
<::t.
o
'"
<
'"
0"
'0
'"
..,
~
~~g~2I
::]Q.:E"Q.(jJ
g.~ ~.(I) 55
()i D> :J -0 ::J
. 5. g:.Q. :
(I) (I) 0
g::J'"~C/)
~g~~
mCiJ~g:
::Jg~:J
~~g~
og~~
"0"'020
3 3 g,Q
. . 0 c....
OOD,):J-
g,g,~9.
~~~~
goaf"o
D>?,(j)~
3?~~
. ~~<
U> 0 -.
Q):JC"'cn
~g.CDnr
0.'< "0 ~
~ s:g.~
en a a: ()"
~ cB ~ u'
o.~o.!!!.
g, i;? ~ 0 ~ Q
~'!9'O 88'0.
~ ~ 0 (") ""1 (1:1
~r~g.ag
'" C) 3
~ g
::I _
'< 0
'0 ~ ;;,-
[ .,
Ro ::I
~ 0 X
., "
0. 0
5' ::I
{JQ
x
x
?'
x
x
~
::!.
(;,
gj
<::t.
o
'"
<
'"
0"
'0
'"
..,
~~~ga~
~~~-o~.Q
() CD S" a g
~o.cc ~(') 0
5'-(1) 0 (')
m_$a.~o
:J~ D>o3
<9.(1) (j) --3
~CQo~~~
~~3(1)S,(')
D> 5' ':;q~ (I)
g,CC~(j)(j)~
m~~'6'~3.
~o.:J3!!!.
-'-'en -Q,
g~()i @gcc
3oroS":5"m
~aJ?5.~9:
OJ 3 --t ro ~<E
-CD .......(1)..
-n::J~_o.
<D--mo' CD
s."2. (I) "0 ~3
CDD) "'0-0
=E~3~i>>Q
0_(1) (I) (,)D>
o 0 !J! ;:!. ~-<
Q........C(l'JCD
o.~(I)-'(I) a.
-. (1)0.0.(1)
~!(J (j) ~:j'~. ~
o !:!:cn coOQ':
;'" ~~;a.mc5
0=..... en
Q': a::T Q)
gg3~g,
:S. ~ ~ t:a ~ s:: ~ ~
~. ~ 0tI 5.::1. S ~ <'
c;j Mj _. CL ""'h ::::. o' :;"
, !'>. ~ -, '< - (') 0
"'-Cl~~~"::I
~, ::J,., (') - 3
fD ~ ::s _. 0 g
0. '< g,
'0 ~ :>
~ '"
.,
'" Ro ::I
~ 0 x
., "
0. 0
5' ::I
{JQ
:--I
x
x
9>
:Tm~~~~
CD-oQw
0g}~3i>>2
D> =D> o.:J
a;~CJ)~cr~
3 ~ < ~.'<
or cr~ ~ Q) a
~'< m-<g ::;13
Os=.....(J)CD.....
~CDCD'<~=r
:::S o.(j)3(1)
~O~i>>(I)"o
CD ~ ~ ~ a..Q.
..., 0 roo 0 (I)
OJ3en o~
~iir(j) --t;:!.D>
~cn~~Q.ro
D>o=o.(DD>
::J-'O'(I)~(j)
g: 3 (1).5' "U ~
8~5':J =
;J;"(i) ogc:r
--,cu~cr<D
(Do8~-.
~ c 0 <C. (I) 9:
::2cua.=ra.@
- = D> (jj' (')
<i~:J(I)(')i>>
,}>@~~o.
t..)rn -'-'.....
-$ 13 :;;;. ~ <g .0
~. s:~ 0 ~
g: ~l CD -0 Co
::J i>> ~ 5-"0
:r @' en" g: <p
:S. ~ ~ t:a Ci s:: ~ ~
~. ~ 03 5.:1. 0 t.9 <
~ Mi::l.~~g.~'a'
~~ ~vr=,
Ro :1,..., 3
Jg ~ g
gjD. g,
0. '< C)
'"
-
'"
'0 ~ ;;,-
~ .,
'" Ro ::I
~ 0 x
., "
0. 0
5' ::I
{JQ
X
X
~~~oororo~~cr~>~~cDJOODJ~
~~S~~~~~roro~~~3~~~i
~~cr~33cr~~~=~i~gDJro
~rog~DJDJcO 00@3roDJ~-3>
....... CD ar =:"0 Q) C :J -00 :J. ~ S' \:J
!":!2oii:;~- 9:3~~<::!:16g-mroQ.~"E..
@~-o ~~roQ)oo~~ ~c~5
rorowc8ro~~3roro ~ro9:~DJ
-ro~~~~u 00< o:J~~ :J
~~o~~_ro~c~~~~O'~D~~
;:;: I :E:::!. ::r-3)>:J:;:0 c.. """0 -'en 0
::r~_D~ro ""-roU w_3:J_ro
...,...,g::r::r~~roro ro ::rorom~<
5:J3~roo~Q)n~~Q)oo:Ja?~
~~ ~)>~Q~~~::r~~o~oo~
~16~~~3~~=g~og~55g~
3 oDJ=DJro-o=cr~3-~ro~
Q)ro:Jo~~cn ac ~ro~""cn
o ~. ~ DJ -. I\) -. ~ ~ -'cC C::r
~ ~ ~ DJ ~ g CJ<g geE ~ 31eE 0 ~,_Q. ~
~g::riiO~E~~i~~~~5~DJ
uroroo~c..~~o_~ roroc..~~g
~~l16~~DJ~:~i~DJi~300~
DJ::r~ -.g ~~ 00 ::r_oo ro ~ o~ DJ ~ ro
cn7~roro wmm06' aU_WeD
S'~Q)~""5u- -:JO 3~-...,5.
~"":J-cn uroro>Q)_.~roroQ)ro...,
. ~<::!:~::r~ooo~~=~ro~33DJ~
ii)~~~-~a.::;'DJ3 ~ ro.!"2'
16<DJDJ~~3~~~mg~~00=~
~16 en ro;:i:-" O~ . c15''<
g.goo~~~oo~~~wl~~~~
CD:Ju -a.ce. CD CD 3 CD !:too Q) -cm
:J-cn-a:JU0crCDCDCD :J:;:rm...,
o (J) 0 0 a CD :::::!. ~ 0 :J ;"1 CD OJ Co ([) .....
~~S~~~Q~:J~ ..... ~~~S'
g=gCDacnff~~~ Qacncnqff
c:~co_o_ ::r..,-I .....Q)Q)Q)
~~fiffi~~~Q~o~~~~~~~
s-R.oD.<:~::;'~
...., <<g, 0 03, <:
'"-+i tT.I ~::s ("D _.
:3 "< g' 0 a
OS, g' ... ~ 3
~ :::.: g
S' ~ !. _ e.
0<> 0<> :r 0
." ~ ~
g-
'" R.o .,
.[ ::s
~
'"
... 0
0 ::s
:<
->.
->.
cn~9..S:~)>~
ro <' _. ro DJ ~ 5'
::!.ro3(')~=~
ro E ~ ;::;:{g@ O~
3DJ~'<o~
cr':< ~ 0 ;:j. <::!: ~
ro ro-DJO::r
~DJ3(')"'roro
I\) 00 ro ::r g < (i;'
o~~s. ~oo
~roU;-DJOOC
.,.....~DJ::;;~i~
a=-~92.""@
CD ::f Q) .g
a.roQ.3g}~
::;'::;'~~ ~~
......fi)m...... <D
iieE3~~
"U ~ :5'1iJ ~ ~
-,~<Do 0'"
OO<D...... C
~. :J :: II :f 5:
...... 0 0 <D <D -.
00' - 8 m eE
~Q~-=i~~
DJ DJ ~ o.a ro
;3!'< ;::;:-S.3
oI;:.3!m::+
3"::rDJ~~
"'C~~cn -,
I\) ro8DJ>
Q.;:Uo~3~
>g;:::g>gDJ
~~;;;::::!~(')
I\)<"ro~_
'<Ooa. ...
m. ~ ~ ~ 9., ffi
s-R.oD.<i~::;'~
::1\ tT1<< ;:;; g 03, s.
~ tD'< ~'2 a
~..:1. s::::: os:: 0 (ij ::s
~ ~:::.' ::. :J
g, s- :r 0 g
::sO<> 0;
0<> _
." ~ >
.,
~ '"
R.o .,
.[ ::s X
0
<t
a g
:<
x
x
~
"2-
(i'
~
c:t.
t)
~
'"
0"
"0
~
->.
o
x
x
~
"2-
(i'
~
c:t.
t)
'"
<:
'"
.g
'"
...
ATTACHMENT 4
FIGURES
-
;:0
t1)
(II
~_.
t1) Q. :;0
Q.t1)
-.:J r-
r:: ~ =-
3 DI ;:::111>
- ,
.......
r-
o
:e
~
~
~
~
d\
~
J1
o
()
a-
~
'"
Q)
-
<D
'<
;0
0..
-
;:0
t1)
(II
~ -.
t1) Q. "'1"1
Q. t1) ~
-.:J r-
3~3:
.......
r-
O'
:e
-r-r-m
::s _. Q) ><
Co 3 ::s -.
c -. Co ~
en.... _.
....(I)c:::s
:!. Co en cc
Q) (I)
-
-
r-
-
ATTACHMENT 4, FIGURE lA
--:.....--~~-- -- ----- -- .
------------ --
-
;:a
CD
1ft
~_.
CD C. ""1"1
C. CD tIfW
-. ~ r-
c !:!'. ~
3!. ,.
-
r-
o
:E
~
~
~
~
U\
~
~
o
(")
Cf
...,
~
Q)
-
ro
'<
:;0
0..
-
-
;:a
CD
1ft
~_.
CDC.;a
c.CD
-. ~ r-
3~S:
-
r-
o'
:E
........-r-co
AI 0 ::s -. fA ::T
~oQ.c3CDm
m -':3
::o2Lct::r(Q
-3~Q.03CD
o 3 0)' r-
::aCD,= ~
-~- :3
~. .c: Q.
e!.
ATTACHMENT 4, FIGURE IB
:~ !~ I ~~~f~~i
-....?:\ n (~~ i: 1.:.E.LffJ~
i ~ f~ i ! J i If f ~ j i ~~ i ~ 1. II.~ ~ ~
JI.. iO~ ~""Q..!O ~<P1t--Q.'" ~
S ~ -; . :f ~ X p: ~ o! E-~::! ~ ~ ~
3 f~ i!:. ~ ~ ~ i + . - CD 11: m
3ln~~ t [ i. ~ ~'. i: ~ : ~ ~ ~
c "1 g~ It -~-2.
~ ~li 1- ~
~s;:i ~ ~ N ~ ~ :: ~ ~ N .... en gl- u:; ~ ~ ~
::r-. ...i"'~ CON......tootn_tOQO ~~~~~i:D
.~ ~~Co~~:""OO~W ...
CD ~ ~ w
m ~~ "'~C:!D"'"
... Cot i:Dh~...i:DO
I>> '!::~ :... _ ....
~,,~~
!: Q~
:J(" ~:!
CDm~ ....
~ ~-
3 ~
'0 ..
I>>
~-
,r~
, ....
'~..~\
-'\
\..
,~
iW-",
/1 ~J""""-
.~ ,.::;' L1 d!._~:;::;:~- _
.:. ----- ......oP,;:;.:..._. L__::;:..::-----_
:~.~'";,.>,J~.,. /1. 'V.
,:~V~
'.-
go
; (q
Ii
A
~
Go
10.
I':
;:,:/i "'-:1
..?:.~_.
/' a i
z
I
i
.
"'II N ~ N
-N::2;:g:
u:;g..<I)"'I....
c
c:
r--.....
..',\.~~.
;, '
" -=".
~~~
\t,
" .
,\
,
r-
.......'.,t
............'
~.
;;0
~~
~.
() ~'()
o J:i
~ ..
CD t~r-
~ '!
CD .3
a. ,
.....co. i~
0-1 0
~~[~j
,
I, ~
<./1
...:;:J
c
CD
<
CD
OG)
-a CD m
-C 3 ::s ~.
-CDCD~
S>> .., ::J
:::J Q) cc
::s...-
, 'ATTACHMENT 4, FIGURE 2A
>~~i ~ ~ -a'Vo35~n;d~~~'
'tS .. ~ i- 'f " III . (LEL..ED~
~ CO. -41.3:"01.0::0""'::0 ::o;l;f3:9i~
;~;~i;H ;~Hi i~lih~
Q. ~4 ::OO~ ~~>~Oi;;2.'!"~ ~...
n ~ ~ ;. "i"': It ~ i 0 I ~ i: ~ :: ! ~ 2:
o ~~ ~ ~;.. f ;:, 9 + . - ... :I:
3 "'1~.. ." "~ ~ t - Q. -
3ln~~ i: !. 5- - . i: ~ : ~ ~
,. .. g1;. -~.~n
:i -~ .... n -
~ ~ii l -
~ S;~! ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fJ ~ ~ ~ \~ ~ ~ E ~
i' Jl ~c..<ON-"'!O~~
m !it... ~:" ...~~~~'"
lit :'!{ ;.. c.. 0 CD c.. io · CD 0
~-rai~ 1
III ~2a ::! ~I"'!::! ~!::! ...
~rni ~ ~~~;~~
o ,--
3 ;i
'a .
111-
~-
~.-..-:,..
/ .^ ..\:-
i .0;\
I '....
''''r,;.
, .'~
'.~~'"
\. \
", '
. ..
~rf)
::u r ~.
CD ,-.
< =r-
(jj' 19
~ $Co
...... Q). i::2
o - 0
~ ~ "'-'g5
o Oi I
-...j (J1~
I \
II ~
~lb
~
o
c:
'"
III
.--.
......:
; : .l ..."
.' ~.
,.</00 'I
..,.;~o .
. I
2
I
i
,
.
-'"
.~ ;;::."
......---:.-
.'}' <'"-1'
I ;.....- , 0
,. a : Ul "r'S"'L~ ..
ft.. '" .. T....!i"I:.
j; :: .'..(.. ~
. . .,
--;;,- '-'-'''. ,
~ I' s .'..,,,
n ~
i ~""
.I
.
.'- - ""'"
:\ Z>.
.....' ..
.. ..I~.'
\,...' --.
./ a '
o " /
.. . ..'
...',/
o
c:
r-
..-.-..
't-.\~:~
--'...-'
;;
::u
c
CD
<
CD
-
oQ-o
-C CD ::0
-a3:;'~
-(t) CD 0
D)~D1~
:;, .. _ CJ
A~TACHMENT 4, FIGURE 2B
I Existing I
Site Utilization Plan
Business Cenrer 1/ Supplemental SPA
R:;lIing Hi!ls Ranc.i \ \
---l --~~~- -~._~.
l ~_"Rd.:~~ E-12 1\ \,<~
[\ 1 t'" ~ \-, \ \
~\\ Ii '\\ \ \\
\ 1\ \ \ \\
--1 F.!'Itol\ St." I , '} \,\\
=--\ I ~ \\
f.::.:::~, \'\~.> E-11 CI'.) / '-\\\
0!r.rer I SPA \ . ,_: --' ~_ l....:..'--I F''Jture :::a.;rLake 11/ srA "
J ~~~~- --~~. I i
~-~~ Exi!:ting Ea:;tLake Grc!!ns SPA ...."0 I I
. '-.... / I
'-., ..... 1/
g.;'...'N. / /
.,,-.( ", /'
~+$ ""-. /
..~,.,.) /
0:/ ....... ''-.
Land Use
Gross
Parcsl
No.
~Employment Park
~Employment Park
Sub-total
~Otay lakes Road
~Fenton Street
Total
Acres
!Estimated
Net Acres"
25,3
75.4
100.7
3.3
4.1
108.1
19.8
58,2
78.0
. :sum.UICI ,..: Aae& ~ GJ"O.$$ Ac,"!),; I~ an c:::tP~71o.'1~a :!!'~'" fer 5:'maP.: l SIO;:'M.
r,"~' Gmss and Net Ac,~3 ...", bfJ i1ot~rmi~CC1 at ~/Ja ~ ma:igrat1lng ;omul ~IIC!.
:"~"::I .. 'f...............
--~_.,..~......-, "....,,......_,...11 t .''\)
,;,'" ().i~\.~~~\ .;r7)~"":} :"
.. ." '-="x' .,J ,\~,\~ .", . .
\i'~'''':) .; J:::!.~~~../ ~\ ' ._.,.
":f --~t,;:..j'1 ....},j1..;..,.:;o .~,'
~T\J ,"\., .,;', (-"'''''''':;.
;:..... "\ I "",.on.. I'L .. .1\ ') ~
. t" ...._.....-. ' ~
fi"/;,\, ,,~, :\:" - _~..,
.:"~~ ""., /;;:;r'" ,--' ".
... ~(;\:...\ '....:...:::'"',;. ,: "" ..,
"-' \ -:;
SPA Key Map ~t'
[1]- .
" : CaIC.<tpluall"ttlIlJio! Cir:.:vl.;li0l1 nu! ill Ci'Clhrioll ~'a:i<iur.;s,
, :
[]].:.;e.; Ope" Space rsJu~",,,J itr;lud~d in E/nrJtJlltlfH11 Plj/X s:a:istir:~.
. ..~itt. . .-
'.~~:-t';
~ fASTLAKE
A pl.::mn.ed communit)' by The E3stLake C(}mpan:,
C::lr Land PlCnr.Jr.g
--..,..~= n-'
r~" "L\...,~
. ~-8-99
Exhibit 5
II-!6-~9
1-12
ATTACHMENT 4, FIGURE 3A
PROPOSED
Site Utilization Plan
Business Center II Supplemental SPA
---j
,\
\\
j\
\\
\\
,
I
;
I
I
1
1
,Ii
," ;
Parcel
No.
Land Use
Gross
Acres
IEstimated .
Net Acres'
,. .
1
I E-11 IEmployment Par~ :5.3 19.0
I~ _ _~'!.2.. _ kTJP!2Y.n::."!'t.P~~- _ _ _ _ _;a.-z; _ _ _ _ J1.'i - - - -
IAddition ofvc-sl II VCS IViUloe Centllr EmpiOV"""t 18.7 16.7 ~
· ~us.tQia:r . - . - . - . . - - - - - - . - . 100.1 - - - - 78:0- ... - -
I Ci,. ,,'Olav La~es Roac 3.3
. . F ",nton Street 4.1
1
Total
i0B.i
~'~tt~1
\\.-
SPA Key Map \I
. f.sr"Ml~.~ ~O't'S .. Crt),lS .I..cra-' kt.n lJr: V,ltnJ""" ~ tot Sln.ts .. ~s.
;::..,,(1111 :Glen. rmd hrl Ac:rf': WfI-tMt ~~a., r.-.. ~~ ~ tIoIImM 10-'
J
'1
o Concepfusl int~m.1 Cu::-.Aa""" not ,n C1t:....'IOn ,,~'''''=
n C~fJ S;Isc. 1S.~...!C ,~va~ If: c.~,...t;;r.ner:: ?~ .Q:.a/:slia.
n
~ EASTLAKE
A pwnnrd commuai.}' by The Ea.tLake Cumpanr
. ' ,lC:1d PIOM\,"'IQ
=---,::: rr....
, ..:--:"", :~L.. ~
'O-Q.~
~
Exhibit 5
~
I Revised 10123J07 I
I-I:
~
q
1-10
J
ATTACHMENT 4, FIGURE 3B
r~ \ I ~
\1'- ~ \ RSoO . dJ: ""V'
:--.;:, ~~
".....#'/ ii
~ OI-~ "'~. RC-22 I
PROPOSED
Land Use Districts
Repeal of Design
District Overlay;
Change from
BC-1 to BC-4
RESIDENTIAL
RE-3 Residential Estates
RS-5 Residential SIngle Family
RS-7 Residential Single Family
RP-I ResidentIal Planned Concept
RP.st. Re$idendal Small Lot
Rc-10 Residential CondomInWm
Rc-t3 ResIdentIal Planned Concept
Re-15 Residential Condominium
Rc.22 Residential CondominWm
RM-2" Res/denllal Multi-Family
RM-4C Residential UtJIti.FamiIy
VILLAGE CENTER & COMMERCIAL
Vc-1 IRage Center (Retail)
VC.1a IlIage Center {Retai1J
VC-Z IlIage Center (Prol AdminJUd. Retail)
Vc-3 Village Center (Retail)
Vc-4 Vi1Iage Center (Retail)
VC-S ~ -c;,;u; (R~m;~...-:
......................~
FC Freeway Commercial
PA Professional & Administrative
BUSINESS CENTER
BC-1 Business Center (Manufacturing Park District'
BC-% BuSne5S Center (Uanufllcturing SetVice Dls~
aC-3 Business Center (C019 District)
BC4 .. S.;,in'"e;a-c;,rt; (co;.; D;;Ma;:
.---......----.....
~E4STLAKE II
A planned eommunlty by The EastLake Co.
ReviHd 1t%5I07
,:,'~Iond~
F:':;"~ .J
8123105
I Revised 10/23/07 I
ATTACHMENT 4, FIGURE 4B
-
I Existi ng I
Land Use Districts
~1'
IJ'I\)
RESIDENTIAL
RE-3 Residential Estates
RS-S Residential Single Family
RS-7 Residential Single Family
RP-S Residential Planned Concept
RP.SL Residential Small Lot
RC.10 Residential Condominium
RC.13 Residential Planned Concept
RC.15 Residential Condominium
RC-22 Residential Condominium
RM-24 Residential Multi-Family
RM-44 Residential Multi-Family
VILLAGE CENTER & COMMERCIAL
VC-1 Village Center (Retail)
VC-1 a Village Center (Retail)
VC-2 Village Center (Prof. Admin./Ltd. Retail)
VC-3 Village Center (Retail)
FC Freeway Commercial
PA Professional & Administrative
BUSINESS CENTER
BC.1 Business Center (Manufacturing Park District)
BC-2 Business Center (Manufacturing Service District)
BC-3 Business Center (Core District)
SPECIAL PURPOSE
05-1 Open Space
08-2 Open Space
08-3 Open Space
08-4 Open Space
OS-S Open Space
OS-6 Open Space
OS-7 Open Space
FU Puture Urban District
PQ Public/Quasi-public District
CPF Community Purpose District
(GH) Guest House Land Use District Overlay.
(Refer to Section 11.30 in PC Dis!. Regs.
~EASTLAKE II
A planned community by The EastLake Co.
(~'r,tllond P'onnlng
-.............--- rn
r-::-l""l ~ .A
8/23105
ATTACHMENT 4, FIGURE 4A
m
><
fA
tt
::I
.a
ni'
o
::I
a.
~
o
::I
ATTACHMENT 4, FIGURE 5
ATTACHMENT 4, FIGURE 6
ATTACHMENT 5
PARKING STUDY FOR
EASTLAKE CORPORATE CENTER
TABLE 4
DATED SEPT. 7, 2007
Mr. Alan Huffinan
September 7, 2007
Page 9
TABLE 4
CITY OF SAN DIEGO RATES FOR THE HOTEL AND CONFERENCE SPACE
ACCUMULATION BY HOUR
Use Office H t I R * Conference Room Total
SF o e ooms SF SF
Size 120,000 156 8,837
Parking Rate 1 /300 SF of gross floor area 1 per room 10 / 1000 SF
Required Spaces 400 156 88 652
Actual Spaces 433 163 596
Hour of Day
6:00 AM 12 156 0 168
7:00 AM 80 133 0 213
8:00 AM 252 101 44 398
9:00 AM 372 86 88 546
10:00 AM 400 70 88 559
11:00 AM 400 55 88 543
12:00 PM 360 47 88 495
1:00 PM 360 47 88 495
2:00 PM 388 55 88 531
3:00 PM 372 55 88 515
4:00 PM 308 70 88 467
5:00 PM 188 94 88 370
6:00 PM 92 109 88 290
7:00 PM 28 117 88 233
8:00 PM 28 140 88 257
9:00 PM 12 148 88 249
10:00 PM 12 156 44 212
11:00PM 0 156 0 156
12:00 AM 0 156 0 156
'~I{S5W~
~ .__.J.1<~ ~
Footnote:
* Based on City of San Diego rate for Conference/ meeting space
~:\1731\shJrC'd parking :malysis\p.Jrking letlCT.Joc
ATTACHMENT 6
MASTER USE PERMIT
PCC-05-070
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-05-070
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLA~'NING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A MASTER USE
PERMIT FOR A HOME IMPROVEMENT DESIGN DISTRICT
LOCATED ON .36 ACRES WITHIN THE DESIGN DISTRICT
OVERLAY OF THE BUSINESS CENTER OF THE
EASTLAKE II PLANNED COML'VlUNITY.
WHEREAS, the area ofland owned by EastLake Design District, LLC is the subject matter
of this resolution, and is represented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference; and for the purpose of general description is located at 851-891 Showroom Place ("Project
Site")' and
, ,
WHEREAS, on June 15,2005, a duly verified application for a Master Use Permit (pCC-05-
070) ("Project") was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Division by EastLake Design
District, LLC ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, Applicant requests a master use permit to implement the provisions contained in
Section IV, of the EastLake II PC District Regulations which regulate land uses within the 36 acre
project site ("Design District Overlay"); and
WHEREAS, the Envil'Onmental Review COOIdinator has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California EnviIOnmental Quality Act and has determined that the Project was
adequately covered in the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration for the EastLake II
GeneIal Development Plan (GDP) and EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA), arid thus, no
ftuther enviIOnmental review is necessary; and,
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held at the time and place as
advertised on August 24, 2005, at 6:00 pm in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista to receive the recommendation of City staffand
to hear' public testimony with regard to the Project, and said hearing was thereafter closed
NOW, 1HEREFORE BE II RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby fmd,
determine and resolve as follows:
1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or
facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighbor'hood or the
community.
The proposed use within the EastLake Business Center will provide for the centralization of
home improvement uses within an ar'ea of East lake which is easily accessible both to residents
of Chula Vista as well as other communities within the San Diego region, The design center
will provide a unique destination oriented opportunity for members of the public who ar'e
interested in some aspect of home improvement. CUlrently, there ale no similaltypes of home
improvement design centers within the San Diego region within the vicinity of residents of
South Bay,
2., That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to
the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or wol'ldng in the vicinity or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The pI oposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general weWu e to the general
public, or be injUlious to pIOperty or improvements in the vicinity The project has been
designed to complement other uses located within the EastLake Business Center., Buildings
and signage have been odented to minimize impact to existing residences to the east and south
(across Otay Lakes Road),
3, That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the
code for such use.
Granting of this Master Use Pennit (MUP) is required in order to implement the provisions
outlined in section IV of the EastLake Business Center II SPA PC District Regulations. As
such, the uses and provisions covered under this MUP are in compliance with said SPA
4,. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General
Plan in that the project is in compliance with the BC-I land use designation of both the
EastLake II GDP as well as SPA, as further restricted by the specific uses outlined in the PC
District Regulations regarding the Design District overlay,
BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista
hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-05-070 subject to the following conditions, whereby the
applicant andlproperty owner, plior to issuance of building permits shall:
I. Prior to issuance of business licenses or building permits for tenant improvements, the
proposed land uses within the Design District must be evaluated against the following
criter'ia:
1. The requested location within the design distIict has received prior approval by the Design
Review Committee,.
2. Land uses permitted within the Design DistIict shall be consistent with those listed in
Section IV 3(e)(1,2) of the EastLake II Planned Community DistIict and shall conform to
the requirements listed in Section IV2 and IV3 of said District Regulations as modified by
these conditions of the MUP.
3 In addition to uses discussed in condition I 1 above, professional offices which offer
services related to home improvement are pemutted by this Master Use Permit The space
pagc::2
devoted to said offices shall not exceed 25% of the ground floor lease area within the
overall center.
4 In accordance with Section IV 3(e)(4) of the EastLake II Planned Community District
Regulations, eating and drinking establislunents within the entire Design Disuict shall
compfy with the following:
a. Freestanding establislunents shall only be located within suites 100-103 of Building
C, as shown on attached Exhibit 1 .
b" Non-fieestanding eating and drinking uses may be located within a primary tenant
space wherein the floor area shall not exceed 20% of the total floor ar'ea devoted to
showroom space Any exterior signage may only be odented towards the center
parking ar'ea,
c, An eating and dIinking establislunent offering the sale of alcoholic beverages must
obtain an adminisuative use permit.
d Request for additional fieestanding establishments beyond those listed in (a) above
must comply with the following:
1. The Master Use Permit must be amended if the aggregate total square footage is
less than 8,000 square feet, and the total number of such establishJ1:1ents less than
seven
2.. In addition to a modification of the Master Use Permit, if the requested addition
exceeds either 1) a maximum aggregate of 8,000 square feet or 2), the maximum
of 6 freestanding food establishments a request for an amendment to Section
IV..3(e)(4) of the PC District Regulations of the EastLake 11 SPA must be
approved by the City Council
5 Other incidental and related uses to home improvement not previously included in the
MUP as permitted or conditional uses, may be considered on a case by case basis if
approved by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission per section 19,14 050
II. Ongoing Conditions:
1 Comply with all conditions set forth in PCC-05-070
2, Hours of operation shall be daily fi.om 9:00 am to 10:00 pm, unless otherwise approved by
a separate specific use permit for an individual tenant.
3 Outdoor seating shall only be petmitted within the area designated on attached Exhibit I,
herein, and shall have no more than five tables per eating and drinking establislunent
4. Parking shall be provided at a ratio of 1 :300 square feet of ground floor square footage
This parking ratio takes into account all types and mixture of uses permitted within the
PJge 3
Design District as outlined and restricted in Section IV 3 ofthe PC District Regulations and
includes an allowance for an additional 25% of tenant square footage for mezzanines.
5 There shall be no permanent outdoor display areas. TempOlaIY outdoor sales and outside
display of merchandise shall be permitted subject to the provisions ofCVMC 19 58370 as
it relates to the provision for shopping centers,
6. Occupancies shall not store any products over twelve feet in height., High hazaId products
shall not be stored over 6 feet in height. Any piles proposed higher than these provisions
shall require previous review and approval by the City's Fire Marshall. Suites may be
required to provide a technical opinion to ensure the buildings adequacy versus the use.
7 lhis MUP shall remain in effect until such ti"l1e as ail D~slgn District ;.:s~s, other tha."1
furniture sales, are no longer located within the buildings,
8, T his conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended
within the time allotted in Section 19.14.260 ofthe Municipal Code.
IV. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines provided
below, said execution indicating that the property owneI and applicant have each read,
undeIstood and agI'eed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same Upon
execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San
Diego, at the sole expense ofthe pIOperty owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy
retUIned to the City's Planning and Building DepaItment.. FailUIe to rehun the signed and
stamped copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate the
property owner/applicant's desire that e project, and the conespondiIIg app'lication for
building permi a ine.~s I' ense be held in abeyance without approval
//~,.. ~
Date
//-#--dS./
Date
Y. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
Ifany of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they aI'e, 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 '
Page 4
violation,. Failure to satisfy the conditions of this permit may also result in the imposition of civil
or criminal penalties.
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the PI arming Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in
the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of
competentjwisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be
deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 24th
day of August 2005, by the following vote, to-wit:
AlrES: Felber, Bensoussan, Cortes, Madrid, Horn, Nordstrom, Tripp
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ~ \J'...-- H ~
Vicki Madrid, Chair
ATTEST:
J:IPlanning,Case Filesl-OS (FY 04-05\IPCClPublic He:!IingPCC-05-070\Resolulion9.PC 05-070 doc
P:lge5
Master. Use Permit
Exhibit 1
Design District Uses Permitted within Buildings
(Refer to PC Regs 1V.2E)
Du.tdoor Seating Area Permitted
Eating & Drinking Estabfishments Permitted (6 max )
Boundary of Master Use. Permit Area
5127105
6/15/05
Page 7 of 9
2-18
~:~~~ Design District
~~~. M""terUsePormit
Y-~.i""~..~"'t.~~~- ..:. \.
x....~--::v.~:\:\!" ~
.'\"'" ~~.. ~ f'i'.,.. .. ,.... ...
fF ;"o.J""?~;;' ,
.'. ....~.:::-t_\-..: \-~a'", _ ..~
t:.... . 'x1/.J.:i:C0:~' :
-:" i~'V ' ..._~;...:..... "7.-
"'.:p,X:/; :i::ti.:.Q~t
~.." ..1~:T: k~::A::~r.J,~
", '_,. !_",>:",tJ"f::::c.y.. "
.......""":;:"'~\"""...'"tr.. \
-7 t.-~""')~'~"~~. jp' ..
- ., ~;"\-"'-~'!\ : _.~~ ~~ -
.""" '" .', ,:,::; - . .
- ~I_'~::" 9 ~-
Location Map
,,_:(1ii Land Planning
SanDlego,C.I.(619)223-7408 m
rLiI .
N'Jf 10 SC3/s U
6/1/05
Master V$e Permitfor
Design Di~in'cl,OverlQY
Ea>fLake II SpA :P~~
ATTACHMENT 7
OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM
r---
(
~ift-
-.-
r_-",_- _
-:. -~ -~~-
Plann ng & Building Department
Planning Division I Development Processing
CIlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01,. prior: to ~ny actio,n up(:mmatter~ that will r~quire di~cretionery action by the Council,
Planning Commission. and aU other official.bodies of tI1~ City, a statEtment of. Qiscl()~ure of certain ownership or financial
interests, paynleflts, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed:
1. LI~t the names of all persons havh'lQJl financlaf Interest ill the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, cb!ltractor, subcontractor, matenafsupplier.
See Exhibit 'A'
2. If any perfjon*!ci~f!t!fieQ P!.Irfjl!8Qttq (1X~PClVe)~ q,cPfPof!'itipnor partnarfjhlp, list the nameS (If ~.I! indiyiduals with
a $2000 irwesqnent inJI19. b~s'ness (c(jrpor~tj.onlpartnersbip)entity;
See Exhibit 'A'
3. If arw paN?Rn~ idel'1tiffeq PQr.:;IJ~ot. 1.0' (1Ja(:jpvel.s L\'I nCll1d~fPm'org~Di~tl()n or ~!;t~ lisf t.hel'lamEts: of any person
serving.as director of the nOI1-profit organization orastrus~ee or beneficfaryor 'trustor anile trust.
N/A
4. Please Idf3f1tifYeveryper$.l?n'~JncludlnS ~nyag~n.s,_~mpJpYE!es~ consultanf~. or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City!n this matter.
None
5. Has any person*as$oc.ic:lted with this confrClcf 11<:J.(j~ny financial: deetlingswlth an official** of the City of Chura
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12montns. Yes~ No~
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of theflnancial Interest the official**" may have in this contract.
6. Have you made a contribution of more than ~250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? No _ Yes-X If yes, which Council member?
Steve Padilla, Patricia Chavez, John McCann and Steve Castaneda
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista I California
91910
(619) 691-5101
(
(
~Jf?
-.-
~-~....;:
~-~~
Plann ng & Building Department
Plannirig Division I Development Processing
em OF
CHUlA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provIded more than $340 (or an Item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chura Vista In the
past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes No-L
If Yes, which offlclal** andwhat Was the nature of Item provided?
Date:
rg-/w/Ov
Print or
*
PersQnls deffn~q. ~$;~OY !lidJvidlJ~I". firm, .co-p.ar!l'Ia~hlp, )blnt. . venture, as,soci~tiOJ"\". s~cral . c::lub, fratemC'l1
organ1zatr,c:>ri,corpOr'atfbn, e!?fa~e,trns~i. r~c_~lv~r;syg'dicate;'anY gther c::ounty,clty, f1lunicipality, district, or other
porrfical subdivfsrol1.. -or any other group orcof1lbll1atlcm acting a!3 a upit.
Official includes, but Isnotllmfted to~ Ma~,or, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commisslpn,o(con;mlttee.of the Clty,emplpy'aa, .or.staff mambE)tS.
*.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chura Vista
California
91910
{619)691-S101
~
(.
(-
EXHIBIT A
To
City of Chula Vista Disclosure Statement
Application Appendix B
Class A Units:
EDD 2004 Partners,a California general partnership
Attn: Kenneth G. Weimer
Ted Levenson and Carol A. Lohiser Levenson, as Trustees ofthe Levenson Living Trust dated
March 22, 2004
David J. and Julie K. Piper, as Co-Trustees of The Piper Family Trust
dated 4/23/02
Robert G. Russell, Jr.
First Regional Bank, Custodian FBO Richard Brooks IRA #2402
Stacy Renee Fischer and Roniley Brent Robinson, as Co-Trustees of The Stacy and Ron
Robinson Living Trust dated February 11, 1998
Greg and Kathy Abell, as Co-Trustees
of the Abell Family Trust
Jeffand Janie Stoke, husband and wife
Steve Strauss and Lise Wilson, as Trustees ofthe Wilson-Strauss Trust U/D/T/ 12/8/92
ASLI, L.p", a California limited liability company
c/o Oliver R. McElroy, CPA
Oliver R. McElroy, as Trustee of the
McElroy Family Trust
Oliver R. McElroy and Karen H. deLaurier, as Co-Trustees ofthe OK Trust
dated 9/29/04
Robert White
Gary Greenberg, Trustee
Gary L. Greenberg, DDS PC Defined Benefit Pension Plan
106966.000010/465378.07
r
(-
EXHIBIT A
To
City of Chula Vista Disclosure Statement
Application Appendix B
William B. and Judith L. Feinberg, as Co-Trustees ofthe Feinberg Family Trust
Ian Stuart, as Trustee of The Stuart Family Trust V/A dated 9/1/2000
Carol G. and Morton R. Goodman, as Co-Trustees of The Goodman Family Trust
dated April 23, 1986
Samuel Nathan Fischer, as Trustee of the Fischer Family Trust of1991
Stuart and Jill Koenig, husband and wife
RES-SD Investors, a California general partnership
Paul and Stacy Jacobs, as Co-Trustees
The Paul and Stacy Jacobs Family Trust dated 5/3/00
Craig A. Ramseyer
Craig Sapin
John D. Tishler, Trustee
John D. Tishler Trust dated January 29,2003
Steven J. Untiedt
Arnold G. and Esther Fischer, as Co-Trustees ofthe Arnold G. & Esther Fischer Family Trust
DTD 12/19/83, as amended
Lawrence M. Cushman
Randall S. and Karin J. Leavitt, husband and wife, as joint tenants with right of survivorship
Lainer Too, LLC, a California limited liability company
Sheldon Greenberg, as Trustee ofthe
Sheldon Greenberg Insurance Trust dated 1976
Howard Greenberg, as Trustee of the
Greenberg Inter-Vivos Trust
Hal and Debby Jacobs, husband and wife, as joint tenants with right of survivorship
A-2
106966.000010/465378,07
,E'
\,
(
EXHIBIT A
To
City of Chula Vista Disclosure Statement
Application Appendix B
William A. Waite, as Trustee ofthe
William A. Waite Trust dated 12/15/81
Jeff and Deni Jacobs, husband and wife, as joint tenants with right of survivorship
Sun State LLC, a California limited liability company
Arturo and Claris Levin, as Co-Trustees
of the Levin Family Trust dated 12/14/02
Mina Levin
Bill Levin
Roberto Levin and Julie Levin, as Trustees of the Roberto and Julie Levin Trust
dated July 23,2004
Eric B. Shwisberg
Regan R. Tully
Michael A. V 0 gt
Frank G. and Candice Trovato, as Co-Trustees of the Trovato Family Trust dated 10/25/2000
Herbert R. and Ludivina G. Vogt, as Co-Trustees ofthe Vogt Family Trust UDT
dated 7/10/1985
Class B Units
Eric B. Shwisberg
Regan R. Tully
Michael A. Vogt
A-3
106966,000010/465378.07
ATTACHMENT 8
BUSINESS CENTER II SPA BINDER
ATTACHMENT 9
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: '-f
Meeting Date:l1/28/07
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCC-07-071 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit
to construct and operate a hotel at 2430 Fenton Street in the Eastlake
Business Center. Applicant: Innkeepers, USA.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application proposing to construct a
5-story hotel, known as the Embassy Suites Hotel. The hotel consist of 156 room/suites with
conference rooms, outdoor pool/spa area, indoor fitness center, and restaurantlbar for the hotel
guests. Pursuant to the Eastlake Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, a Conditional Use Permit,
approved by the Planning Commission, is required for the proposed land use.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant submitted a Design Review, Preliminary Environmental Review, and a SPA
Amendment application concurrently with the Conditional Use Permit. As part of the SPA
Amendment, the Applicant is requesting to change the maximum building height permitted at
this location from 35 ft or 2 stories, whichever is less to a proposed 76-ft and revising the
setbacks as listed in the Project Data table on page 3 ofthis report.
On September 12,2007 staff conducted a neighborhood meeting to introduce the project to area
residents and businesses. One resident in attendance expressed concern about the height, but
overall the residents and business owners endorsed the project as submitted by the applicant. On
November 5, 2007, the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) determined that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed design was adequate and recommended its
adoption. The Applicant is also processing a lot split application to subdivide the project site into
two separate parcels. On November 19, 2007 the Design Review Committee approved the
project. The SPA Amendment application will also be reviewed by the Planning Commission on
November 28, 2007, along with this application. The City Council will subsequently review the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the SPA Amendment for final approval on December 18,
2007.
PCC-07 -071
Page No.2
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-07-0l5 in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the Project would not result in
significant effects on the environment, if mitigated. Mitigation would avoid any potential
significant effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-07-015
(Attachment 2).
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-07-071, approving the Conditional Use
Permit for the hotel, based on the findings. The Conditional Use permit approval would be
subject to the conditions contained therein, and would be contingent upon the adoption by City
Council of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-07-015, approval of the SPA Amendment,
PCM-07-04, and the adoption of the ordinance amending the Eastlake II Planned Community
District Regulations.
DISCUSSION
Project Site Characteristics:
The project site is a 3.76 acre, previously graded building pad located on the south side of Fenton
Street and north of Lane Avenue within the Eastlake Business Center II (see Locator Map).
Currently the legal parcel consists of 9.6 acres, but is the subject of a parcel map proposing to be
subdivided into two parcels. The hotel would be located on the westerly 3.76 acres of the site.
The remaining 5.8 acres will accommodate a new office building, which is being processed
concurrently. Both the hotel and office building will share the driveways off of Fenton Street and
Hitachi Way.
The hotel parcel is surrounded by other commercial and industrial uses within the Eastlake
Business Center and detached condominiums across Otay Lakes Road. The site is relatively flat
along Fenton Street and has similar grade levels as the adjacent sites to the east and west.
However, to the south there is a grade difference of approximately 25-ft. b~tween Otay Lakes
Road and the project site. To the south, across Otay Lakes Road, the closest homes range from
approximately 256-ft to 333-ft away from the project site, due to the placement of the homes
along the hillside and the angled street.
Project Description:
The project consists of a 5-story 75-ft building containing 156 rooms and approximately 8,837
sq, ft. of meeting room space. The hotel facility also provides an outdoor pool/spa area, indoor
fitness center, and restaurantlbar. The hotel will be open 24 hours, seven days a week with
approximately 50 total employees with approximately 40 of those employees working at anyone
time.
PCC-07 -071
General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
Page No.3
The following table specifies the existing land uses surrounding the parcel:
PC-I Planned Community-BC-l
Business Center District
PC-I Planned Community-BC-l
Business Center District
N/A
PC-I, Planned Community-BC-l
Business Center District
PC-I, Planned Community-BC-l
Business Center District
General Plan
Zoning
Site: Limited Industrial
North: Limited Industrial
South: N/A
East: Limited Industrial
West: Limited Industrial
Proj ect Data
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Current Zoning:
Land Use Designation:
Lot Area:
PARKING REQUIRED:
Parking spaces, broken down as follows:
1 per each living unit (156 rooms) = 156
Plus I per every 25 rooms thereof = 7
Total: 163
SETBACKS/HEIGHT REQUIRED*:
Front Yard: 25 feet
Rear Yard: 10 feet**
Side Yard: 15 feet**
Height: 35 feet**
Current Land Use
Vacant
Office/Manufacturing
Otay Lakes Road
Office
Office/Manufacturing
595-711-03-00
PC-C, Planned Community
BC-4, Business Center
3.76 acres
PARKING PROPOSED:
Standard Spaces: 156
Disabled: 7
Total: 163
SETBACKS/HEIGHT PROPOSED*:
214 feet
43 feet fTom PL/80feet fTom top of slope
34/77.6 feet
75 feet
* Proposed regulations are contingent upon approval by the City Council of the SPA
Amendment, PCM-07-04, and the ordinance approving amendments to the Eastlake II
Planned Community District Regulations.
** Height limit for buildings within the BC-4 District may be increased to 76 feet with
approval of the Design Review Committee and provided that buildings taller than 35
feet comply with the following additional requirements:
A. The building setbacks adjacent to residential land uses and scenic highways shall
increase at a ratio of 1: I and shall be measured from property line (except along
Otay Lake Roads shall be measured fTom top of slope, regardless of where property
line is located).
B, Building design shall be subject to the design criteria contained in the Eastlake
Business Center II Design Guidelines.
PCC-07 -071
Page No.4
The Design Review Committee, at their discretion, may authorize minor deviations
from the building setback ratio, if the architectural composition, style and overall
concept, merits such deviation.
Analysis
Land Use
The hotel and conference room facility is designed and strategically located to provide a
convenient place to stay and conduct businesses in eastern Chula Vista. The hotel quality and
franchise service reputation fits well in the corporate office environment already established in
Eastlake. The building design is also highly compatible with the existing and future corporate
office and industrial buildings in the vicinity. In addition to providing services not currently
available in the area, the hotel facility will provide additional employment for residents of Chula
Vista and surrounding communities.
Hours of Operation
Based on operational parameters provided by the applicant (Innkeepers USA), the business hotel
operates 24 hours with 50 employees in three work shifts. The first work shift operates between
7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The second shift from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The third shift from
11 :00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. with two employees on duty. Peak customer hours occur between 6:00
p.m. to 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
Truck Deliveries
Delivery of goods are typically between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. There may be
zero to five truck deliveries per day.
Parking
The Project does meet the parking requirements per the Municipal Code as described in the
Project Data section on page 3 of this report. However, a parking study was prepared to
detennine the actual parking demand at different days of the week and different hours of the day
(see Attachment 4, Eastlake Corporate Center Parking Study). The parking study assumed a
combined total of 596 parking spaces (Office = 433; Hotel =163), approximately 120,000 sq. ft.
of professional office and 156-room hotel with 8,837 sq. ft. of conference room space. The
hotel's restaurant/bar and other hotel amenities are assumed to serve hotel guests and are not
separate and independent facilities. The site would be subdivided into two lots (westerly 3.76
acres for the hotel and easterly 5.84 acres for the professional office building) with a reciprocal
parking and access agreement.
The parking analysis takes into account the fact that the hotel and office parking demand peaks
are at different times of the day and week. It is important to note that the hotel, located within the
Eastlake Business Center, is not a tourist hotel. It would serve the needs of business travelers
visiting local companies to do business or corporate executives visiting satellite offices in Chula
Vista. It could also serve the Olympic Training Center visitors and family and friends of people
residing in eastern Chula Vista.
PCC-07 -071
Page No.5
Based on operational parameters provided by the Applicant, the hotels highest parking demand
occurs between the hours of 6:00 p.m, to 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. The conference
rooms parking demand occurs between 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (see Table 1, Parking Demand
and Supply Summary). Because the hotel caters to business professionals this activity occurs
primarily Monday through Friday.
The professional office building highest parking demand occurs between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (see Table 5, Parking Demand and Supply Summary).
The parking analysis provides four scenarios using the parking rates of three cities in the County,
including City of Chula Vista, and the Urban Land Institute (ULl) to determine the maximum
parking demand at any given time. The analysis shows that in each of the four scenarios, parking
supply exceeds the parking demand. All four scenarios conclude that with a reciprocal parking
agreement, the office/hotel complex will have more than sufficient parking at all times (see
Table 5, Parking Demand and Supply Summary).
The applicant has agreed to conduct a parking survey after the hotel has been open for six
months to determine the actual parking demand and parking availability on the site. In the event
that parking demand is higher than originally anticipated, both owners shall enter into a shared
parking agreement with the City.
Compatibility with Existing Uses:
The hotel is a compatible use within the Eastlake Business Center and to the surrounding residents.
The SPA plan anticipated this type of use within the Eastlake Business Center by requiring a
Conditional Use Permit. The hotel will provide a service that is desired by the surrounding
corporate offices. Currently there are no hotels with the Eastlake area or in any other Planned
Community. Therefore, there is a need for a hotel in eastern Chula Vista. The businesses will be
able to have their employees or clients stay in the hotel and/or hold a meeting in the conference
rooms.
To the south, across Otay Lakes Road, the closest homes range from approximately 256-ft to
333-ft away from the project site, due to the placement of the homes along the hillside and the
angled street. The homes are approximately at the same pad level as the project site. The
residents will view the side elevation of the hotel versus the entire width of the building. The
entrance to the hotel will be on the side elevation facing toward the office building. No street
access is taken along Otay Lakes Road due to the slope along Otay Lakes Road. All lights on the
building and within the parking lot area shall prevent glare onto adjacent residents per the
Municipal Code. Currently there are no hotels within the Eastlake Planned Community or within
the adjacent Planned Communities such as Rancho Del Rey, Otay Ranch, and San Miguel
Ranch. The residents will also be able to have their guest stay in the hotel.
PCC-07 -071
Page No.6
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS:
No Property within 500 feet:
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no
property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is subject to this
action.
CONCLUSION:
The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and associated
documents. Based on the preceding information in this report, the hotel use is desirable to meet
the needs of the professional businesses in the surrounding areas. The SPA plan anticipated this
type of use within the Eastlake Business Center by requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Staff
recommends the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit, PCC-07-071, to
construct and operate a hotel, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
The application fees and processing costs are paid for by the Applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Locator Map
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration
3. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-07-071
4. Eastlake Corporate Center Parking Study
5. Disclosure Statement
6. Project Plans
J:\Planning\Caroline\Discretionary Permits\ PCC-07-071 PC Staff Report,doc
Prepared by: Caroline Young, Assistant Planner, Planning Division
-
-.
:'
ATTACHMENT 1
Locator l\'lap
J
PROJECT
lOCATION -J
c..
0
-J
0 OFFICE! VACANT
c:: WAREHOUSE
LEVITON <(
I
OFFICE VACANT
EASTLAKE
. DESIGN
.
. CENTER
.
.
.
PROPOSED · PROPOSED
.
HOTEL " OFFICE
. (Seoarate
. MEDICAL
. Permit!
. CENTER
.
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: Eastlake Corporate Center, LLC MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT
ADDRESS: 2430 Fenton Street
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
No Scale PCC-07 -071
NORTH
Request: Proposal to construct a 5 story, 156 rooml suite hotel
with approximately 8,837 Sq.Ft. of meeting place, with pool and
fitness center and a 4-story office building.
Related cases: DRC.Q7-45, PCM-07-10
L:\gabriel\locators\pcc07071,cdr 10.16,07
"
ATTACHMENT 2
~Iitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
Eastlake Business Center
PROJECT LOCATION:
North side ofOtay Lakes Road, west of Hunte Pkwy.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
595-711-09,595-710-09,10,11 & 12,595-711-03
PROJECT APPLICANT:
IRE Development & Innkeepers
CASE NO.:
IS-07-015
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT:
October 17,2007
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING:
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
Prepared by: Benjamin Guerrero, Senior Planner
A. Proiect Setting
The project site consists of a 43.7 acres located on the north side of Otay Lakes Road and west of
Hunte Parkway. The project site can be described as containing three distinct areas (See Exhibit 2).
Area A contains the existing Eastlake Design District which consists of existingfumiture stores and
showrooms related to home improvement with ancillary commercial uses. Area B consists of
relatively flat vacant building pads. Area C is vacant land and is located at a higher grade (about 28
feet) than Otay Lakes Road. The project site is in an urbanized area in the eastern portion of the City
of Chula Vista (see Exhibit 3 - Aerial Map). Topography across the project site is relatively flat and
the property is devoid of vegetation. The site is surrounded by residential and commercial/industrial
development as follows:
Design District (Area "A") and Eastlake Design Center (Area "B")
North: Single Family Residences
East: Single Family Residences
South: Otay Lakes Road, Single Family Residences
West: Medical Offices & Industrial Businesses
Eastlake Corporate Center Area C:.
North: Commercial, Multi-Family residences, Single Family residences
East: Medical Office Buildings
South: Otay Lakes Road, Single-Family Residences
West: Hitachi Business
B. Proiect Description
The project consists of an amendment to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GP A) to change the land
use designation of approximately 16.7 previously developed acres at the northeast comer of Fenton Street
and Showroom Place (851-891 Showroom Place) within the Eastlake Business Center (hereafter referred
as Area "A") from Limited Industrial to Commercial Retail. The GP A amendment would allow
additional commercial retail types of uses to complement the existing tenant mix.
1
\
\- $-4
0..
Q,) C\j
-i-I ::E
=
Q,) .b
U .-
s:::
.-
rr.; u
.-
rr.; >
Q,) I
= C\j
.""", +->
rr.; en
.-
:: >
~ ~
.........
Q,) :::s
~
~ u
cod '+-<
,..-! 0
-i-I .b
rr.;
cod .-
~ u
,
'--.....'---..,
\,
I
J
/
\too 0
o m
~ .S!
"0
C
:I C
o ~
Uti)
"
''',.
"
\too 0
o m
~ .S!
"'0
C
:I C
o ~
Uti)
~';:/
/
g;_r
"~'
~'.,;'
, /
~>'
/. ,
...--,
,
II
q
I
I
I
i
't""
...
-
m
-
::c
><
w
....
o
ai
~
o
.~
s::
o
-.-\
+J
I1J
U
o
..:!
+J
U
<1J
or,
o
H
p..
~
x
w
-;;;
~
Q;
:>
Q;
c:
.,
u
'"
~
!II
.,
-'"
.!!!
u;
co
w
e
~
Q;
~
C>
c
.,
'!!
<5
u;
'"
~
CT
.,
oc
>-
-"
'"
'0
'"
'0
a:
-;;;
2
u::
'"
.Q
co
52
.:.;
C1>
~
en
.E
15
z
I
8i
--",
~
<!)
" .'
--",
. f;,c;t.."-"
~o"""
"\'11"'1'1'"
r.w~3"\S'W..L
tUSDllTI: DR -~~
/ -.\I"
, ~'I"'.
'~0~/'
/
-...,-..,J
,,~1'\-
.,.."'cJ'
~\.'/
\'I.
\
.""
...---
Z HAROlD PL
~
CJ 0
-
II.! !i
"")
0 CJ
_D:: 0
ICL. ..I
0
'" 'in
-"
--'
UJ :z
:;: 0
(I) I-
0 @
m u.
-=.."
_.__.___ _u__
^V3N\f1
[I
~
-'-.-
.-.-...----.---' -
, \..
~~'I._-
o
'"
--'
--'
W
:;:
(I)
o
m
()~
~~
*'
it
,6.
g
,'j'
~
-'
,,"
#
'"
-I
::.
_, <C
-, ~
(I)
8
<(
--'
.-
.~-{
fj>Sw-~
-{~
~/)-'t
':'J
t; .,
~
u
u.
-.8
i
~
~
'"
o
-"
.--'
I
'"
-15
,/
_/
N
~
-
m
-
:c
><
w
~
Q) 0..
-1-J ro
= ~
Q) .b
U .....
t::
(I), .-
U
(I), .-
Q) :>
= ro
.~ ......
r.r:J fJ)
= .....
:>
~ C<;:5
.-.
~ ::3
~ ...t::
U
~ '+-'
':+j 0
r.r:J .c
~ .-
~ U
8! K! s: ~
g g ~ :.:
....,....,~~
~~CD
if
~
ii
~
-.--"""
-S)
~rt~
.~"
.~....~.p "
"~
~6;'
o of... ,
~W~ '
. ~
, ",
/,
i
o
f
/ /~ 2' 5Q...
:co ;::'
.!IJ :g
ill ,':5
,g,?,c
I-~~
CD ad
g'$
cof]:E
111"
~li
.;UO <.;
:58:1:
I- l-
e:( D::
U 0
o Z
...I
....
o
'"
o
ci
'0;
~
:0
:E
x
'!d
'"
m
.~
~
'"
c
'"
()
'"
::>
!D
'"
.><
.!!!
u;
'"
w
-0
~
CD
::>
c.:>
"
'"
!D
15
u;
'"
::>
CJ"
'"
a:
>-
.c
'"
t;
'"
'0
a:
Ui
.!!!
u:::
'"
.c
'"
S2
.:.;
M
I-
-
m
-
:c
><
w
~
Q,)
~
=
Q,)
U
C\j
Q.)
~
4-1
U
(],)
........
rI1 0
rI1 ~
Q,) ~
=
."""" ..s .....
rI1 (fJ 0
~ ~!
~ 1
Q,) ::1 :a
~ ,J::: ~
~ U ~
~ '+-i ~
~ 0 ~
rI1 >.. ~
Cd .-8- ~
~ U ~
'"
~
.!!!
u;
<0
W
-0
~
(;;
:0
CJ
<=
'"
!II
'5
u;
'"
:0
CT
'"
a::
>-
.Q
J!!
"
'"
'0
a:
<Ii
~
u:
~
<0
S2
.:.;
I -
- L---.J
. '
l-
V)
~
[2
:z
~
o
4:
2
V\
uJ
::-'
4:
.J
~
5
~
...
-
m
-
::c
><
w
.....--.
U
~
Q)
< ~
............ .......
~ ~
Q) Q.)
--4-J 0..
~ ~
Q) 00
UE
Q) j
--4-J
~ .s
~ 00
o .-
>
~~
o ;j
UO
~ b
~b
~ .-
--4-JU
rI.J
~
~
,...
o
cD
N
oj
'iij
!
:0
:c
x
w
<ii
~
(j;
~
~
c:
.,
U
'"
::>
<II
.,
-"<
~
1i5
'"
w
o
~
(j;
::>
\9
c:
.,
'!!
o
1i5
.,
::>
0-
.,
a::
>-
.so
'"
U
.,
'0
Q:
'"
~
u:::
.,
.so
'"
52
.:.;
o
z:
It)
...
-
m
-
:t
><
w
~
ro
--'
~
rJ'.J
rJ'.J
Q.)
=
el"""i
rJ'.J
::
~
Q.)
~
~
~
~
rJ'.J
~
~
~
u
.-
~
ro
I-.
b/J
o
0.
o
~
I
19
CJ)
.-
>
ro
""3
...r::
u
~
o
.b
.-
u
....
~
'"
o
ci
.(ij
~.
:0
E
"
w
u;
~
~
'"
c
'"
U
<II
:;]
(IJ
'"
-'"
.!!!
1ii
'"
w
'0
~
Q;
:;]
c:J
c:
'"
(IJ
5
1ii
'"
:;]
cr
'"
a::
>-
.0
<II
U
'"
.0
c:
u;
.!!!
u:
'"
.0
'"
52
.:..;
(Q
I-
-
co
-
%:
><
W
.-...
~
~
<
rI).
~
Q)
<
""--"
~ ~
Q) Q)
.;.J . ....
=: >
Q) .......
ro
U .....
~
=: Q.)
~
bIJ
.~ ro
r.I1 -+->
rn
Q) .....
Q >
ro
.......
Q) :,:j
~ ...t::
~ U
,...-I ~ r--
.;.J 0 0
to
r.I1 .c '"
0;
~ Iii
..... ~
~ U .3
E
x
w
u;
Iii
a;
~
<D
c:
<D
U
'"
::>
m
<D
-'"
.9!
u;
<D
W
-0
~
CD
::>
C>
c
<D
m
-c
0
u;
<D
::>
cr
<D
0:::
,..
.a
'"
-0
<D
0'
a::
8~ U;
~
u:
<D
.a
<D
S2
.:J
Concurrent amendments to the Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP), Eastlake Business Center II
Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated regulatory documents are also
proposed for Area A above and parcels identified as Lot 2 of Map 13971 and Lots 5-8 of Map 14395
(herein after referred to as Area B) and 2430 Fenton Street (hereinafter referred to as Area C). The GDP
and SPA amendments consist of changing the land use designation of Area A from BC-l (Business
Center Manufacturing Park District) with Design District Overlay to a new commercial ( VC-5) land use
district; and Area Band C from BC-l (with area B currently including a Design District Overlay) to BC-
4 (Business Center Core District). Also included are certain modifications to the adopted property
development regulations in order to accommodate greater design and land use flexibility, including an
increase in building height from 35 to 60 feet up to a maximum of76 feet for Areas Band C.
The project further proposes repeal of the previously adopted Master Use Permit PCC-05-070 for Area A
and B and includes approval of conditional use permit and design review for a new hotel and office
building on Area C (see Exhibit 2).
The conditional use permit application requests permission to establish 'and operate an approximately
148,024 square foot, five-story hotel with 156 rooms and 10,000 square feet of conference rooms and
other amenities on Area C. The hotel will also provide a restaurant for its guests and a total of 163
parking spaces.
A design review application was also filed for the construction of an approximately 122,071 square foot,
four-story Class A office building providing approximately 433 parking spaces in Area C. Both the hotel
and office buildings will be served by a reciprocal access and parking agreement.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
, '
The existing zoning of the project sites is follows: Areas A, B & C: BC-1 (Business Center
Manufacturing Park District). Areas A and B also include an existing Design District Overlay. The
applicant proposes a change of zone as follows: Area A from the existing BC-1 to VC-5 Land Use
District; Area B and C from BC-1 to BC-4 (Business Center Core District); The General Plan
designation for Area A is presently Limited Industrial and it is proposed to be amended to
Commercial Retail. The project further proposes repeal of the previously adopted Master Use Permit
for Area A & B and approval of a conditional use permit and design review for a new hotel and
office building for Area C.
D. Public Comments
On July 23, 2007, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot
radius of the project site. The public comment period ended on August 2,2007. No comments were
received.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental
effe~t because mitigation measures incorporated into the project have eliminated possible significant
impacts or reduced them to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
2
AestheticsNisual Character
Area A (East lake Design District)
The Eastlake Design District Area (Area A) is fully constructed and developed at a height of 35 feet.
No increase in height is proposed for Area A. There are no pnysical changes or impacts to aesthetics
or visual character from the proposed change in land use to VC-5 and the repeal of the Design
District Overlay.
Area B (Vacant Building Pads)
Development of this Area is not proposed at this time; however, the applicant is requesting an
increase in building height from 35-feet currently permitted to 76-feet in the BC- 4 district with
increased setback requirements. The fIrm of Focus360 has provided photo simulations of a
conceptual project to illustrate the potential visual impact of future development containing buildings
with a height of76 feet at a building setback of210 feet from the north property line and 80 feet from
the easterly property line. The photo simulations were taken from six observation points. Three
observation points are located within the Rolling Hills Ranch residential development that abuts Area
B to the north and the remaining three points from Eastlake Woods West residential development,
which abuts Area B to the east. The photo simulations illustrate that a combination o~ increased
building setbacks, architectural design and less vertical building massing will avoid any adverse
visual impacts (see Appendix A). At the time when actual development is proposed, the applicant
will be required to prepare additional visual analysis in conjunction with a request for approval of
Design Review entitlements by the City of Chula Vista Design Review Commi~~e (DRC). Therefore
no immediate and direct impacts are associated with the change in land use and change in allowable
height as part of the current amendments.
The following mitigation measure would ensure that future development of Area B is subject to City
adopted land use and design criteria:
At the time when actual development is proposed for Area B, the applicant will be required to
comply with the intent and purpose of the PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines and to
prepare additional visual analysis in conjunction with a request for approval of Design Review
entitlements by the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee (DRC).
Area C (Eastlake Corporate Center)
A Visual Analysis Report was prepared by Jones and Stokes (June 2007) to analyze the Corporate
Center (Area C). This report analyzed the impact of the proposed development ITom 10 Key
Observation Points (KOP). Visual Simulations of the project were created and analyzed to determine
the aesthetics of the height and mass of the buildings upon completion of construction. While the
report did identify that the proposed development is taller than surrounding development, it
concluded that the development would be compatible with the surrounding development. Impacts to
all 10 of the KOPs were determined to be less than significant as the view shed from the KOPs were
low to moderate scenic quality based upon the proposed fifty (50) foot building setback from the
southern property line, which faces Otay Lakes Road. The City of Chula Vista General Plan
identifies Otay Lakes Road as a Scenic Roadway. No impacts to Otay Lakes Road were identified by
the report as part of the Corporate Center Project and therefore no mitigation is proposed with
respect to this roadway. Although the proposed building height exceeds that of surrounding
3
development, visibility of the proposed hotel and office building will be minimized by a combination
of greater building setbacks and reduction in vertical massing as viewed from the south.
The considerations contained in the development standards and within the Design guidelines for
Eastlake Business Center II for the BC-4lots and which are applicable to this project are:
For commercial and industrial buildings greater than 35 feet in height, the Design Review
Committee shall consider the following special design objectives in addition to those contained
in the Eastlake Business Center II Design Guidelines:
1. Ensure high quality and fully finished architecture on elevations facing adjoining
residential development and properties equal to that of the other sides of the building.
2. Provide enhanced screening via increased size and/or amount of buffer landscaping
and/or screening walls.
3. Maintain comparable access to light and air at the perimeter lot line based on a 35'
building height at the minimum setbacks.
a. Establish a height to setback ratio that achieves the negligible visible impacts of tall
buildings as exemplified in the visual simulations conducted for Areas Band C.
b. Maintain a comparable fayade area (maximum building width X base height of35
feet) for elevations facing residential developments or adjoining residential lots. This
may be accomplished by reducing the total building width as the height of the building
increases so that the total fayade area remains roughly the same. ,',
Example: 35' height X 100' width between side yard setbacks = building area of3,500
square feet. A 70' tall building would have a target width of approximately 50 feet
wide (70' X 50' = 3,500' square feel).
All future development in the BC-4 Land Use District will be required to comply with these
measures. ill addition, all development in the area must obtain approval from the City of Chula Vista
Design Review Committee. Proposed changes to allow the additional height have been evaluated for
consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed increase in
height will allow for development that is consistent with the General Plan and is well planned with
appropriate building setbacks and design criteria.
The following mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed building height increase would not
result in an adverse impact to the vario~s view sheds:
Height limit for buildings proposed for Area C may be increased up to 76 feet contingent upon
compliance with all proposed revisions to the PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines which
include a combination of increased building setback, architectural design treatment and reduction of
vertical building massing. The Design Review Committee may authorize deviations from these
requirements where otherwise consistent with the intent and purpose of the PC District Regulations
and Design Guidelines.
4
Air Quality
An air quality impact analysis was prepared by Jones & Stokes (July 2007) for the proposed project.
Following is a summary of the results and conclusions of this air quality report.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
The proposed project will result in a minor increase in air pollutants during the construction phase of
the proposed hotel and office building. Fugitive dust would be created during grading and
construction activities. Air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations are
considered short-term in duration since construction-related activities are temporary. Construction-
related emissions would originate from proposed construction activities related to Area C and would
consist of equipment exhaust, workers vehicle exhaust, dust from grading, and exposed soil eroded
by wind. Dust control measures required during construction operations would be implemented in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) and the California Air Resources Board.
Construction
Construction ErmSSlOns - Area OfPorate enter
Max. Daih Pollutant Emissions (pounds)
Construction Activity ROG NOx CO PMIO
Site Grading 4.34 31.31 33.71 24.34
Building Construction 11.37 75.62 91.31 26.00
2008 Maximum Value 11.37 75.62 91.31 26.00
Building Construction 53.91 98.34 132.19 3.70
2009 Maximum Value 53.91 98.34 132.19 3.70
Significance Criteria >75 >100 >550 >150
Significant? No No No No
Table 1
CC C
Source: California Air Resources Board-URBEMIS2002 Model
Mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate short-term construction-related air
quality impacts to below a level of significance.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Based on the Traffic Impact
Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (August 2007), the hotel and office building would
generate approximately 3,950 new daily trips. The morning peak hour traffic resulting from the hotel
and office project would be equivalent to 429 in and out driveway trips and the evening peak hour
would result in 436 in and out driveway trips being generated.
The City has traditionally used the significance emissions thresholds of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD), which is responsible for air quality in the urbanized areas of Los
Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The air quality in the SCAQMD is much
worse than the San Diego Air Basin; therefore, the SCAQMD thresholds are very conservative for
the San Diego area.
5
The estimated operational emissions for this project are shown in Table 2 below. As shown on this
table, none of the CEQA significance thresholds would be exceeded during operation of the project.
The URBEMIS model for urban emissions was used to calculate the input and output data.
Table 2
Estimated Operational Emissions - (Full Buildout Conditions -Area C Corporate Center)
- Max. Daih Pollutant Emissions (counds)
ROG NOx CO PMIO
Summer Period
Area Source Emissions .66 2.83 3.63 0.01
Vehicular Emissions 30.35 40.24 396.55 50.89
Total Emissions 31.01 43.08 400.18 50.90
Winter Period
Area Source Emissions .48 2.82 2.36 0.00
Vehicular Emissions 31.60 50.83 360.40 50.89
Total Emissions 32.08 53.65 362.76 50.90
Significance Criteria >55 >55 >550 >150
Significant? No No No No
Source: California Air Resources Board-URBEMIS2002 Model
A CO hot spot analysis was conducted to determine whether the proposed hotel and office-building
project would contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality standards for CO at any local
intersections. Three intersections having high a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes (per LLG Traffic
Impact Analysis; August 2007) were modeled for CO impacts. The table below shows the three
selected intersections. The results show that the State one-and eight-hour standards of 20 ppm and 9
ppm, respectively, would not be exceeded at any of the three intersections.
COH
M d r C
Table 3
( )
otspots o emg oncentratIons (ppm
I-hour 8-hour I-hour 8-hour
Intersection AM AM AM AM
Otay Lakes Rd/ 6.4 4.2 6.7 4.5
V ons Driveway
Otay LakesRd/ 6.3 4.2 6.9 4.6
Eastlake Rd.
Fenton St/ Harold 4.4 2.8 4.4 2.8
PI-Hitachi PI.
CAAQS Standard 20.0 9.0 20.0 9,0
Significant? No No No No
Note: Background concentrations 0[3.9 ppm and 2.48 ppm were added to the modeling I-hour and 8-hour
results, respectively. ,
Paleontological
Data compiled by the San Diego Natural History Museum, Department of Paleo Services was used to
assess paleontological resource sensitivity issues in relation to proposed project grading,
construction, operation and maintenance activities. The assessment was based both on known
paleontological sites within the project area, as well as extrapolated biostratigraphic information
derived from rock units in adjacent areas or areas of regional context which indicate the potential for
a fossil resource to occur in particular geologic unit. Even though there are no known significant
6
fossil resources found at the project site, the general vicinity has been identified as forming part of an
area considered by experts in the field of paleontology as having a "high paleontological resource
sensitivity". This rating would require a paleontological monitoring and mitigation program. This
means that an approved monitoring program would be available for implementation during grading
and excavation activities related to this project. Subsequently, if unique paleontological resources are
discovered, all significant fossil material will need to be collected, prepared, identified, and curated,
and then placed into a state-designated scientific repository. Compliance with the mitigation
measure cOIitained below in Section F would avoid significant impacts to paleontological resources.
Geology and Soils
Geotechnics INC. prepared geotechnical/soils reports (August 2007) for the proposed development of
Area C. The report, approved by the City Engineering Department, states that no adverse
geotechnical conditions were encountered which would prohibit the proposed development of project
Site C. The preparation and submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of a
grading permit as a standard engineering requirement.
Project Site "C", where development is proposed has been previously mass graded. There are no
known or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site. The project site lies about four
miles west of the La Nacion Fault Zone (an inactive fault zone). The closest recently active fault is
the Rose Canyon Fault, located about 14 miles west of the site. The site is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Therefore, project compliance with applicable Uniform
Building Code standards would adequately address any building safety/seismic concerns.
The proposed project site C Area is not located within a landslide hazard area or liquefaction hazard
area. Landslide hazard areas are areas containing active land-slide-prone terrain~ ' These are typically
areas that contain unstable sedimentary rock formations, contain slopes exceeding 25 %. Likewise,
liquefaction hazard areas are characterized by shallow ground water tables and poorly consolidated
sediments subject to hazards associated with seismically induced liquefaction. No adverse impacts
related to landslide or liquefaction is anticipated from development of Area C.
In order to prevent silt discharge during construction, the developer will required to comply with best
management practices in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit. The appropriate
standard erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with preparation of fmal
grading plans and would be monitored and implemented during construction by the Engineering
Division. Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into city drainage systems would be less
than significant.
Hvdrology
A Drainage report was prepared by K&S Engineering (September 2007) and approved by the City's
Engineering Department. The study evaluated storm runoff under existing conditions and compared
it to the existing conditions plus project conditions (50-year events). The report assessed any
potential drainage impact that could be caused, or aggravated by project development. The project
proposes to add 8.14 acres of impervious area in the form of rooftops, parking lots, access drives,
sidewalks, etc.
The "Eastlake Design District Area (project site A) is fully constructed and developed. Area B is
presently vacant and no specific development is proposed. The hotel and office building is proposed
for Area C which is presently vacant. Area C has been previously sheet graded, and gently slopes
towards an existing de silting basin located in the northwest comer of the project site. The slope
7
along the southern boundary is landscaped with trees, shrubs and grass. The onsite drainage is
proposed to be collected in curb, gutters and inlets and discharged at a low point from which it enters
a grassed bio swale, clean water filter system units, downspout and stormwater bioretention filtration
system (Filterra), located at different comers of the property. Once the runoff is treated, it will flow
via an onsite 24-inch lateral pipe towards Fenton Street to an existing 36" storm drainpipe, which has
a design capacity of Q50 with an ultimate design capacity of! 07.97 cfs.
The results- of the Drainage Report (September 2007) and Water Quality Technical Report
(September 2007) prepared by K&S Engineering were compared with the City of Chula Vista
Eastlake Business Center II Master Study. The comparison results indicate that the project run-off
flow rate, volume, velocity and duration for the post development condition will not exceed the
ultimate design condition of the existing drainage pipe system for 2, 10 or 50-year storm frequency.
The proposed development will not alter the natural drainage path or divert any drainage from the
_ current condition or drainage boundaries. Based on these calculations approved by the City of Chula
Vista Engineering Department, the project would meet City approved standards and, therefore, would
not result in any adverse impacts to public facilities or surrounding properties.
Table 5
Storm Frequency
Design Velocity
Ultimate Developed
Pipe Design Fenton
Street for 50-Year
Event Per Hunsaker
Study
107.97 CFS
23.0 FPS
Ultimate Developed
Condition Calculated
per K& S Engineering
50-Year
50-Year
26.7 CFS
, 17.67 FPS
Water Quality
A Hotel and Office building are proposed for Area C, which is presently vacant. The proposed
development will result in 8.14 acres (85%) of impervious area (roofs, parking lots, roadways,
sidewalks, etc.). As stated above, Area C has been previously sheet graded, and gently slopes towards
an existing desilting basin located in the northwest comer of the project site. The slope along the
southern boundary is landscaped with trees, shrubs and grass. The onsite drainage is proposed to be
collected in curb, gutters and inlets and discharged at a low point from which it enters a grassed bio
swale, clean water filter system units, downspout and stormwater bioretention filtration system
(Filterra), located at different comers of the property.
Construction Best Management Practices
In order to properly manage water runoff from the proposed project during the construction phase,
the project proposes to incorporate the following management facilities and best management
practices:
· Storm Drain Inlet Protection
· Stockpile Management
· Solid Waste Management
· Stabilized Construction Exit
· Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
· Erosion Control Mats and Spray-on Applications
· Gravel Bag Berms
8
---'-'
. Material Delivery and Storage
. Spill Prevention and Control
. Concrete Water Management
· Water Conservation Practices
· Paving and Grinding Operations
· Stabilization of Disturbed Areas
. Permanent Re-vegetation of Man-Made Slopes
BMPs shall be selected, constructed, and maintained so as to comply with" all applicable City of
Chula Vista Ordinances, policies and regulations and regulatory agency regulations and will be
subject to the approval and continued monitoring of the City ofChula Vista.
Post-Construction BMPs
· Limit road widths, parking lot and driveway areas spaces.
· Include as part of the project design self-treating areas such as: large landscaped areas, grass
or vegetated swales, and turf block paving areas.
· Directing roof runoff to landscaped areas before discharge to storm drains.
· Propose a Jensen Precast futerceptor and Filterra and storm water system subject to the
approval of the City ofChula Vista Engineering Department.
The applicant/developer shall be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations including the preparation and implementation of a Water
Quality Technical Report (wQTR) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The
implementation of water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described above will be
required in accordance with the NPDES General Permit and as approved by the City Engineer.
Based upon the implementation of standard engineering requirements and compliance with
requirements of the WQTR, SWPPP and BMPs, water quality impacts would reduce to a level below
significance.
Land Use Analvsis of Proposed Amendment from Light fudustrial to Commercial Retail for Area A
The existing land uses presently found within the 16.7 acres of the Design District (Area A) consist
primarily of furniture stores and wholesale/retail distribution and showroom businesses related to
home improvement merchandise. The existing land uses are not typically representative of light
industrial land uses such as warehousing, light manufacturing, and public storage with some offices.
A previous amendment to the Eastlake Business Center II SPA was approved in 2005, which created
a Design District Overlay zone that permitted the existing land uses.
In terms of actual land designated for" industrial land use, the 16.7 acres represents 7.4 percent of
industrial land within the Eastlake Planned Community. Further analysis shows that the 16.7 acres
represents less than 1.3% of the industrial lands in eastern Chula Vista and less than 1% of the
overall industrial lands within the City. Therefore, the percentage reduction of industrially
designated land is fairly small in comparison to the total amount of industrial land available in the
City.
The establishment of the Eastlake Design District allowed for an increase in the amount of land uses
oriented more towards commercial retail, which is consistent with the current request to change the
existing General Plan land use designation from Light fudu~trial to Commercial Retail. The proposed
amendment would reflect more accurately the existing representative commercial/retail uses, which
have already begun to be established within this site and would also allow an increase in
9
commercial/retail use. The proposed amendment therefore, is essentially a necessary action to bring
consistency between the General Plan and the Eastlake II Business Center SPA.
No adverse impacts as a result of the proposed general plan amendment are anticipated and therefore
no mitigation is required.
Noise
Eastlake Corporate Center Proposed Hotel and Office Building
Noise Consultant Jones & Stokes, fuc., prepared an acoustical analysis (August 2007) for the
proposed hotel and office development project. The study identified the primary noise source
generator as traffic noise from Otay Lakes Road. Additional noise sources identified by the study
were from children playing in the distance, and aircraft overflights.
The noise study also assessed potential project impacts from short-term and long-term stationary and
mobile noise sources. The sources included onsite construction activities and on-site and off-site
operations. An evaluation was made as to whether on-site operations could affect local residences or
other noise-sensitive land uses. Additionally, the effects from noise on on-site and off-site noise-
sensitive receptors as a result of future traffic volume increases were analyzed.
A noise impact generated by construction or operation activities related to the project would be
considered significant if it would result in:
· Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in
local general plans. The City's exterior noise standard for office buildings and commercial
/retail property is 70 CNEL. ,',
· A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise in the project vicinity (an increase of 5 to
10 dBA is generally considered substantial); or
· A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
(an increase of 15 dBA is generally considered substantial for this type of increase).
Construction Noise
The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are residential land uses to the south of the
project site. Construction activities could occur as near as 250 feet from existing residences and as
far as 950 feet. A construction noise level of 89 dBA Leq at 50 feet would attenuate to
approximately 75-dBA leq at a distance of 250 feet from the source. The City's noise ordinance
exempts construction activities from the noise standard (providing that such activities take place
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on
Saturdays and Sunday). This provision of the Municipal Code would ensure that surrounding
residents would not be disturbed by construction related noise during the most sensitive periods of
the day. Project construction work is anticipated to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. weekdays only. Provided that the project's construction activities are limited to the allowed
hours, the project's short-term noise impact would be less than significant.
Traffic Noise
Based on the acoustical report prepared by Jones and Stokes, potential operational noise effects
would be limited to project-related traffic. The results of the predicted traffic modeling results are
shown in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, modeled traffic noise levels in the future (Year 2009) with
project scenario would range from 58 dBA CNEL to 68 dBA CNEL.
10
On-Site (Hotel & Office Uses - Area C) Potential Impacts from Traffic Generated Noise (Otay Lakes
Road)
The proposed hotel and pool area are considered to be noise-sensitive areas and would therefore be
subject to the City's exterior noise standard of 65dBA CNEL. Based on the site design, the pool area
would be located about 220 feet away from the centerline of Otay lakes Road and would be
surrounded by a solid six foot high wall. The pool area is also located about 28 feet above the local
roadway grade, and would receive acoustical shielding by being located at the top slope. As shown
on Table 4, the exterior traffic noise level at the pool area is projected to be approximately 62 dBA
CNEL, and thus less than the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard.
The office-building project proposes to have employee break areas along the southeast and southwest
corners of the building. These areas would be located about 250 feet from the centerline of Otay
Lakes Road, and would also benefit by acoustical shielding by virtue of the difference in elevation
between the top of slope and the street grade. As shown on Table 4, the exterior traffic noise level at
the pool area is projected to be approximately 62 dBA CNEL, and thus less than the City's 65 dBA
CNEL exterior noise standard.
The portion of the proposed .hotel that would be closest to Otay Lakes Road centerline would be at a
distance of approximately 220 feet. The guest rooms of the hotel would be subject to the City's
standard of 45 dBA CNEL. As shown in Table 4, the predicted noise level at the southern side of the
proposed hotel would be 66 dBA CNEL in the future, which would exceed the city's exterior
standard. As a mitigation measure, where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNEL, the project
will be required to submit at the building permit stage an acoustical report containing attenuation
features that demonstrate that interior noise levels will be maintained at or belo~45 dBA CNEL.
Modern sound-rated construction assemblies as well as the provision of forced-air mechanical
ventilation or air conditioning systems (operated with the windows shut) typically provide
approximately 20 to 25 decibels of exterior-to-interior noise reduction. Such assemblies and
techniques include but are not limited to sound-rated windows and doors and sound-rated exterior
wall assemblies. With the implementation of the sound-rated construction materials and a central air
conditioning system, noise impacts from traffic sources would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Parking
Area A (Eastlake Design District)
The Eastlake Design District (Area A) is an existing development that is proposing an amendment to
allowable uses within the existing buildings. A Traffic and Parking Study was prepared by Linscott
Law & Greenspan (March 16, 2007) for Area A. This study assumed an increased mix of
commercial uses typical of what the proposed amendments would allow. The study concluded that
there would be adequate parking. Further, additional uses cannot be approved absent evidence of
adequate parking availability. The study included a 15% mixed-use reduction and credit based on
patrons from the same vehicle patronizing more than one business per trip.
The project proposes an amendment that would change the existing BC-l (with design district
overlay) to a new land use district category to be named Village Center 5 (VC-5) District. Area A
would be the only property within the Eastlake Business Center IT with the VC-5 Land Use District
designation. Although the current proposal is to allow the entire Area A to be converted to
11
commercial retail, this is predicated upon the project meeting the parking standards for each
individual type ofland use proposed under the VC-5 District.
The PC District Regulations have been amended to require that future changes in use within the
development that will alter parking requirements are required to demonstrate adequate parking to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. The change to the VC-5
District Planned Community District Regulations for Eastlake II will ensure that no adverse impacts
to parking will result within the existing shopping center and therefore no parking mitigation is
required.
The parking requirements for the proposed VC-5 and BC-4 Districts will also be amended to provide
a new standard for furniture stores and to allow for shared parking subject to a specific procedure for
demonstrating adequate parking. The new requirement is based on a parking analysis approved by
the City of Chula Vista that determined the appropriate number of required spaces for furniture
stores. The new standard is a refinement to the development code and will not result in adverse
impacts to the overall parking requirements.
Area B (Vacant Building Pads)
Specific development is not proposed for the Area B at this time. However, when development is
proposed, the project will be required to provide parking on-site that is consistent with the Eastlake
Business Center II Planned Community District Regulations. Therefore there are no impacts related
to parking at the Design Center associated with this amendment, and therefore no mitigation is
proposed.
Eastlake Corporate Center (Area C)
,.
A parking study was prepared by the traffic engineering firm of Linscott, Law & Greenspan
(September 2007) to determine the adequacy of proposed parking on-site. fu particular, the parking
study sought to address the parking needs for a proposed meetinglbanquet room space proposed by
the hotel land use. The City of Chula Vista does not have parking standards that specifically address
hotels with conference room space. A survey of other municipal jurisdictions was also conducted in
order to obtain clearer requirements for meetinglbanquet room place. For the purposes of
determining the parking demand, the City assumed that dedicated conference space would require
parking in addition to the City's standard requirement for hotels. The parking study determined that
adding the requirement of 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area of dedicated conference space in
a hotel would adequately address the overall hotel parking requirement.
The parking study took into account the fact that hotel, conference center and office uses peak at
different times of the day. It also noted. that the proposed hotel is a business hotel, not a tourist hotel.
The target market for the hotel is business travelers visiting local companies to conduct business or
corporate executives visiting a satellite office in Chula Vista. Business travelers and local companies
holding small conferences or meetings in a space larger than the typical office conference room will
use the conference room space. The hotel peak demand occurs from 10:00pm to 6:00am while the
office peak demand occurs at 8:00am to 5:00pm. The study demonstrates that, even assuming an
additional 88 parking spaces need to be provided for the conference rooms independent of the
standard hotel parking requirements, there is adequate parking for the hotel (with conference rooms)
and .the office building to operate independently. The owner's of the Corporate Center hotel and
office buildings will be entering into a private reciprocal parking agreement to share parking as
needed between the properties in order to take advantage of their different peak demands and the
minimum of 35 excess parking spaces that are available at any given time. This agreement will be
12
incorporated into the CC&Rs for the subject properties and recorded with the County Recorder. This
will ensure that adequate parking is being provided for conference use on evenings and weekends.
Using the most conservative and restrictive of scenarios and parking requirements, the study
demonstrated that the total peak parking demand of 561 spaces would occur at 10:00am. The
Corporate Center is proposing 596 parking spaces, which results in an excess of 35 spaces at the peak
hour over the theoretical maximum demand. Therefore the study concluded that the 596 spaces are
adequate for the proposed land uses at the Corporate Center and therefore no mitigation is required.
Furthermore, a condition of approval for the required conditional use permit for the hotel will allow
the City of Chula Vista to require a Shared Parking Agreement if the City determines that there is a
demonstrated need for more parking on one or both of the sites after the hotel is in operation.
Traffic
The traffic-consulting firm of Linscott, Law and Greenspan (LLG) performed a traffic impact
analysis for Areas A, B and C (September 2007). For Area A the traffic report analyzed a project
proposing 125,100 square feet of furniture stores, 39,350 square feet of office floor space, 39, 350
square feet of specialty retail/Strip commercial and 27,800 square feet of restaurant space for a total
of 231,566 square feet. For Area B the traffic report analyzed a high intensity land use consisting of
160,000 square feet of specialty retail/strip commercial simulating a daily worst-case scenario for the
future potential development of this site. For Area C, the traffic report analyzed a proposed 155-
room hotel with 10,000 square foot of convention/meeting rooms and a 120,000 square foot office
building.
Eastlake Design District (Areas A & B)
The Eastlake Design District is located in the northeastern quadrant of the Otay Lakes Road/Fenton
Street intersection. Otay Lakes Road, a classified Six-Lane Major, west of Pas eo del Rey, and a Six-
Lane Prime Arterial from Paseo del Rey to the SR-125 alignment, provides the east-west access to
Areas A& B. From Otay Lakes Road, the only access to the site is from Fenton Street via Showroom
Place. Showroom Place is a 40-foot wide unclassified two-lane cul-de-sac providing access to the
project site.
Area A is an existing development consisting predominantly of furniture stores. This development is
complete and most of the buildings are occupied. The traffic study prepared by LLG (August 2007)
analyzed the proposal to modify the present permitted land uses to allow for a mix of office,
restaurant and specialty retail. While the current proposal is to allow the entire Area A to be utilized
for commercial retail uses, the amount of available on-site parking will limit the actual amount and
type of commercial retail uses which may occur.
Area B i;;; presently vacant and even though no site-specific project is proposed, the traffic impact
report analyzed a worst-case scenario, which included specialty retail uses. Subsequent changes to
the applicant's proposal have resulted in Area B being proposed for BC-4 uses instead. BC-4 uses
are industrial in nature and have less daily trip generation potential then specialty retail, which were
analyzed in the traffic study. The City Engineering Department has determined that this change will
not result in any additional daily trip generation.
The existing land uses of Area A are calculated to generate a total of 1,110 ADT with 44 trips during
the AM peak hour (31 inbound and 13 outbound) and 100 trips during the PM peak hour (50 inbound
and 50 outbound). With the proposed land use change, Area A would generate a net 3,900 ADT with
13
139 trips during the AM peak hour (110 inbound and 29 outbound) and 355 trips during the PM peak
hour (189 inbound and 166 outbound).
Area B site land uses were calculated to generate a total of 5,440 ADT with 163 trips during the AM
peak hour (98 inbound and 65 outbound) and 448 trips during the PM peak hour (224 inbound and
224 outbound).
The traffic study calculated the traffic for Areas A & B to be a net of 9,340 ADT with 302 trips
during the AM peak hour (208 inbound and 94 outbound) and 803 trips d~ng the PM peak hour
(413 inbound and 390 outbound), with the pass by reduction.
Short-Term Impacts (Year 0 to 4)
_ Based on the traffic impact study results, in the near term with the project, all intersections are
calculated to operate at Level of Service D (LOS) D or better except the Otay Lakes RdIV ons
Driveway intersection, which is calculated to continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour.
The impact at this intersection is considered to be cumulative in nature. Since this is a cumulative
impact, the following recommended traffic mitigation is tied to development of Area C and would
result in this intersection operating at an acceptable LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D
during the PM peak hour:
. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area C the Applicant/Developer shall
pay the required amount of Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) as confirmed
by the City of Chula Vista City Engineer to cover its share of the cost of improvements at the
intersection of Otay Lakes RdlVons Driveway, as described in the Project's Traffic Impact
Analysis (September 2007).
In the near-term with development of Area A, all segments are calculated to operate at a LOS C or
better. The segment of Eastlake Parkway between Fenton Street and Otay Lakes Road is calculated
to operate at an LOS D.
Long-Term Impacts (Horizon Year 2030)
Based on the traffic study, all intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better in the Year
2030, except the following:
. Otay Lakes RoadIV ons Driveway (LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the
PM peak hour) - Cumulative Impact (without mitigation)
. Fenton Street/Showroom Place (LOS F during the PM hour) - Direct Impact
ill addition to the above-mentioned mitigation measure for Area A and Area B, the following
mitigation will be required to address a long term direct project impact. Once this mitigation is
implemented the intersection of Fenton Street/Showroom Place is projected to operate at an
acceptable LOS B:
. The Applicant/Developer shall be required to enter into an agreement to design, construct,
and secure a fully actuated traffic signal including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal
heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries prior
to completing development of Area B at the intersection of Showroom Place and Fenton
Street or as determined and approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer shall
bond for the signal improvement prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area B.
14
The bond shall be in an amount equal to 200% of the engineer's estimate for development of
Area B. If signal plans are submitted prior to the first building permit for Area B with an
approved engineer's cost estimate, then the bond may be reduced to as low as 100% of the
estimated cost. The Applicant/Developer shall also provide one shared through/right-turn
lane and one left-turn lane on southbound (outbound) Showroom Place. The
Applicant/Developer shall also provide one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane on
northbound Fenton Street with right-turn overlap phasing.
Hotel and Office Buildings (Area C)
To identify potential traffic impacts associated with the development of the project, a Traffic Impact
Analysis was prepared by the traffic engineering firm of Linscott, Law & Greenspan (September
2007). The traffic study projected that the proposed hotel and office building will generate an
estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 3,950 driveway trips, with 429 trips occurring in the
AM peak hour (358 inbound and 71 outbound) and 436 trips occurring in the PM Peak hour (136
inbound and 300 outbound).
The proposed project will take access from an existing driveway on Fenton Street (see project site
plan Exhibit B). The City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan classifies Fenton Street as Class I
Collector. Otay Lakes Road will provide the east-west access to the site. Otay Lakes Road is
classified as a Six-Lane Major west of Paseo del Rey, and as a Six-Lane Prime Arterial from Paseo
del Rey to the SR 125 alignment.
Short-Term Impacts (Year 0 to 4)
Based on the traffic impact study results, in the near term with the projec(all intersections are
calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the Otay Lakes RdIV ons Driveway intersection,
which is calculated to continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The impact at this
intersection is considered to be cumulative in nature. The following recommended traffic mitigation
would result in this intersection operating at a LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during
the PM peak hour:
. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area C the Applicant/Developer shall
pay the required amount of Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) as confirmed
by the City of Chula Vista City Engineer to cover its share of the cost of improvements at the
intersection of Otay Lakes Rd/Vons Driveway, as described in ~e Project's Traffic Impact
Analysis (September 2007).
Long-Term Impacts (Horizon Year 2030)
Based on the traffic study, all intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better in the Year
2030, except the following:
. Otay Lakes Road/V ons Driveway (LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the
PM peak hour)
The mitigation measure proposed to address short term impacts for development of Area A & B
abo've will consequently adequately address the same identified long-term impact to this intersection.
15
Conclusion
The identified traffic impacts for Areas A, Band C have been adequately analyzed by the traffic
engineering firm of Linscott, Law & Greenspan and said analysis has been reviewed and approved by
the traffic engineering section of the City of Chula Vista. The implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures for the identified short term, long term, cumulative and direct traffic impacts
will result in acceptable levels of operation of these intersections.
Sewers
Sewer flows from the proposed project have been identified in the sewer capacity studies (August
2007) prepared by K&S Engineering for the existing Eastlake Design District (Area A) and for the
multi-story hotel and office building proposed for Area C. Any proposed change in land use
development of Area B would be subject to further sewer analysis as determined by the City
Engineer. The sewer study for the Design District (Area A) analyzed the existing development and
two proposed restaurants for the project site. The sewer study for Area C analyzed the proposed
flows of the hotel and office building. No further sewer analysis was performed either for Area B or
for additional restaurants that may be proposed for Area A. Based on the off-site sewer analysis for
Area A and C, the proposed projects as described above would not significantly impact the existing
off site downstream wastewater facilities and would not trigger additional sewer improvements.
However, additional sewer analysis would need to be performed by the applicant/developer, if there
is any change in land uses associated with the future development of Area B.
No adverse impacts to City sewer capacities or facilities are noted, therefore no mitigation is
required.
\".
E. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
AestheticsNisual Quality
1. Height limit for buildings proposed for Area C may be increased up to 76 feet contingent upon
compliance with all proposed revisions to the PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines
which include a combination of increased building setback, architectural design treatment and
reduction of vertical building massing, The Design Review Committee may authorize deviations
from these requirements where otherwise consistent wit,h the intent and purpose of the PC
District Regulations and Design Guidelines. .
2. At the time when actual development is proposed for Area B, the applicant will be required to
comply with the intent and purpose of the PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines and
prepare additional visual analysis in conjunction with a request for approval of Design Review
entitlements by the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee (DRC).
Air Quality
3. The following aIr quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during grading and
construction:
a) Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units
b) Use aqueous diesel fuel and lean NOx catalysts for all heavy diesel engine construction
equipment
c) Use electrical construction equipment as practical
d) Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment
16
e) Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust
f) Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust
g) Use electricity from power poles as opposed to mobile power generators
h) Pave last 100 feet of internal travel path prior to exiting onto a public street
i) fustall wheel washers by a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads
j) Remove any soil/dirt from public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence
k) Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph.
The air quality mitigation measures shall be shown on all applicable grading, and building plans and
details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in advance
in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator.
Paleontological
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Area C, the applicant/developer shall have a
paleontological monitoring program approved by the Environmental Review Coordinator. Said
monitoring program shall be implemented during grading, excavation, and utility trenching
activities in order to mitigate potential impacts to any undiscovered nonrenewable
paleontological resources (i.e. fossils).
Hvdrology and Water Quality
5. fu order to reduce potential water quality impacts, the applicant/developer shall be required to
comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations
including the preparation and implementation of a Water Quality Technical ~eport (WQTR) and
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The WQTR shall be prepared pursuant to
the provisions of the City ofChula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water
. Management Standards Manual. The SWPPP shall be prepared pursuant to the provisions of the
NPDES General Construction Permit. The applicant/developer shall also implement water
quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) as approved by the City Engineer.
6, All runoff from the project area shall be directed to, and pre-treated by, a Treatment Control
BMP before discharge to public storm drainage systems. The design of high efficiency BMP's
such as vegetated swales shall be in accordance with criteria established by the California
Stormwater Quality Association in the California Stormwater BMP Handbook (BMP#TC-30).
7. Prior to commencement of grading, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be
installed. Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment
from entering the storm drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and
improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review
Coordinator.
Noise
8, Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related construction
activities shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m, and 7:00 a.m. Monday through
Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays.
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit a noise report
supported by data identifying specific noise attenuation features to be included in the project
design, to the City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Coordinator and the City Building
17
Official demonstrating that noise levels will be less than 45 dBA for those hotel guest rooms
facing south towards Otay Lakes Road, -
Traffic
10, Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area C, the Applicant/Developer shall pay
the required amount of Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) as confirmed by the
City of -Chula Vista City Engineer to cover its share of the cost of improvements at the
intersection of Otay Lakes Road/Vons Driveway, as described in the Project's Traffic Impact
Analysis (September 2007),
11. The Applicant/Developer shall be required to enter into an agreement to design, construct, and
secure a fully actuated traffic signal including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads and
associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries prior to completing
development of Area B at the intersection of Showroom Place and Fenton Street or as determined
and approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer shall bond for the signal
improvement prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Area B. The bond shall be in
an amount equal to 200% of the engineer's estimate for development of Area B. If signal plans
are submitted prior to the first building permit for Area B with an approved engineer's cost
estimate, then the bond may be reduced to as low as 100% of the estimated cost. The
Applicant/Developer shall also provide one shared through/right-turn lane and one left-turn lane
on southbound (outbound) Showroom Place. The Applicant/Developer shall also provide one
left-turn lane and one right-turn lane on northbound Fenton Street with right-turn overlap
phasing.
E. Consultation
"
1, illdividuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Jeff Steichen, Planning and Building
Steve Power, Planning and Building
Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building
Jim Newton, Engineering
Luis Pelayo, Engineering
Sandra Hernandez, Engineering
Tom Adler, Engineering .
Khosro Aminpour, Engineering
David Kaplan, Engineering
Richard Preuss, Police Department.
Sam Escalante, Fire Department
Dan Wery, Project Planner, RBF
Applicant/Property Owner: IRE Development
Agent: Michael A. V ogt, President
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan, (December 2005)
18
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Air Quality Impact Analysis, Jones & Stokes, July 2007
Visual Analysis Report for Eastlake Corporate Center, Jones & Stokes, July 2007
Sewer Capacity Study, Eastlake Corporate Center, K&S Engineering, August 2007
Sewer Capacity Study, Eastlake Design District, K&S Engineering, August 2007
Water Quality Technical Report, Eastlake Corporate Center, K&S Engineering, August 2007
Drainage Report, Eastlake Corporate Center, K&S Engineering, August 2007
Geotechnical Soils Rpt, Vol. I & II, Eastlake Corporate Center, Geotechnics Inc., August 2007
Noise Analysis, Eastlake Corporate Center, Jones & Stokes, August 2007
Noise Analysis, Eastlake Design Center, Jones & Stokes, August 2007
Parking Study, Eastlake Corporate Center, LLG, August 2007
Parking Study, Eastlake Design District. LLG, Au~007
Traffic Impact Analysis, Eastlake Corporate Center, LLG, August 2007
"
Traffic Impact Analysis, Eastlake Design Center, LLG, August 2007
Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached illitial Study, and any comments
received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment
of the City of chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this
project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Date:
Benjamin Guerrero, Senior Planner
1 :\Planning\BenG\EastlakeBusinessCenter _ MND.doc
19
~!~
~
~~
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CItY OF
CHUlA VISTA
1. Name of Proponent:
Michael A. Vogt
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ayenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
~. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent:
Eastlake Corporate Center LLC
821 Kuhn Driye, Suite 100
Chula Vista, CA 91914
(619) 591-2424
4. Name of Proposal:
Eastlake Business Center
5. Date of Checklist:
October 11, 2007
6. Case No.
1S-07 -015
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 . 0
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 0 0 0 .
but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic hi~way?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 . 0 0
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Crea~e new source of substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day/night views in the area?
o
o
.
o
1
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project sites are located in a developed area containing a mix of commercial, residential and industrial uses.
Immediately surrounding the project site are office buildings, industrial buildings, retail, residential, and roadways. The
projects will alter existing views, however there are no designated scenic vistas on or near the project sites. Therefore, no
impact to a scenic vista would occur as a result of this project.
b) The site was previously graded as part of a mass grading effort for the entire Business Center II. There are no scenic
resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or designated historic buildings on the project site or within the immediate
-project area. The Corporate Center (Area C) project is located along Otay Lakes Road, which is designated as a Scenic
Roadway by the City of Chula Vista. Scenic Roadways in the City of Chula Vista have unique roadway characteristics,
such as enhanced landscaping adjoining natural slopes and special design features that make traveling a pleasant visual
experience. The proposed project will not impact the existing slope planting or improvements along Otay Lakes Road and
therefore no impacts to the Scenic Roadway will occur. There are no State scenic highways in the project vicinity.
Therefore, there are no impacts related to this issue, and no mitigation is required.
c) The proposed project would improve the existing visual character and quality of the sites, which are currently vacant.
The Corporate Center (Area C) is envisioned as a well-designed and attractive urban development, consisting of a hotel
and office building. The Design Center will be required to have further environmental review under CEQA when site-
specific development is proposed.
The Design Center (Area 'B) project will not degrade the existing visual character oi' quality of the site and its
surroundings. Although the project will change the visual character of the site, it would not be considered degrading
given the use of the existing site. Mitigation measures include the review of the projects by the City of Chula Vista's
Design Review Board, observation of the special design objectives of the Design Guidelines for Eastlake Business Center
II Supplemental SPA and the City of Chula Vista Design Manual. Less than significant impacts to the visual character or
quality of the site and surroundings would result from the implementation oftbis project with the mitigation measures.
d.) Proper architectural design would ensure compliance with Section 19,66,100 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, Exterior lighting would not be directed upward and would be designed and installed
with appropriate shielding if necessary, to ensure that light does not spill horizontally beyond the
limits of the development area onto adjacent roadways, and surrounding residential uses,
Miti!!ation: Mitigation Required. See Section F of the MND.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
o
o
o
.
2
Issues:
c) illvolve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
No Impact
.
a-c) The project site is presently located in a fully urban setting. The graded project site is neither in current
.agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural
~sources or designated farmland areas.
Mitil!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
Ill. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result m a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project regIon IS non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
3
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
.
.
o
o
o
o
Issues:
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Comments:
a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorpora ted Impact
0 0 0 .
Mith!ation: Mitigation measures are required. See MND, Section F.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, - on any specIes
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
speCIes ill local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc,) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other' means?
d) illterfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corrid<:>rs, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? .
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
4
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
:' '."
o
o
o
o
.
.
.
.
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a) The project site is located in a fully urbanized developed area. Based upon a site visit conducted on July 20, 2007
by City staff no candidate, sensitive, or special status species are present within or immediately adjacent to the
proposed development area A.
b) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are
present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project site. Project sites B & C have been mass graded
and site B is fully developed with wholesale/commercial businesses, ,'.,
, ,
c) No wetlands are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area.
d) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan no native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or native
wildlife nursery sites exist within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area.
e) No impacts to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance would result :tTom the proposed project development.
f) No impacts to local, regional or state habitat conservation plans would result since the project site is a designated
development area pursuant to the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Miti!!ation: Mitigation measures are not required.
v. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the. project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in State cEQA
Guidelines g 15064.5?
o
o
.
o
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to State cEQA
o
o
o
.
5
Issues:
Guidelines 9 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries.
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
No Impact
o
.
a) There are no buildings of historic value proposed for removal project sites B & C are presently vacant of
all structures.
b) Project site A is fully developed and project sites B & C have been mass graded. Based on this grading
no cultural resources were identified within the project area, and no previously recorded sites are
located within the project boundaries. Therefore, no cultural resources will be impacted by the
proposed construction, and no further archaeological investigations are recommended for this project.
c) The project area and surrounding area is considered to be paleontological sensitive pursuant to the San
Diego Natural History Museum records. "
Mitigation: Mitigation is required. See Section F of the MND.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
1.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State GeoJogist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
11.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
111.
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
6
o
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
IV.
Landslides?
.
o
o
o
b)
Result in substantial soil erosIOn or the loss of
topsoil?
o
o
o
.
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
o
o
o
.
d)
Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial
risks to life or property?
o
o
.
o
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic t:anks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
o
o
o
.
-. '...1
Comments:
a-e) Project site "COO, where development is proposed has been previously mass graded. There are no known or
suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site. The project site lies about four miles west of the
La Nacion Fault Zone (an inactive fault zone). The closest recently active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault,
located about 14 miles west of the site. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone. Therefore, project compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code standards would adequately
address any building safety/seismic concerns.
Geotechnics INC. prepared a Geotechnical/Soils report on August 2007. The report, approved by the City
Engineering Department, states that no adverse geotechnical conditions were encountered which would
prohibit the proposed development of project site C. The preparation and submittal of a final soils report
will be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit as a standard engineering requirement.
ill order to prevent silt discharge during construction, the developer will required to comply with best
management practices in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit. The appropriate
standard erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with preparation of final grading plans
and would be monitored and implemented during construction by the Engineering Division. Therefore, the
potential for the discharge of silt into city drainage systems would be less than significant.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures are required. See Section F of the MND.
7
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
o
o
o
.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 0 .
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 0 0 0 .
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter IJ?ile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 0 0 0 .
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 0 0 0 .
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the proje~t area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 0 0 0 .
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere 0 0 0 .
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
8
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Signific:nit
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a:.d) Project Site A is a fully developed wholesale business center. Project Site C has been mass graded and the
project proposal does not involve the handling or emissions of hazardous materials.
e- f) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.
g) The project as proposed and based on its location would not interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan. No impacts are noted.
h) The project site is not adjacent to a wildlands area. No impacts related to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires are noted.
Mitieation: Mitigation measures are not required.
.,
VITI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving 0 . 0 0
waters (including impaired water bodies pursuant to
the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list), result in
significant alteration of receiving water quality during
or following construction, or violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements?
a) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 0 0 0 .
substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer'yolume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g" the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse
impact on groundwater quality?
b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 0 . 0
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
9
Issues:
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-. or off-site, or place
_ structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
d) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed
the capacity of exi~g or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
"
Comments:
a) The proposed grading and development of vacant site C would result in changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. There is a potential for an increase in pollutant
discharges. However, standard BMP requirements will reduce any potential impacts to water bodies to less
than significant.
b) The project would not result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge.
c) The proposed grading and development of vacant site C would result in changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff but would n9t result in adverse impacts to
streams or rivers that would result in substantial erosion or siltation.
d) The proposed grading and development of vacant site C would result in changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff but would not result in adverse impacts to
streams or rivers that would result in substantial flooding or place structures in a flood zone.
e) The proposal would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss or injury or death involving
flooding.
f) The proposed grading and development of vacant site C would result in changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff but would not exceed the capacity of existing
stormwater drainage facilities,
Miti1!ation: Mitigation measures are required. See Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
10
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Wauld the
proj ect:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 .
b)-Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
o
o
.
o
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a. The project site is within an established industrial/residential community. The proposal would not result in a
community being physically divided.
b. The General Plan designates the project sites A, B & C as Business Center Manufacturing Park District. The
project proposes a General Plan amendment from Limited illdustrial to Commercial Retail for Area A only.
Development on Area C will be subject t? approval ofa Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and design review.
c. The project would not conflict with the adopted City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan,
Miti2:ation: No mitigation measures are required.
x. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
o
o
o
.
11
Issues:
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
No Impact
.
a-b) The proposal would not result in any loss of any known mineral on-site. Pursuant to the Environmental
Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the State of California Department of Conservation
has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic. increase m
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles'. of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
12
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
o
.
o
"
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact .
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels.
f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not
expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Miti2:ation: Mitigation measures are required. See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F:':;-
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of road or other infrastructure)?
o
o
o
.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacemept housing
elsewhere?
o
o
o
.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
o
o
o
.
13
Issues:
Potentially
Signifi.cant
Impact
Less Than
Significan~
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a-c) The proposal would not induce population growth or displace housing stock or people.
Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIll. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a)- Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any public services:
Fire protection? 0 0 ....... . 0
Police protection? 0 0 . 0
Schools? 0 0 0 .
Parks? 0 0 0 .
Other public facilities? 0 0 0 .
14
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact'
No Impact
Comments:
a) According to The Fire Department, the proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for
new or altered fire protection services. The CVFD currently meets the City's threshold standard in the vicinity of
the project A fire station (#8) is located less than a mile fi:om the project area. The payment or credit of fees will
adequately mitigate potential cost impacts associated with the project.
b) According to the Police Department, the proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for
- .substantial new or altered police protection services. The CVPD currently meets the City's threshold criteria for
Priority I Calls for Service (cFS). The payment of fees will adequately mitigate potential cost impacts associated
with the project.
c) The proposed project is not residential in nature and as such would not induce population growth.
d) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not create a demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or impact existing park facilities,
e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in 'a need for new or expanded
governmental services and could continue to be served by existing public infrastructure.
Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required.
"
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
o
o
o
.
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which have an adverse physica.l effect on the
environment?
o
o
o
.
15
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Because the .proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not create a demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or facilities nor impact existing neighborhood parks 9r recreational facilities.
b) The project does not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Mitie:ation: No mitigation measures are required.
xv. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the
project
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the nmnber of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e,g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e,g., farm equipment}?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
16
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
o
o
o
o
o
. ....
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
.
.
.
o
Issues:
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e,g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Miti2ation: Mitigation measures are required. See Section F of the MND.
XVI. UTll..ITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and res~urces, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has ~dequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
17
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With'
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
......
.
.
o
.
No Impact
.
.
o
o
.
o
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significan~
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
o
o
.
o
g} Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
- regulations related to solid waste?
o
o
.
o
Comments:
a) The project is located within an urban setting presently served by all utilities and service systems and would
not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Therefore, no adverse impacts to
wastewater treatment facilities would occur as a result of the proposed project for Area C.
b) The proposal would not require new construction nor expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Development of the project will not impact existing water or wastewater treatment facilities.
c) No construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be necessary
as a result of the proposed project. The project is required to implement Best Management Practices to
prevent pollution of storm drainage systems and comply with the City Storm Water Management
Requirements therefore; environmental impacts would be less than significant.
d) The project site is within the Otay Water District service territory. The Water District has provided a letter
stating that they have the capacity to serve the proposed project.
e) The City ofChula Vista has sufficient wastewater capacity to serve this project. No impacts are noted.
f) The project will be served by a local landfill that has adequate capacity.
g) The proposed project will comply with all state and local solid waste requirements. No impacts are noted.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVll. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Standards?
A. Library
o
o
o
.
The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF)
of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF
total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The
construction of said facilities shall be phased such that
the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500
GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be
adequately equipped and staffed,
18
Less Than
Potentially Significan.t Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
B) Police 0 0 . 0
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One"
emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an
average response time to all "Priority One" emergency
calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
b 1 Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls
witlUn seven (7) minutes and maintain an average
response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes or
less.
C) Fire and Emergency Medical
o
o
.
o
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and
medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City
witlUn 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually).
D) Traffic
o
.
o
o
"
, '."
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the
exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during
the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections.
Signalized intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a
LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS
"E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
illtersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted
from this Standard.
E) Parks and Recreation Areas
o
o
o
.
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres
of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate
facilities/l,OOO population east ofI-805.
F) Drainage
o
.
o
o
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. illdividual
projects ~ll provide necessary improvements consistent with
the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards.
19
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
. Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
G) Sewer 0 0 . 0
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual
projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with
Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards.
If} Water 0 0 0 .
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula
Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
"'
, ...~
20
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
SignificaQt
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project would not induce population growth; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would result. No
adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of~e proposed project.
b) No adverse impact to the City's Police threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Police Department states that they can continue to provide service at current levels
c} According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be
- provided to the site. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the project, the
project will contnDute to the incremental increase in fire service demand throughout the City. This increased
demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact. No adverse impact to the City's Fire
threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project
d) The SUlTOlmding street segments and intersections continue to operate in compliance with the City's Traffic
Threshold Standards at acceptable LOS levels with the exception of the intersections of Otay Lakes RoadIV ons
Driveway and Showroom PlacelFenton Street, which operate at an LOS "F~-during PM peak hours with or
without the project. The intersection impacts to Otay Lakes Road/V ons Driveway are considered to be
cumulative. The traffic impacts to Showroom PlacelFention Street are considered to be direct fu order to reduce
the cumulative and dire~t impacts, mitigation is required. See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
"
...,....1
e) The project does not propose residential development; therefore, this Threshold Stanruri-d is not applicable.
f) The applicant proposes new drainage facilities on the project site in order to properly convey stormwater from the
developed site to existing city drainage facilities. No adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or
City's Drainage Threshold standards will occur as result of the proposed project.
g) Based on the Sewer study prepared by K&S Engineering on August 2007, the Engineering Division has
determined that the existing sewer facilities are adequate to serve proposed project development on Area C and
existing and proposed development on Area A only. No new sewer facilities are anticipated to be required and no
adverse impacts to the City's Sewer Threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project
h) Pursuant to correspondence received from the Otay Water District, the District has the terminal long-term water
storage capacity to serve the proposed project. Otay Water District indicates that water service can be provided at
the required pressures once the owner makes all necessary district deposits to cover engineering and inspection
costs. The existing domestic water services and fire service that currently service the project site are adequate and
will not need to be altered. Project impacts to the District's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would
be less than significant.
Mitigation: Mitigation Required (Drainage) See Section E & F of the MND.
21
Issues:
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
- community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects. of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection ~th the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current project, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
o
.
o
o
"
..,
o
.
o
o
a) The project site presently consists principally of graded land and developed commercial land uses. The
project site is located within an established urbanized community. The site lies within the designated
development area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. There are no sensitive plant or animal
species or cultural resources on the site.
b) As described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, significant direct and cumulative project impacts would
be mitigated to below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures
c) The project does not propose or have environmental effects, which will forseeably cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly,
22
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to A yoid Significant
Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negatiye
Declaration IS-07 -015.
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Qperator stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
c_ontained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with
the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in
abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Qperator shall apply for an Environmental Impact
Report.
Eastlake Corporate Center, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: IRE Enterprises, Inc.,
a California Corporation, managing member
23
/O-I/-cJ7.
Date
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL F ACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated
by the checklist on the previous pages.
. Land Use and Planning
o Population and Housing
o Geophysical
o Agricultural Resources
_. HydrologyfWater
. Transportation/Traffic
o Biological Resources
o Energy and Mineral Resources
o Public Services
o Utilities and Service Systems
. Aesthetics
o Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
o Cultural Resources
. Air Quality
. Paleontological
Resources
. Noise
o Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the propo~ed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, 0
and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. :~;,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the .
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
I fmd that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and 0
an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially 0
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descnoed on
attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Benjamin Guerrero
Senior Planner
City of Chula Vista
Date
24
APPENDIX '~A"
Photo simulation for Design District Area B
"
"
Existing Condition
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chula Vista, California
Conceptual Development
"'7'
rOCUS3GU
.. ~"., -.,
r ~...... ~ ~, ,. . ~.'
,\ Existing Condidon
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chula Vista, California
Conceptual Development
~
fUCU5360
.r>", ~. ,'. . ,
..
"
Existing Condition
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chula Vista, California
Conceptual Development
--;;-
fOCUSHO
, ,,~ ,..,...,
, ........ ~ -., . , , -".
;::, Existing Condition
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chula Vista, California
Conceptual Development
7-
rOCUSJ6U
( ~...... ~. '.. .
Existing Condition
..
,.
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chula Vista, California
Conceptual Development
"7'
fOCUS36U
, ~.. .... ~". . ... .
, , Existing Condition
IRE DEVELOPMENT
Eastlake Design District
Chula Vista, California
Conceptual Development
'7'
fOCUSJ60
, "...... ~ ~ .. . "4. .
"
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Resolution, PCC-07-071
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-07-071
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VIST A PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PCC-07-071 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A HOTEL AT 2430
FENTON STREET IN THE EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER.
APPLICANT: INNKEEPERS, USA.
WHEREAS, on May I, 2007, a duly yerified application for a Conditional Use Permit
was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department by Innkeepers, USA
("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, the application requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow
construction and operation of a hotel ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is an existing
vacant parcel located at 2430 Fenton Street within the Eastlake Business Center ("Project Site");
and
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project
for compliance with the California Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study,
IS-07 -015 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results
of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the Project
would not result in significant effects on the environment, if mitigated. Mitigation would avoid
any potential significant effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur;
therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, IS-07-015 and on November 5, 2007, the Resource Conservation Commission
determined that Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed design was adequate and
recommended its adoption; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Building set the time and place for a hearing on
the Conditional Use Permit application, and notice of the hearing, together with it purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to
property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least
10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely November
28, 2007 at 6:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and the hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence and testimony presented at the public
hearing with respect to the Project, the Planning Commission voted to approve the
Project.
Page 2
November 28, 2007
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Chula Vista that it finds that, in the exercise of its independent judgment, as set forth in the
record of this proceeding, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (IS-07-015), which is on file in the Planning and Building Department has
been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and that the
Project's environmental impacts will be mitigated by adopting of the Mitigation Measures
described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to
ensure that during Project implementation, the Owner and/or Applicant and any other
responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the Mitigation
Monitoring Program,
BE IT FURTHRE RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista
that it makes the following findings:
That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
A hotel at this location is necessary and highly desirable to provide lodging and meeting
facilities for businesses and corporate employees visiting the Eastlake Business Center.
Currently there are no hotels within the Eastlake Planned Community or within the
adjacent Planned Communities such as Rancho Del Rey, Otay Ranch, and San Miguel
Ranch. The nearest hotels are located adjacent to the 805 Freeway and in several
locations on the eastern side of Chula Vista. The hotel will have several meeting rooms
for the surrounding business, as well outdoor pool/spa, indoor restaurant, bar, and an
exercise room for the hotel guest. The hotel and meeting rooms will encourage business
growth by allowing business travelers or clients to stay at a hotel conveniently located
near professional and corporate offices,
That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in
the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The hotel and conference facility, architectural design quality and hotel franchise service
reputation would complement the existing Eastlake employment center and eastern Chula
Vista as a whole. In addition, the hotel facility will provide additional employment for
residents of Chula Vista and surrounding communities, The Project's environmental
impacts will be mitigated by adopting of the Mitigation Measures described in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is
designed to ensure that during Project implementation, the Owner and/or Applicant and
any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the
Mitigation Monitoring Program. Thus, approval of this conditional use permit will not be
Page 3
November 28, 2007
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing and working in
the vicinity.
That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
With the exception of the maximum building height regulation, the hotel, as conditioned,
will comply with the current Eastlake II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, Planned
Community District Regulations, Design Guidelines and other associated regulatory
documents. Approval of the conditional use pennit is contingent upon City Council
approval of the proposed Planned Community District Regulations and the Ordinance
approving the change entering into effect. The proposed Planned Community District
Regulations will change the maximum building height from 35 ft to 76 ft, setbacks, etc.
That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City, or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The establishment and operation of a hotel at this location is consistent with the General
Plan and the Eastlake Planned Community General Development Plan, Sectional
Planning Area Plan, which will be revised through the SPA Amendment, and other
associated regulatory documents.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BASED ON THE
FINDINGS ABOVE, approves the Conditional Use Pennit subject to the following conditions:
1. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City, prior to issuance of
building pennits, unless otherwise specified:
Planning
1. Applicant shall develop and maintain the Project Site in accordance with the
approved plans, which include site plans, floor plan, and elevation plan on file in the
Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Title 19,
2, Prior to, or in conjunction with the issuance of the first building pennit, pay all
applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit
account DQ-1447,
3. Approval of this Conditional Use Pennit is contingent upon City Council approval of
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Amendment, PCM-07-04, the ordinance amending
the Planned Community District regulations, and City Council adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-07-015),
Page 4
November 28, 2007
4. Applicant shall implement, to the satisfaction of both the Planning and Building
Department and the City Engineering Department, the mitigation measures identified
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-07-015) and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
5, The Applicant shall submit a fully executed copy of a reciprocal access and parking
agreement between the two owners for the joint use of both driveways and parking
spaces on each lot. The terms of the reciprocal access and parking agreement shall be
acceptable to the City.
6, Applicant shall conduct a parking survey after the hotel has been open for six months
to detennine the actual parking demand and parking availability on the site. In the
event that parking demand is higher than originally anticipated, both owners shall
enter into a shared parking agreement with the City.
7, Applicant shall ensure that the Project Site shall comply with the City's Municipal
Code Perfonnance standards. If on review the City finds that the Project Site does not
meet the Municipal Code Perfonnance standards, the City may revoke or modify the
Conditional Use Pennit.
Engineering Department
8. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements ofthe Engineering Department.
Fire Department
9. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Fire Department.
II. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the Project Site as long as it relies on
this approval:
10. The Applicant shall install all landscaping and hardscape improvements III
accordance with the approved landscape plan.
II, The conditions of approval for this Conditional Use Pennit shall be applied to the
subject property until such time approval is revoked, and the existence of this
approval with conditions shall be recorded with the title of the property,
12, Approval of the Conditional Use Pennit shall not waive compliance with all sections
of Title 19 of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable laws and regulations in
effect at the time of building pennit issuance,
13. This Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted
conditions imposed after approval of this Permit to advance a legitimate
governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose
Page 5
November 28,2007
after advance written notice to the Applicant and after the City has given to the
Applicant the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising
this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive the
Applicant of a substantial revenue source which the Applicant, in the nonnal
operation of the use pennitted, be expected to economically recover.
14, The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, defend
and hold hannless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands,
claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities)
incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and
issuance of this Conditional Use Pennit and (b) City's approval or issuance of any
other pennit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with
the use contemplated on the Project Site, The Property Owner and Applicant shall
acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this
Conditional Use Pennit where indicated below, The Property Owner's and
Applicant's compliance with this provision shall be binding on any and all of the
Property Owner's and Applicant's successors and assigns.
This Conditional Use Pennit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one
year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal
Code, Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this pennit to be
reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation,
III. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines
provided below, indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read,
understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same, Upon
execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San
Diego, at the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped
copy returned to the City's Planning and Building Department. Failure to return the signed
and stamped copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate
the Property Owner/Applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application
for building pennits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner
2430 Fenton Street
Date
Signature of Applicant
Date
Page 6
November 28, 2007
IV. 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 tenns, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify
all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building
pennits, 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, Failure to satisfy the
conditions ofthis pennit may also result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties,
V. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every tenn, provision and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that anyone or more tenns, provisions or conditions are
detennined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this
resolution and the pennit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further
force and effect.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of November, 2007, by the following vote, to-
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
William Tripp, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J:\Planning\Caroline\Discretionary Permits\PCC-07-071 PC Reso.doc
"
ATTACHMENT 4
Eastlake Corporate Center Parking Study
September 7, 2007
Mr. Alan Huffman
IRE Development
821 Kuhn Drive, Suite 100
ChuIa Vista, CA 91914
LLG Reference: 3-07-1731
Subject:
Eastlake Corporate Center Parking Study
Dear Mr. Huffman:
INTRODUCTION
This parking study has been prepared for the proposed Eastlake Corporate Center
project. The proposed project is located on Lane Avenue between Qtay Lakes Road
and Fenton Street, and is to be developed with approximately 120,000 square feet
(SF) of office uses providing 433 parking spaces and a 156-room hotel with 8,837 SF
conference room providing 163 parking spaces. .
The purpose of this parking study is to provide guidance to the City of Chula Vista
("City") to determine the adequacy of parking provided on-site. The City does not
have standards that specifically address hotels with conference room space. If the
City's "dance hall, assembly hall, exhibition hall" parking standard is applied to
conference room space, it will result in an unnecessary amount of excess parking,
Several analyses were completed using City Parking standards and the standards of
other jurisdictions, Parking rates from other jurisdictions were used since the City of
Chula Vista standards are not clear regarding required parking for conference room
space.
The parking analysis takes into account the fact that the hotel and office peak at
different times of the day. This is d~e to the fact that the hotel is not a tourist-
oriented hotel but is a business hotel. ' The target market for the hotel is business
travelers visiting local companies to transact business or corporate executives visiting
a satellite office in Chula Vista. The conference room space will be used by business
travelers and local companies to hold small conferences or meet in a space larger than
the typical office conference room.
The hotel peak demand occurs in the middle of the night while the office peak
demand occurs at 10:00 AM a!lct continued until approximately 4:00 PM. Since peak
demand fro each use occurs at different times, the uses are compatible and the
number of parking spaces required for each use is sufficient.
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Engineers & Planners
Traffic
Transportation
Parking
Unscott. Law &
Greenspan. Engineers
4542 Ruffner Street
Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92111
851.300.IlOO T
858.300.8B10 F
wwwJlgengineers.com
Pasadena
Costa Mesa
San Diego
Las Vegas
PhilIp M, unseal!. PE 1192"XIIOI
Jack M. Greensoan. PE IIIrtJ
Wililm A. 1.Iw. PE:1IotJ
Paul W. Wilkinson. PE
John P. K.aD.... PE
OaVld S. Shender. PE
John A. Boarman. PE
Clar. M. LOOI,Jleg.r. PE
Ricn.ro E. 3."ellD. PE
Ked O. MaDllrv. PE
.1ft tG:WB c.o.a..., ;,...,.,.".
Mr. Alan Huffman
September 7, 2007
Page 2
METHODOLOGY
The following methodology was utilized to determine the f<;:>recasted parking demand:
All scenarios use City of Chula Vista parking code for the office component. The four
jurisdictions / agency, that were utilized to determine the parking rate for hotels are as
follows:
1. City of Chula Vista rates
2. ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) rates
3. City of Carls bad rates
4. City of San Diego rates
Although the City of Chula Vista Parking code does not require additional parking for
conference space, the methodology includes parking for conference space at one (1)
space per one hundred (100) SF of conference room, during the peak hours of 10:00 AM
through 4:00 PM for the office, which is also the time period during which the
conference space will be most heavily utilized.
ANALYSIS
A shared parking analysis using Urban Land Institute (ULl) accumul~tion
percentages (Appendix A) was completed for the four scenarios as described below:
Scenario 1
City of Chula Vista current parking rates (Appendix B) were used for both the hotel
and office space. A parking rate of one (1) per three hundred (300) SF of gross floor
area for office; and one (1) per room + one (1) per every twenty-five (25) rooms for
hotel was used. In addition, an analysis including a possible one (1) space per one
hundred (100) SF of conference room was used. As seen in Table 1, the office
requires four hundred (400) spaces, the hotel requires one hundred sixty-two (162)
spaces per code, and the conference room would require eighty-eight (88) spaces for a
total of six hundred and fifty-eight (650) spaces.
A shared parking analysis using the Urban Land Institute (ULl) accumulation
percentages was performed and the required maximum parking is five hundred and
si.."'(ty-one (561) spaces. The project proposes to provide five hundred and ninety-six
(596) spaces or, thirty-five (35) spaces more than the maximum required with the
accumulation analysis.
It should be noted that the City of Chula Vista current parking code does not indicate
if conference room Imeeting space requires additional parking for hotels. However,
the. calculation of one (1) space' per one hundred (100) SF of conference room is a
calculation used for hotels in the City of San Diego and in the Tourist area of the City
of Carlsbad and was used in this report for comparison purposes to ensure that
adequate parking is provided for the conference room,
'< !",: ,,1I.1It"\: !'::n 1111" ,:':..,;, ~ ..:.~ 'l'1\;:r ~~~'~
engineers
Mr, Alan Huffman
September 7, 2007
Page 3
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
l.'se Office Hotel Conference Room Total
SF Rooms SF SF
Size 120,000 156 8,837 I
Parking Rate 11 300 SF of gross 11 room + 1 per 1 per 100 SF of gross
fI oor area every 25 rooms floor area
Required Spaces 400 162 88 650
Actual Spaces 433 163 - I 596
Hour of Day I
6:00 AM 12 162 0 174
7:00 AIv! 80 138 0 218
8:00 AM 252 105 0 357
9:00 AM 372 89 0 461
10:00 AM 400 73 88 561
11:00 AM 400 57 88 545
12:00 PM 360 49 88 497
1 :00 PM 360 49 88 497
2:00 PM 388 57 88 533
3:00 PM 372 57 88 517
4:00 PM 308 73 88 469
5:00 PM 188 97 0 285
6:00 PM 92 114 0 206
7:00 PM 28 122 0 150
8:00 PM 28 146 0 174
9:00 PM 12 154- 0 166
10:00 PM 12 162 0 174
11:00PM 0 162 0 162
12:00 AM 0 162 0 162
Ma;dmum Required Parking 561
Total Parking Provided 596
Excess Parking 35
I
TABLE 1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RATE FOR HOTEL
ACCUMULATION BYTHE HOUR
Note:
Parking for conference space is JSsumed :It une (1) space per one hundred (100) SF of conference room, during
the peak hours of [0:00 .-\M through ~:OO PM for the office. which is also the time period during which the
conference space will be most heavily utilized.
4 '.' ,n.1I ~'\~ ~..:,: .'. ,', .. :~I ..,\: :',:," ,
Mr. Alan Huffman
September 7, 2007
Page 4
Scenario 2
The City of Chula Vista parking code was used for the office space and ITE parking
rate for the hotel (Appendix C). A parking rate of one (1) per three hundred (300) SF
of gross floor area for office; and (1. 13*number of rooms-60) for the hotel was used.
As seen in Table 2, the office requires four hundred (4007) spaces and the hotel
requires one hundred and eight (108) spaces per code, or a total of five hundred and
:.eight (508) spaces.
A shared parking analysis using the Urban Land Institute (ULI) accumulation
percentages was performed and the required parking is four hundred and forty-nine
(449) spaces. The project proposes to provide five hundred and ninety-six (596)
spaces or, one hundred and forty-seven (147) spaces more than the ma.."'(imum
required with the accumulation analysis.
" . ~ I , n. ill'l! ~"~ 7 f . ..'
, , .' :~. . ,," ,":::r
e"gi"eers
"
Mr. Alan Huffman
September 7,2007
Page 5
UNseOTT
LAw &
GREENSPAN
T A8LE 2
ITE RATE FOR THE HOTEL
engineers
Use Office Hotel Total
SF Rooms
Size 120,000 156
- Parking Rate 1 I 300 SF of gross floor area 1.13*(# of Rm-60)
Required Spaces 400 108 508
Actual Spaces 433 163 596 I
Hour Of Day Total I
6:00 AM 12 108 120
7:00 AM 80 92 1-'"
J_
8:00 AM 252 71 3:3
9:00 AM 372 60 ~3:
10:00 AM 400 49 449
11:00 AM 400 38 438
12:00 PM 360 33 393
1:00 P~I 360 33 393
2:00 PM 388 38 426
3:00 P~I r'" 38 410
1-
4:00 PM 308 49 357
5:00 P~I 188 65 .,,,~
--oJ
6:00 P~f 92 76 168
7:00 PM 28 81 109
8:00 P~I 28 98 126
9:00 PM 12 _ 103 liS
I 0:00 P~I 12 108 120
II:OOPM ,0 108 108
12:00 AM 0 108 108
Ma..timum Required Parking 449
Total Parking Provided 596
Excess Parking 147
I
ACCUMULATION BYTHE HOUR
'. .~, ,h,IIt"I:~"~n~m.:.;I\::..,;, _'-.~:
. .
Mr. Alan Huffman
September 7, 2007
Page 6
Scenario 3
The City of Chula Vista parking rate was used for the office space and City of
Carlsbad parking rates (Appendix D) were used for Hotel and Conference Spac_e. A
parking rate of one (1) per three hundred (300) SF of gross floor area for office; and
twelve (12) spaces per ten (10) rooms for hotel and one (1) per hundred (100) SF of
Conference Space was used. As seen in Table 3, the office requires four hundred and
_ seven (400) spaces, the hotel requires one hundred and eight-seven (187) spaces and
-!he Conference Area requires eighty-nine (88) spaces per code, or a total of six
hundred and seventy-five (675) spaces.
A shared parking analysis using the Urban Land Institute (ULI) accumulation
percentages was performed and the required parking is five hundred and seventy-
three (573) spaces. The project proposes to provide five hundred and ninety-six (596)
spaces or, twenty-three (23) spaces more than the maximum required with the
accumulation analysis.
'/1,,1 ;:'\1 ~"\n 1:'1.: .., ':;..,;, :~' "..
LlNSCQTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
el1gil1eers
----
Mr. Alan Huffman
September 7,2007
Page 7
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
-
Use Office Hotel Rooms * Conference Room Total
SF SF SF
Size 120,000 156 8,837
Parking Rate 1 per 300 SF ofGFA 1,2 spaces per room 1 per 100 SF
Required Spaces 400 187 88 675
Actual Spaces 433 163 - I 596
Hour of Day I
6:00 AM 12 187 - 199
7:00 AM 80 159 - 239
8:00 AM 252 122 44 418
9:00 AM 372 103 88 563
10:00 AM 400 84 88 573
11 :00 AM 400 66 88 554
12:00 PM 360 56 . 88 505
1 :00 PM 360 56 "88 505
2:00 PM 388 66 88 542
3:00 PM 372 66 88 526
4:00 PM 308 84 88 481
5:00 PM 188 112 88 389
6:00 PM 92 131 88 311
7:00 P:vI 28 140 88 257
8:00 P:vI 28 168 88 285
9:00 PM 12 178 88 278
1 0:00 P~[ 12 187 44 243
11 :00 P~[ - - 187 187
-
12:00 AM - 187 - 187
Ma."timum Required Parking 573
Total Parking Provided 596
Shortfall in Parking 23
TABLE 3
CITY OF CARLSBAD RATES FOR THE-HoTEL AND CONFERENCE SPACE
ACCUMULATION BY HOUR '
engineers
Foornotes:
GFA - Gross Floor Area
* Based on City of CJrlsbad rote
,n.Ut.O:: ,";,I'IIH.:: .,n~II~,I,."ln ':u, ::~:.:r
MI. Alan Huffman
September 7, 2007
PageS
.
Scenario 4
TIe City of Chnla Vista parking rate was used for the office space and City of San
Diego parking rates (Appendix E) were used for the hotel and conference space. A
parking rate of one (1) per three hundred (300) SF of gross floor area for office;- one
(1) space per room for hotel and ten (10) spaces per Qne thousand (1,000) SF of
conference space was used. As seen in Table 4, the office requires four hundred (400)
spaces, the hotel requires one hundred and fifty-six (156) spaces and the conference
-:.area requires eighty-eight (88) spaces per code, or a total of six hundred and forty-
-four (644) spaces.
A shared parking analysis using the Urban Land Institute (ULI) accumulation
percentages was performed and the required parking is five hundred and fifty-nine
(559) spaces. The project proposes to provide five hundred and ninety-six (596)
spaces or, thirty-seven (37) spaces more than the ma.ximum required with the
accumulation analysis.
',n.IJ~'I: ~':.n\I~~ ..I;:U_\L) ,"::'1::'1." ~'~!l'! "'-"
LJ NSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
e"gi "eers
--- --
Mr. Alan Huffman
September 7, 2007
Page 9
UNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
e"gi"eers
-;.
-
Use Office Hotel Rooms * Conference Room Total
SF SF SF
Size 120,000 156 8,837
Parking Rate 1/ 300 SF of gross floor area I per room 10/1000 SF
Required Spaces 400 156 88 652
Actual Spaces 433 163 - 596 I
Hour of Day
6:00 AM 12 156 0 168
7:00 A1\11 80 133 0 213
8:00 A1\11 252 101 ~ 398
9:00 AM r" 86 88 546
I~
10:00 AM 400 70 88 559
11:00 AM 400 ,,- 88 543 I
~J
12:00 PM 360 47 88' 495
1:00 PM 360 47 88 495
2:00 PM 388 55 88 531
3:00 PM r" 55 88 515
I~
4:00 PM 308 70 88 467
5:00 PM 188 94 88 370
6:00 PM 92 109 88 290
7:00 P~[ 28 117 88 233
8:00 PM 28 140 88 257
9:00 PM 12 148 88 249
10:00 PM 12 - 156 44 212
11:00 PM 0 156 0 156
12:00 AM 0 156 0 156
Ma:timum Required Parking 559
Total Parking Provided 596
Excess Parking 37
TABLE 4
CITY OF SAN DIEGO RATES FOR THE HOTEL AND CONFERENCE SPACE
ACCUMULATION BY HOUR
Footnote:
* Based on City of San Diego rate for Conference! meeting space
"
~'l ,n.IIC'!I~":nt:~:.!.:n,.,;" ~':~i~I:'I: ~'1I~'r,:.'~
Mr, Alan Huffman
September 7,2007
Page 10
Summary
- .
Table 5 summarizes the parking supply and demand calculation results for the four
scenarios that ~ere analyzed.
TABLE 5
PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY SUMMARY
Jurisdiction Rates
Proposed Parking Calculated Excess
Supply Parking Demand
596 561 35
596 449 147
596 573 23
596 559 37
Office
Hotel
1. City of Chula Vista
2.ITE
3. City of Chula Vista
4. City of Chula Vista
City of Chula Vista
ITE
City of Carlsbad
City of San Diego
Footnote:
ITE: - Institute ofTransponation Engineers
Conclusion
In conclusion, the analysis shows that for each of the four scenarios considered in this
analysis, the parking supply exceeds the parking demand. It may be noted that for the
City of Chula Vista analysis (Table 1), it is assumed that the conference rooms'are
utilized between the hours of 10:00 A.v! and 4:00 PM.
Should the City find it necessary, the City could require additional parking studies after
the hotel is built. If adequate parking is not available, the hotel should enter into a
shared parking agreement with the office building to ensure the overall parking supply
exceeds the demand as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit.
Although the' study concludes that shared parking is not necessary, a shared parking
analysis was used to help reach this conclusion. Furthermore, should a private or
public shared parking arrangement be needed in the future, any subsequent study will
be aided by the shared parking analysis contained in this report.
It is our professional opinion, based on. the above analysis that the provision of 596
parking spaces will adequately serve the proposed land uses,
Please call me if you have any questions,
Sincerely,
Linscott. Law and Greenspan. Engineers
John Boarman. P .E.
Principal
NaI:lsimha Prasad
Sc:nior Transportation Enginee~
" ".1 ,h;III:II\":n'T1~.,j\:.;.,',,,"':;n::'-': ,'~~:.:f.:"~
LINSCOTT
lAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
-
ApPENDIX A
Urban land Institute Accumulation Rates
A STUDY CONDUCTED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
UU-T"E URBAN lAND INSTITUTE
BY BARTON-ASCHMAH ASSOCIATES, IKC.
.I
.l-
I
~
,
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
M
-
-
I
I
I
-
I
EXHIBIT 28
REPRESENTATIVE HO~Y ACCU~ULATION BY
~~~~ PERCENTAGE OF-PEAK HOUR
.... ....
~ I,. I I: ..oIb..,., ItaW... . . . -") c.J.n_ eo.....
exs.. ..... bltu"" au_ r.o~DI dol ICICI On.. .... ~ inu.,...vt.M.,; ....... .c.re.
1- " 0., .......", SM..., W..U., SlS.w4., Yc.kU, s.n.u, D"" ... ,...., '"",~...'J' ~ ~
6:00 ~IL 3'" ri: 100'r. 100% .1~ 100')(, 90% Z~ 20'X.
7:00 Lift. 20 20% 3% Z" 87 95 95 as 70- 20 ZO
8:110 LIII. 63 60 18 10 3 79 88' 90 65 60 20 20 50'\ 50%
9:00 LDI. 93 80 tZ 30 6 73 'I , a1 55 so .20 . 20 100 100
_ 10:00 &.:II. JOO 80 63 45 a 63 11 85 tS to 20 20 100 100
- 11:00 LJII. 100 100 87 13 10 59 I 11 as 3S 3S 30 30 100 100
-12:00 lloon 90 100 97 85 30 ..J0'!ro 60 11 85 30 30 SO 30 100 100
1:00 p.m. 90 80 100 95 t5 " 10 59 fg) as . 30 30 10 405 100 100
2:00 p.m. 91 60 91 100 1S '.70 60 11 as 3S ~., 60 qr 100 100
WI P.II. 93 iO 9S 100 is '70 61 73 as 305 055 100 100
1:00 p.m. 77 40 a7 90 105 ,70 66 15 81 45 50 50 15 100 100
5:00 p.m. i7 20 79 75 60 ~ 71 al 90' 60 60 70 60 100 100
6:00 p.m. 2.3 20 82 .65 90 85 as 92 70 70 90 90 100 \00
y-'liQ!U\.0- 7 20 @ 60 95 90 94 87 94 705 SO 100 905 100 100
, ; 8:110 P.DL 7 20 055 ioo 100 96 '12 96 00 '10' \00 100 \00 100
I 9:00 p.m. 3 61 10 100 100 98 905 98 .95 905 100 \00 ICO' ICO
J10:!0 p.m. 3 32 38 905 ICC 99 96 99 100 100 90 905 SO 50
11:00 p.m. 13 13 as 80 \CO 98 100 100 100 70 805
1,2:00 Mid. 1{J' 70 100 100 LOO 100 100 so 70
Dieht
involving office. regional retail. and residerrtia1 facili' SAMPLE USE OF THE METHODOLOGY,'
ties (see ex1u'bit 28). Nonroom-related hotel activities l.
and entertainment uses varied significantlY, however.
If site. specific data. are not available for these two land
uses, smvey results could be used. '
Accumulation curves are t.l1en estimated for each
land use. 'based on t1.e selected hourly values de.
scribed in terms of the percent of maximum design.day
parking demand expected at every hour during the day.
The parking demand factor (step 2) multiplied by
quantitTJ of land use (step 1) produces an estimate of
peak parking dema."1d. This value multiplied by each
hourly percentage produces an estimate of parking -
demand for every land use component by hour of day.
STEP 4: ESTIMATE OF SHARED PARKING
The hourly parking demand for each land use is
merg~d to estimate overail shared parking demand for
a propo3cd projec~ This step is simply the hour.by.
hour addition of parking demand for each use to esti-
mate the aggregate acc:.lmulation. As noted previously,
the method. descrfoed above should be used for week.
day and Sa.turdav condi lions to test for the controlling
value.. -
The following sample situation has been devised to
demonstrate the use of the recommended
methodolog'J.
1. Objective: To estimate the peak parkID.g require-
ments for a proposed mi.,<ed.use development.
2, Plan: The proposed development has the following
components:
· Office = 400,000 square feet GLA
. Retail = 300,000 square feet GLA
. Hotel = 500 rooms plus 5,000 square feet of
restaurant and conference facilities with 200-sea.t
capacity.
3. Location: The project will be located in the dawn.
town of a medium'size urban community whose
regional population is a.pproximately 1.5 million.
4. Mode sPlitJ? Based on. su'rveys conducted at exist.
ing developments in the downtown, it is estimated
that 75 percent of employees and patrons a.nd 50
percent of hotel g'.lests will use autos. The number
of persons per auto is assumed to be typical (1,2 for
employees, 1.8 for patrons. 1.4 for hotel guests].
17'Mo~e split. refers to the percentage of people at J. site who use ~
pa.rtlcular ;I:ode of :ra.ns1:ortaticn. with the tow of J.i! modes
equaling 100 perc:mt. .
47
5. Captive market: Based upon regional market su:.
veys, it is estimated that 15 percent of all retail
patrons will be office employees within the develop-
ment. It is also estimated that 50 percent, of the
hotel restaurant patronage will be generated out-
slde the development.
The unadjusted peak parking demand ratios (see
Appendix C) for the component land uses are as
follows:
. Weekday
Office: 3.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet
GLA
Retail: 3.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA
. ..~.
Hotel rooms' 1.2-5 I ~pa#'s--'p'eI'J room~i~'-' \i~"';';~"
Hotel restau~ant; '~0.:O:'~~~~;W~1~['i!!{~ne~t
GLA ~~r1~:I"
Hotel conference rooms: 0:i1~ce'.~r;.I.-'5'eat~"
. Saturday
Office: 0.5 padcing space per 1,000 square feet GLA
Retail: 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA
Hotel rooms: 1.25 spaces per room
Hotel restaurant: 10.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet
GLA
Hotel conference rooms: 0.5 space per seat: . .
,tE~tijUU."~l\WailiQ.~.tf.~6A..~tffii.""'.rfe.~.a. ~p.'e..:.i~if~t~ge of.
. ~iard~''e~a~~~!f~~f~~~~~m~~6si' ..
. Weekday
Office: 3.0 x 0.75 = 2.25 parking spaces per 1,000,
square feet GLA .
Retail: 3.8 x 0.75 = 2.85 spaces per 1,000 square
feet GLA
Hotel rooms: l.i5 x 0.50 = 9.p,~~~,<~F'U)~Hq9Ifl
Hotel restaurant: 10.0 x 0.75 ~ ~7~?:S-p.a.ces p~r
1,000 square feet GLA
Hotel conference rooms: 0.5 x 0.75 ::fOi.~~ ~p~&~M;
s~;!,~'.,-"
. Saturday
Office: 0.5 x 0.75 = 0.38 parking space per 1,000
square feet GLA
Retail: 4.0 x 0.75 = 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square
feet GLA
Hotel rooms: 1:25 x 0.50 = 0.63 space. per room
Hotel restaurant: 10.0 x 0.75 = 7.5 spaces per
1,000 sql,lare feet GLA
Hotel conference rooms: 0.5 x 0.75 = 0.38 space per
seat
The ~a..tio faneWl pdrking demand also should be
factored for :!larket synergy for 3. weekday, when office
employees a.re 'present:
48
Retail {weekday}: 2.85 x (1- 0.15) = 2.42 spaces
per 1,000 square feet GLA. ,
The s-v.rvey data on-.the captive market in this instance
do not' estimate the-possible synergistic effect result.
ing from hotel guests' patronage of the retail facilities.
'robe conservative, therefore, this effect is assumed to
be negligible, However,. th~: unadjustedfd.effiEiff.itfb
fQr-. the; b~te1\testa.iiran1T (lQ-3Pi!~~1 p~rU~QQQ&.qifcU'e
!~hQ~k);,:.1.r.~E-_d1~a:sedrPM~.lMi~~!lt
.patrSlnig.~~y~M.~~~~~;; .. ,~~~~!tlff~~e~~y.~
~~YJ1tPtiOMS aHne\ o1elconference facIlities' are
fWty}.Q.~~~.Py': ~.9.]!~~~~~,~
N en, the ratios for each component land use need to
be factored according to the month of the year during
which the overall peak parking accumulation would be
greatest. In some instances, the peak month for a
weekday may not be the same as the peak month for a
Saturday. In that case, only by trial and error can the
condition (that is, combination of day and month) for
peak parking demand be determined. In this instance,
however, a tedious trial-and. error analysis can be
avoided by an inspection of the relative size of ea.ch
component land use and the relative differences in
peak daily and monthly demands. . ,
Based on the monthly values in Appendix C, the
l contribution of the hotel components to overall park-
ing demand remains the same on. a weekday and a
Saturday of a given month. Thus, for a given month,
the condition for overall peJ.k parking demand de-
pends only upon the relative size of the retail and office
components. Since the office component is large rela.
tive to the retail component, it is most likely that the
peak condition will occur on a weekday rather than on
a Saturday,
The monthly office demand will remain constant,
the..monthly retail demand will peJ.k during December,
aIld the monthly hotel components will peak during
the summer: Based on an inspection, however, t;he
relative contribution of retail parking demand to total
project parking demand during December (compared
with that of hotel parking demand during the summer]
is much larger:
The peak parking demand at the entire development
will therefore most likely occur on a weekday in De.
cember: The peak parking demand may then be esti.
mated by conducting an hourly parking accumulation
analysis using the following weekda.y ratios, a.djusted
to the month of December:
Office: 2.25 x 1.00 = 2.25 spaces per 1,000 square
feet GLA
~
(,
--
ApPENDIX 8
City of Chula Vista Parking Standards
19.5Z.050
vidal. on the premises may be provided on other
pr~rty not more than 200 feet distant by publicly
a_bie pedestrian access ttom said use, structure
or hlilding, subject to a binding agreement with the
cityas to permanent reservation of said space and
ac=s thereto; or if the proposed nonresidential
usc:1ies within. the boundary of a parking district,
ofHtreet parking requirements shall be considered
to 1Ic: met; provided, that any developer of a new
cODmercial building within a parking district, or a
de-doper of a commercial addition to an existing
Q.uiiing therein, shall pay the required fee(s).
(QIIl 2506 g I, 1992; Ord. 1894 ~ I, 1980; Ord.
1212 g 1, 1969; prior code g 33.801(D)).
19-'2.050 Number of spaces required for
designated uses.
.. the case of any building, structure or pre-
miles, the use of which is not specifically men-
tiODCd herein, or in the opinion of the approving
adority is not similar to any use found herein, the
awoving authority may apply a ratio based on a
similaT existing use not found herem. In computing
pamng requirements, a resultant fractional space
of ane-half shall count as a full space.
The number of off-street parking spaces
required shall be as set forth in the following:
Businesses or Use and Number
of Spaces Required
1. Auctions (See CYMC 19,04.015 and
19.58.055):
At the time of application fora conditional use
pem1it, the applicant shall submit parking informa-
tionjustifying the amount of parking proposed to be
provided and the parking ratio. The information
must consist of data upon which the approving
authority can re:tsonably base a determination of
adequacy, such as expected patronage or a compar-
ison with the patronage of similar uses. Said park-
ing ratio shall range from one space for each 50
square feet of net usable lot area to one space for
each 4,000 square feet of net usable lot area. -
Note: For purposes of this subsection, "net.
usable lot area" means the area of the parcel exclu-
sive of setbacks, slopes, easements, required right-
of-way dedications or other constraints. which
would preclude use of the land. If complaints are
filed with the city regarding impacts related to off-
site parking. the project shall be modified to add
additional parking for employees and customers,
and/or by. r.educing the auction and/or storage are:1,
subject to the review and approval of the director of
planning and city engineer. Failure to resolve such
off-site public parking problems by the owner of
the property constitutes grounds for revocation of
the conditional use permit.
2. Automobile sales facilities, new or used (see
CYMC 19.58.070):
One for each 400 square feet of gross floor
area, or one-tenth of the maximum car storage
capacity, whichever is greater.
3. Automobile repair and service garages:
One for each 400 square feet of floor area.
4. Banks and savings and loans:
One for each 200 square feet of floor area;
minimum of five.
5. Bowling alleys:
Five for each alley.
6. Business and professional offices:
One for each 300 square feet of gross floor
area; minimum of four.
7. Car wash (coin-operated), self-service or
attendant-operated:
Three for each stall. plus one for each
employee.
8. Children's homes:
One for each four beds, plus one for each
employee.
9. Churches and private schools: .
One for each three and one-half seats in an
auditorium or one for each 17 classroom seats,
whichever is greater.
10, Dancehal15 and assembly halls without
fixed seats, and e..U.ibitian halls, except church
assembly rooms in conjunction with auditoriums,
nonprofit clubs and lodges:
One for each 50 square feet of floor area used
for assembly or dancing.
11. Dwellings, single-family, duplex:
Two for each. family or dwelling unit; both
spaces shall be in a garage with a minimum area of
400 square feet (see Chapter 19.22 CVMC for
rr<.modeling of garages).
12. Dwellings, townhouses:
Two for each dwelling unit; both spaces shall
be in a garage or carport, a minimum area of 400
square feet.
13. Dwellings, multiple:
One and one-half per unit for each studio or
one-bedroom apartment.
Two per unit for each two-bedroom apart-
ment.
Two per unit for each three-bedroom or
larger apartment. *
*Forevery 10 parking spaces required, one of
this total may be a "compact" spac:::.
19-176
--
Chula Vista Municipal Code
19.62,080
Note: No parking space shall be located within
20 feet of any curb return of intersection streets, or
eight feet of any side property line, unless.
approved by the city traffic engineer.
14. Funeral homes and mortuaries:
Om: for each four seats of the aggregate num-
ber of seats provided in all assembly rooms of the
mortuary.
15. Furniture and appliance stores, and house-
hold equipment or furniture repair shops:
One for each 600 square feet of floor area.
16. Hospitals:
One and one-haIffor each bed.
17. Nursing homes and convalescent hospitals
and homes for aged:
One for each three beds.
18. Houseboats:
See dwellings, subsection (11) of this section.
19. Hotels, motels, motor hotels:
One space for each living or sleeping unit,
plus one space for every 25 rooms or portion
thereof to be provided on the same lot as use.
20. Machinery sales and service garages:
One for each 400 square feet of floor area.
21. Manufacturing plants, research or testing
laboratories, and bottling plants:
One for each one and ope-half persons
employed at anyone time in the nonnal operation
of the plant or one for each 800 square feet, which-
ever is greater.
22. MedicaI and dental clinics or offices:
One for each 200 square feet of gross floor
area; minimum of five.
23. Mobilchome parks:
Two spaces on each pad, one-third guest
space per mobilehome located within 400 feet of
the farthest unit, and at the community center, one
space for each five pads up to 50 pads and one
space for each 10 pads tbe..'"Cafter.
24. Restaurants, bars and night clubs:
One for each two and one-half pe:man~nt
seats, excluding any dance floor or assembly area
without fixed seats which shall be calculated sepa-
rately as one space per 50 square feet offIoor area.
25. Restaurants - Drive-in, take-out, snack
stands: .
15 spaces (minimum).
26. Retail stores, shops, etc., exc:pt as provided
for furniture stores, in subsection (15) of this sec-
tion:
One for each 200 squ:IIC feet offioor space.
27. Rooming and lodging houses:
One for each bedroom.
28. Schools:
Elementary - one per teacher or c:nployee,
plus fl.ye space3.
Junior high - one per teacher or c:nployee,
plus fiv~ spaces.
High - one per four students.
29. Sports arenas, auditoriums, theate:s, assem-
bly halls and meeting rooms:
One for each three and one-half seals of max-
imum seating capacity.
30. Wholesale establishments, warehQlSes, ser-
vice and maintenance centers, and coJDDJlIlication
equipment buildings:
One for each one and one-half persons
employed at one time in the nonna! opcmnon of
the establishment, or one for each 1,000 square
feet, whichever is greater. (Ord. 2584 f 7, 1994;
Ord. 2132 ~ 1, 1985; Ord. 1856 ~ 1, 1979; Ord.
1531 ~ 2, 1974; Ord. 1356 ~ 1, 1971; Ord. 1212
~ 1, 1969; prior code ~ 33.801(E)).
19.62.060 Parking areas - Developmmt and
maintenance generally.
Every parcel ofland hereafter used as a public or
private parking area, including a commen:ial park-
ing lot and also an automobile, farm equipment, or
other open-air sales lot, shall be developed and
maintained in accordance with the requirmlents set
forth in CVMC 19.62.070. through 19.62.120.
(Ord. 1212 ~ I, 1969; prior code ~ 33.801(F)).
19.62.070 Parking areas - Curbing required
when - Specifications.
Off-street parking areas for more than three
vehicles shall be provided with a suitable concrete
curb or horizontal timber barrier not less than six
inches in height, 10 Qted not less than two feet from
any street waL'cway or alley right-of-way line. All
curbs or barriers shall be permanently anchored in
a manner satisfactory to the director of public
works, to confine vellicles entirely within said pre-
mises, except in those cases where a wan is pro-
vided on the boundaries of the premises which, in
the opinion of the zoning administrator, is of such
construction as to suitably protect the adjoining
property. (Ord.1212 ~ 1,1969; prior code 9 33.801
(F)(I)).
19.62.080 Parking areas - Screening
requirements.
Off-street parking areas for more than five vehi-
cles shall be effectively screened by a lO-foot-wide
landscaped strip and a masonry wall or Cenc: of
acceptable design. Such wan or fence shall be not
19-177
-
-
ApPENDIX C
ITE Parking Standards
Land Use: ~1 0
Hotel
Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs-: Rooms
On a: Weekday
-S'-.--'''a~~'''' -~""9 ~~""iU;:~"'''' ir<Q .. "'TD=-=""'....'.'CH-:4'!'Y....
't <lat SHC . ~,~ . . ..:..... '-. ..r#Ht: '>O';_),62>c,":'lAeal\-~uer.l.Q.ul _~manu:;;~~J.'i:
Peak Period 12:00-1":00 p.m.; 7:00-10:00 p.m.;
. 11 :00 .m.-5:00 a.m. .
14
340 rooms
0.91 vehicles er room
0.35
39%
0,61-1.94 vehicles er room
1.14 vehicles er room
0.72 vehicles er room
. .
Demand
Weekday Peak Period
Parking Demand
tn 1000
(1)
-
CJ 800
.-
J:
(1)
> 600
"C
(1) 400
~
'-
ro
C. 200,
II
a.. 0
0
p = 1. 13x. - 60
R2 = 0.75
.+
200
400
600
800 '
x = Rooms
. Actual Data Points
_ Fitted Curve
_ - - - Average Rate
Institute of Transportation Engineers ~
71 /'"
PJlKing G:JfIeraI!on. 3rd EirUon
- -
-
ApPENDIX D
City of Carlsbad Parking Standards
City of Car\sbad Municipal Code
21.44.020 Parking spaces required.
The numb..- of off-street parlring spaces required for the uses or structures designated ill
this section shall be no less than as set forth in the following:'
(a) Residential.
I) standard Single-Famiiy, R-I, R-A, E-A and RE Zones. Two car garage wid>
the following exceptions:
One additional paved off-street (covered or uncovered) parking space shall be
provided for a second dwelling unit and shall comply with the requirements of
this chapter. The additional parking space may be provided through tande:n
parking (provided that the garage is set back a minimum of twenty feet from
the property line) or the front yard. setback.
2) Planned Unit Developments and Condominiums-Two standard eoveIed
parking spaces. Exceptions: studio-:1.S spaces/unit, one covCICdhmit,
planned unit developments in the R-W zone-two standard spaces, one
coveredJunit, and second dwelling unit-~me space/second unit, one covered
or uncovered. MY uncovered required parking space for units in the R-W
zone IIlay be located within a required front yard setback and may be tandem.
The parking space for a second dwelling unit may be prov1!ied through
tandem parking (provided that the covered parking spaces for' 'the primary
dwelling unit are located within a two-car garage and the garage is setback a
minimum of twenty feet from the property line) or in the front yard setback. In
addition, parking areas for guest parking must be provided as follows: 0.5
spaces for each unit up tbrough ten units, 0.3 spaces for each unit in eXcess of
ten units. Credit for visitor parking may be given for frontage on local streets
that meet public street standards for detached single-family residential
projects subject to the approval of the plamring commission; not less than
twenty-four lineal feet per space exclusive of driveway entrances and
driveway aprons shall be prQvided for each parking space, except where
parallel parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway aprons,
then twenty lineal feet may be provided.
3) Apartments.
Studio and one bedroom-1.5 spaces/unit.
Two bedroom and more-2 spaces/unit.
In addition, parking areas for guest parking must be provided as follows:
0.5 space for each unit up through ten units. 0.25 space for each unit in excess
often units.
4) All Residential Uses-Beach!lIea Overlay Zone-Same as the requirements
for planned unit developments and condominiums with the following
exceptions: .
No credit will be given for on-stree~ parking. T:venty percent of the visitor
parking may be provided as tandem parking for existing substmdard lots ifthe
garages are setback at least tw<l1ty feet from the front property line, or in the
case where no individual property lines are present, then at least twenty feet
from the edge of the street pavement or sidewalk whichever is closest to the
structure.
5) Fratemities-1.25 spaces for each sleeping room.
6) Mobile Home parks-Two spaces per unit plus one guest parking space for
every four units.
7) Residential Care-Two spaces plus one space/three beds.
8) Rcominghouse-One space for each sleeping room.
9) Housing fur Senior Citizens-Minimum 1.5 e<>vered spaces per every uni~
plus one covered space for an on-site.manager's unit (when provided) and one
guest parking space per every five units, subject to approval of a site
development plan.
10) Time-Share Condominiums-Minimum 1.2 spaces per unit ,.subject to
approval of a conditional use permit.
11) commercial.
(1) Bed and Breakfast hms-Two stmdard spaces, one of which must be
covered for the owner's unit, plus one space for each guest room.
(2) Bowling Alleys-Six per alley.
(2.5) Delicatessen-One spac.e/two hundred fifty square feet of grosS floor
area.
(3) Driving R:.mges-One space/tee plus required parking for accessory uses.
(4) Financial Institutions and Professional Offices.
(A) Medical Office-One space/two hundred square feet of gross floor
area.
(B) Financial Institutions-One space/two hundred fifty square feet of
gross floor area.
(C) One space/two hundred fifty square feet of gross "floor area.
For office uses in the village redevelopment zone and areas within three
hundred feet of its boundary-One space/three hundred square feet of
gross floor area. ' -.
(5) Furniture and Appliance-One space/six hUndred square feet of gross
floor area.
(6) Golf Courses-Six spaceslhole plus required parking for accessory uses.
-
(7) Gyms and Health Spas-One space/two hundred square feet of gross floor
area.
(8) Hospitals-Three spaces per bed or one per two hundred square feet of
gross floor area, whichever is greater.
(9) Hotels and Motels-l.2 spaces per unit
(10) Libraries-Qne space/two hundred square feet of gross floor area.
(A) Library Substations-One space/two hundred fifty square feet of gross
floor area. -
(11) Mortuaries-One space/fifty square feet of assembly area.
"
(12) Motor Vehicle.
(A) Sales-One space/four hundred square feet of gross floor area.
(B) Repair-Four spaces for every work bay (up through. three work
bays). Two spaces per bay in excess of three bays. Workbays do not
count as parlcing spaces. .
(13) Museums-One space/five hundred square feet of gross floor area.
(14) Public Assembly-One space/five seats or one space/one hundred square
feet of assembly area, whichever is greater.
(15) Recreational Vehicle Storage Areas-One space for every ten thousand
square feet of storage area, with a mirrimum of three spaces.
(16) Restaurant.
(A) Less than four thousand square feet in size-One space/one hundred
square feet gross floor area.
(B) Four thousand square feet or greater-Forty plus one space/fifty
squar~ feet of floor space in excess of four thousand square feet.
(17) Retail. -
(A) Individual-:One space/three hundred square feet of gross floor area.
(B) Shopping Center-One spa~e!two hund:ed square feet of gross floor
area. -.
(18) Schools. . .
(A) Preschools/Nurseries-One space/employee plus one for each ten
students, minimum, with an adequate loading and unloading area.
(B) Elementary Schools-One space/employee, minimum, with an
adequate loading and unloading area.
(C) High Schools-One space/employee plus one space for each ten
students, minimum, with in adequate loading and unloading area.
(D) Colleges, Vocational Schools-Qne space/employee plus one space
for each three students, minimum, with an adequate loading and
unloading area.
(19) Theaters-One space/five seats.
(20) professional Care Facilities-AS parking spaces per every bed.
( c) Industrial.
(1) Manufacturing-One space/four hundred square feet of
gross floor area plus one stall for each vehicle used in
conjunction with the use.
(2) Research and Development-One space/two hundred fifty
square feet of gross floor area.
(A) Bio-industrial research and development-One
space/three hundred feet of gross floor area.
(3) Warehouse-Qne space/one thousand square feet of gross
floor area plus one stall for each vehicle used in
conjunction with the use. (Ord. NS-791 97,2006; Ord. NS-
703 9 1, 2004; Ord. NS-662 9 6, 2003; Ord. NS-307 9 1,
1995; Ord. NS-288 9 1, 1994; Ord. NS-283 9 10, 1994;
Ord. NS-274 96, 1994; Qrd. NS-179 93, 1991; Ord. NS-
1389: 1, 1991; Ord. 9804 9 4 (part), 1986)
21.44.030 Parking requirements for uses not specified.
Where the parking requirements for a use are not specifically defined herein, the parking
requirements for such use shan be detennined by the planning commission, and such
determination shall be based upon the requirements for the most comparable use
specified in this chapter. (Ord. 9804 ~ 4 (part), 1986)
21.44.040 Parking provisions may be waived by commission.
The commission may, by resolution, waive or modify the provisions as set forth in this
title establishing required parking areas for uses such as electrical power generating
plants, electrical transformer stations, utility oi'corporation:~torage yards or other uses of
a similar o~ like nature requiring a very limited number of pf?rsons. (Ord. 9804 9 4 (part),
1986)
-
21.44.050 General requirements.
(a) The following general requirements shall apply to all parking spaces and areas:
1) Size and Access. Each off-street parking space shall have an area of not
less than one hundred seyenty square feet exclusiye of drives or aisles and
a width of not less than eight and one-half feet. Subject to the approval of
the planning director, up to a two-and-one-half foot overhang may be
permitted. Each space shall be provided with adequate ingress and egress.
Aisles to and from parking stalls shall not be less than:
(A) Fourteen feet wide for thirty and forty-five degree parking;
(B) Eighteen feet wide for sixty-degree parking;
(C) Twenty-four feet wide for ninety-degree parking.
Circulation within a parking area must be such that a car entering the
parking area need not enter a street to reach another aisle and that a car
need not enter a street backwards. This provision shall not apply to off-
street parking required for one-family and two~family dw~lling units.
When the required parking space for one-family, two-family or multiple-
family structure in any residential zone is not to be provided in a covered
garage, each such required car space shall be not less than two hundred
square feet in area and shall be so located and/or constructed that it may
later be covered by a garage structure in accordance with the provisions of
this title, with the following exceptions: second dwelling units and
planned unit developments in the R-W zone.
2) Locations. Off-street parking facilities shall be located as hereinafter
specified. Where a distance is specified, such distance shall be the walking
distance measured from the ne:JI'e5t point of the parking facility to the
nearest point of the building that such facility is required to serve:
(A) For one-family, two-family or multiple-family dwellings, parking
facilities shall be located on the same lot or building site as the buildings
they are required to serve;
(B) For hospitals, sanitariums, homes for the aged, asylums, orphanages,
roominghouses, lodginghouses, club rooms, fraternity and sorority houses
not more than one hundred fIfty feet from the buildings they are required
to serve; and
(C) For uscs other than those specified above, not over three hundred feet
from the building they are required to serve;
",
3)
Mixed Occupancies in a Building. In the case of mixed uses in a building
or on a lot, the total requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be
the sum of the requirements for the vario~uses computed separately. 00-
street parking facilities for one use shall riot be considered as providmg
required parking facilities for any other use except as hereinafter specified
for joint use;
4)
Joint Use. The planning commission may, upon application by the owner
or lessee of any property, authorIze the joint use of parking facilities by
the following uses or activities under the conditions specified in this title:
(A) Up to fifty percent of the parking facilities required by this chapter x,r
a use considered to be primarily a daytime use may be provided by the
parking facilities of a use considered to be primarily a nighttime use; up to
fifty percent of the parking facilities required by this chapter for a use
considered to be primarily a nighttime use may be provided by the parking
facilities of a use considered to be primarily a daytime use, provided such
reciprocal parking area shall be subject to conditions set forth in paragraph
(D) below;
(B) Up to one hundred percent of the parking facilities required by this
chapter for a church or for an auditorium incidental to a public or
parochial school may be supplied by parking facilities of a use; considered
to be primarily a daytime use, provided such reciprocal parking area shall
be subject to conditions set forth in paragraph (D) below;
(C) The following uses are typical daytime uses: banks, business offices,
retail stores, personal service shops, clothing or shoe repair or service
shops, manufacturing or wholesale buildings and similar uses. The
following uses are typical of nighttime and/or Sunday uses: auditoriums
incidental to a public or parochial school, churches, dance halls, theaters
and bars;
(D) Conditions required forjoint use:
(i) The building or use for which application is being made for
authority to utilize the existing off-street parking facilities provided
by another building or use, shall be located within one hundred
fifty feet of such parking facility,
(ii) The application shall show that there is no substantial conflict
in the principal operating hours of the buildings or uses for which
the joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed,
(iii) P:niies concerned in the joint use of off-street parking facilities
shall evidence Q~Cment for such joint use by a proper legal
msu:ument approved by the city attorney as to form and content.
Such instrument, when approved as conforming to the provisions
of this title, shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder
and copies thereof filed with the planning director and the planning
commission.
(E) Up to fifty percent of the parking facilifies required by this chapter for
a church may be jointly utilized by an on-site, accessory, child day care
center provided there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating
hours of the church and child day care center.
5)
Common Facilities. Common parking facilities may be provided in lieu of
the individual requirements contained herein, but such facilities shall be
approved by the planning commission as to size, shape and relationship to
business sites to be served, provided the total of such off-street parking
spaces, when used together, shall not be less than the sum of the various
uses computed separately. When any such common facility is to occupy a
site of five thousand square feet or more, then the parking requirements as
specified herein for each of two or more participating buildings or uses
may be reduced not more than fifteen percent upon approval of
development plans by the planning commission in the manner prescribed
for a conditional use permit as set forth in Chapter 21.50.
-
(b) The plan of the proposed parking area shall be submitted to the
planning director at the time of the application for the building permit for
the building to which the parking area is accessory. The plans shall clearly
indicate the proposed development, including locatio~ size, shape, design,
curb cuts, lighting, landscaping and other features and appurtenances of
the proposed parking lot.
(c) All parking areas in the R-A, R-E and R-1 zones shall be subject to the
same restrictions governing location of accessory buildings on a lot as
defined in the zone in which the parking area is located. In all other
residential zones, the side yard setback for uncovered, off-street parking
areas may be reduced up to zero feet provided that a six foot-high masonry
wall (or some other solid material approved by the planning commission)
is built along the property line adjacent to the setback area. (Ord. NS-409
~ 20, 1997; Ord. NS-288 ~2, 1994; Qrd. NS-283 ~ 11, 1994; Ord. 9804
~ 4 (part), 1986)
21.44.060 Off-street parking-Residential zones.
In all residential zones the following parking regulations shall apply:
1) Passenger Vehicles. Passenger vehicles including light-duty commercial
vehicles used as a principal means of transportation for the occupant of the
residence may be parked in the required front yard in single-family zones on a
paved driveway or parking area which does not exceed thirty percent of the
required front yard area or an are:l that is comprised of twenty-four feet of
-.-.-'-
width extended from the property line to the rear of the required fi'ont yard
whichever is great~r. Passenger vehicles may also be parked in a paved area
between the required front yard an9- the actual.front of the building as long as
it is an extension and does not exceed the width of the area described above.
Passenger yehicles may be parked in any other, area of the lot provided that
-they are screened from view from the public right-of-way. For comer lots, the
provisions of this subsection shall apply to the required street side yard;
however, in no case, shall the provisions of this section allow parking in both
the required front yard and the required street sideyard.
2) Recreational Vehicles. Recreational vehicles, boats and trailers may be parked
in single-family zones as follows:
(A) In an enclosed structure observing all required setbacks;
(B) Open parking in the side yard or the rear yard;
(C) Open parking in the required front yard if the planning director determines
after giving the same notice as provided for administrative yariances in
Section 21.51.040 of this code that access to the side or rear yard cannot be
provided. In making this determination, the planning director shall consider:
(i) Whether parking in or access to the side or rear yard would require
structural alteration to the existing residence or would require ~e removal
of significant or unique landscaping. A fence shall not be deemed to
prevent access to the side or rear yard,
(ii) Whether parking in or access to the side or rear yard would require
extensiye grading,
(Hi) Whether because of the configuration of the lot, existing landscaping,
the location of the structures on the lot, and the size of the recreational
vehicle, parking of the recreational yehicle in the front yard would
interfere with visibility to or from any street,
(iy) Whether allowing parking of the recreational vehicle in the front yard
would interfere with traffic on the street or sidewalk or would encroach
into the street and uti~ity right-of-way.
The area for the parking of the recreation vehicle in the front yard shall not
exceed the maximum paved area permitted for passenger vehicles. A
comer lot is deemed to have reasonable access to the rear yard;
(D) Notwithstanding the above, during the construction of a permanent single-
family residence on a lot, the owner of the lot may live in a recreational
vehicle upon smd lot during construction of said reside:lce for a period not to
exceed six months;
(E) The provisions listed in this section are not intended to supersede more
restrictive homeowner provisions contained in approved conditions, covenants
and restrictions. II the provisions of any such conditions', covenants and
restrictions are less restrictive than Ule ordinan~ codified in this section, then
the provisions contained herein shall apply,
3) Inoperable Vehicles. Storage or parking of inoperable, wrecked, dismantled or
abandoned vehicles shall be regulated by Chapter 10.52 of this code;
provided, however, that not more than two vehicles in any inoperable,
wrecked or dismantled condition may be parked in the side yard or rear yard
while said vehicles are being repaired or restored by the owner of the property
provided the vehicles are visually screened from the public right-of-way.
4) Heavy-Duty Commercial Vehicles. No heavy-duty commercial vehicles as
defined by Section 10.40.075 of this code except for trailers as pennitted in
subsection (2) above shall be parked on any residential lot except while
loading or unloading property; or when such vehicle is parked in COD1lection
with, and in aide of, the performance of a service to the property on which the
vehicle is parked.
5) Multiple-Family Projects. The location of vehicle parking for multiple-family
residential projects shall be regulated by Sections 21.44,050, 21.44.060 and
21.44.070 of this code.
6) Planned Development. For residential projects developed. und.'er Chapter
21.45, parking shall be regulated by the planned development permit.
7) Administrative Hearing. Any person objecting to a decision made pursuant to
subsection (2)(C) above may request in writing within ten days of the
determination by the planning director. an administrative hearing with the
planning director. The planning director shall apply the criteria of this section
in making his determination. The decision of the director shall be final unless
the director's decision is.appealed to the planning commission. The effective
date of the planning director's decision and method of appeal of such decision
shall be governed. by Section 21.-:54.140 of this code. (Ord. NS-675 g 39, 2003;
Ord. 9804 ~ 4 (part). 1986)
21.44.070 Comprehensive planne~ facilities.
Areas may be exempted from the parking requirements as otherwise set up in this
chapter, provided:
1) Such area shall be accurately defined by the planning commission after
processing in the same manner required for an amendment to the zoning title;
2) No such district may be established and exempted from the provisions of
Section 21.44.130 unless sixty percent or more of all record lots comprising
such proposed dismct are zoned to uses first permitted in a commercial (C) or
industrial (M) zone; - -
3) _ Such exemptions shall apply only to uses first permitted in the commercial (C)
or industrial (M) zon~; ..
4) Before such defined district shall be exempt as provided in this section, active
proceeding under any applicable legislative authority shall be instituted to
assure that the exempted area shall be provided with comprehensive parking
facilities which will reasonably serve the entire district. (Qrd. 9804 ~ 4 (part),
1986)
21.44.080 Required improvement and maintenance of parking area.
Every lot used as a public or private parking area and having a capacity of five or more
vehicles shall be developed and maintained in the following maDl1er:
1) Surfacing. Off-street parking areas shall be paved or otherwise surfaced and
maintained so as to eliminate dust or mud and shall be so graded and drained
as to dispose of all surface water. In no case shall such drainage be allowed
across sidewalks or driveways;
"
2)
Border Barricades, Screening and Landscaping.
(A) Every parking area that is not separated by a fence from any street or alley
property line upon which it abuts, shall be provided with a suitable concrete
curb or timber barrier not less than six inches in height; located not less than
two feet from such street or alley property lines and such curb or barrier shall
be securely installed and maintained; provided no such curb or barrier shall be
required across any driveway or entrance to such parking area,
(B) Every parking area abutting property located in one of the residential
zones shall be separated from such property by a solid wal~ view-obscuring
fence or compact evergreen hedge six feet in height measured from the grade
of the finished surface Qf such parking lot closest to the contiguous residential
zone property; provided, that along the required front yard the fence, wall or
hedge shall not exceed forty-two inches in height. No such wall, fence or
hedge need be provided where the elevation of that portion of the parking area
immediately adjacent to a residential zone is six feet or more below the
elevation of such residential zone property along the common property line,
(C) MY lights provided to illuminate any public parking area, semi-public
parking area or used car sales area permitted by this chapter shall be so
arranged as to reflect the light away from any premises upon which a dwelling
unit is located;
3)
Entrances and Exits. The location- and design -1)f all entrances and exits shall
be subject to the approval of the pianning director or other designated person,
_ provided no entrance or exit other than on or fro"m an alley shall be closer than
five feet to any lot located in an "R" zone. (Ord. 9804 ~ 4 (part), 1986)
21.44.090 Parking areas in R-3, R-P and R-T zones.
Every parking area located in an R-3, R-P or R-T zone shall be governed by the
following provisions in addition to those required above:
1) No parking lot to be used as an accessory to a commercial or
office/professional establishment shall be established until it shall first have
been reviewed by the plamrlng conunission and its location approved. Such
approval may be conditioned upon the commission's requiring the planting
and/or maintenance of trees, shrubs or other landscaping within and along the
borders of such parking area;
2) Such a parlcing lot to be used as an accessory to a permitted commercial or
office/professional establishment shaIl be so located that the boundary of such
parking lot closest to the site of the commercial or office/professional
establishment to which it is accessory shall be not more than fiftY/eet distant;
3) Such parking lot shall be used solely for the parking of private passenger
yehic1es;
4) No sign of any kind, other than one designating entrances, exits, conditions of
use or the location of visitor parking spaces in residential projects shall be
maintained on such parking lot. Any such sign shall not exceed eight square
feet in area. (Ord. 9804 ~ 4 (part), 1986)
21.44.100 Landscaping of parking areas.
Every required parking area having a capacity of fiye or more vehicles, except in R-A, R-
1 and R-2 zones, shall be landscaped as follows:
1) For purposes of this section, the words "parking area" shall include all black-
top or paved areas, including access ways and areas;
2) At least three percent of said area shall be planted and maintained with trees
listed on the city official street tree list, or approved shrubs;
3) Said trees or shrubs shall be:
(A) Planted in accordance with the requirements of Section 20.16.180 of this
code,
(B) Contained in planting areas with a minimum dimension of four feet and
bounded by a concrete or masomycurb of a minimum of six inches in height,
(C) Located throughout the off-street p~rking areas in order to obtain the
maximum amount of dispersion;
4) All landscaped areas shall be served by a water irrigation system and be
supplied with bubblers or sprinklers;
5) All plans for such landscaped areas shall be approved by the city planning
department, and city manager prior to the construction and placement therenf.
(Ord. 9804 ~ 4 (part), 1986)
21.44.110 Compact parking.
Compact parking space shan be permitted and regulated as follows:
1) Nonresidential zones, up to twenty-five percent of the total required parIcing
spaces may be compact spaces.
2) Residential zones up to forty-five percent of the required visitor parIcing
spaces may be compact spaces.
3) All compact parking spaces regardless of the zone shall comp1y with the
following criteria:
(A) Compact car spaces shall be located in separate parking aisles from
standard sized spaces;
(B) Aisles for compact car spaces shall be clearly marked with permanent pole
signs denoting "Compact Cars Only;"
(C) Compact car spaces shall be located in close proximity to the facility
which they serve so as to encourage their maximum usage;
(D) Compact spaces must be a minimum width of eight feet and a minimum
length of fifteen feet with no overhang permitted. (Ord. 9804 9 4 (part), 1986)
21.44.120 Tandem parking-Subs~aDdard.
(a) Tandem parking within the front yard setback shall be permitted for those existing
substandard frontage lots with a width ofless than fifty feet, provided there is a minimum
of one parking space per dwelling unit provided for within the required setback lines, and
that the front yard building setback be no less than twenty feet.
(b) Front yard building setbacks for second and third floors in R-W zones only, shan be
allowed to extend to the tep. foot setback line when tandem parking is utilized in the front
yard. (Ord. 9804 9 4 (part), 1986)
21.44.130 Required garage s!andards in residential zones.
Required garages in residential zones shan b.e construcf~d according to the following
standards;
1) Garage Area in the R-1 Zone. All garages shall have minimum dimensions of
twenty feet by twenty feet as measured from the interior wall edges of the
garage.
2) Garage Area in Multi-family Zones.
(A) Single-car garage. All garages shall haye minimum dimensions of twelve
feet by twenty feet as measured from the interior wall edges of the garage.
(B) Double-car garages (both spaces for same unit). All garages shall have
minimum dimensions of twenty feet by twenty feet as measured from the
interior wall edges of the garage.
(C) Multi-single-car garages in one structure. Each separate, single-car garage
shall have interior dimensions of twelve feet by twenty feet, exclusive of
supporting columns. As a minimum, each space shall be separated from the
adjacent garage, floor to ceiling, by a permanent stud partition with one-half
inch gypsum board on one side, where no additional fire protection is
required.
~,
3) Underground garages with shared open parking shall maintain a standard stall
size of eight and one-half feet by twenty feet, exclusive of supporting columns
or posts. A backup distance of twenty-four feet shall be maintained in addition
to a minimum five feet turning bumpout located at the end of any stall series.
4) In all residential zones other than R-I, garages, parking stalls, carports and
RV parking spaces (excluding those in approved RV parking lots) shall be for
the exclusive use of the residents only and shall not be separately sold or
rented to nonresidents of the property. (Ord. 9804 (part), 1986; Qrd. 9792 g 1,
1986)
San DIego :Uunldpal Code
lI-2006)
Cl1apter 14: General Regulations
~se Parkin!: Spaces Required per 1,000 Square Feet ofFloor Area Uoius Otherwise Noted (Floor Are:a Includc.s
Gross Floo! ftJe3 plus below Grade Floor Area. and Excludes Floor Area DcvotM 10 Parking)
Required AUlomobi~e l'arklni SpaC1!:3 . Required Blc)'cle
(:3)
- Parking Spaces
.
MInimum Required Ouaide a Minimum Required r,faxtmum C-Jrpaol !I1IlIlmum
1'\"211511 Ares WlthlD a TrallSit Permitted r,lIlIimum (2)
- Area(l)
Child Car. Fa~/iltu I per staff 85% of Minimum NJA NJA NIA
Funeral parton &: I per 3 seats; 30.0 for assembly area 85% at minimum NJA NlA 2% of Auto Minimum
Mortuaries If' no flJCCd seats
OutpatIent Medical Clinic 4,0 3.5 6,0 0.4 0.03 + ,03 hike locketS
with shower
Private clubs,lodges, 1 per guutTDOIII, 85% ofMiJrimum NJA NIA 2% of Auto Minimum
btcmal orpnizations 01":2.5, v.ilichner is p:eater(7)
(e:xc:pt btaniIfes and
saromies)
Single !00111 occupancy 1 per room o..s per room NJA NlA 0.2 petItlOII1
hote!s
Yery Tov1 f1/&tJ1M (~: 0.5 per room 'l"ery /UIf bu:om.(~:
Q.2S per rooro
VeteriDary dinic:s &:. 2,5 2.1 NJA NJA WA
hospitals
omceslbi
g~.ess &: professlollaU 3.3 2.9 5.0 0.3 0.03 +.03 bike
onramellll lockers
~~oDal &: corpante . with shower
headquarters (cxtept in IS
l7one)
~fedlcal, dental, &:. health 4.0 3,5 6.0 0.4 0,03 + .03 bike lockers
pracd!1oners (except in IS with shower
Zone)
All office uses ill :he IS Zone 1.0(4) 1.0(4) 5.0 N/A 0.1
Vehicle & Vehicular Equipment Sales & Service
Automobile service stallons 2 per Station; wilh Mainrcnanco 85% of N/A NlA N/A
FaciJity. 3 per Station Plus Minimum
I per service Bay
Retail Sales: 3,0
Vehicle repair &. 5.0 - 4.3 N/A NlA N/A
malll/enallCe
Vehicle sa/e.s & rentals 1 per eac!l t a display C3I1I 85% of Minimum NlA NlA N/A
Ch. Art Diy,
I 14 I 2 I' s . {."
San Dle~o MunIcipal Code
(8-2006)
Chapter 14: General Regulation!
Use Parkini Spaces Required per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Ara Ulllcss Othenrlse Noted (Floor AIu Includes
Gross ~oar Area plus below Gmle Floor Area, 3I1d Excludes Aoor Area Devoted to Parking)
Required Automobile Parking Spaces Required Blc)'cle
- . Parldllg Spaces (3)
-
-
MInimum Required Outside a lIllnlmum Required Maxlmnm C<1rpool MInimum
Tnnslt Area Within a Transit Permitted Mlnlmum(2)
- An:a(l)
Vacalillll3llttade schools 1 per stUdent at maximwu OCC11pa11col &5% of Minimum N/A N/A 2"~ nf Auto Minimum
ExhibitlUlIs tc I per 3 sea1S; 30,0 irno fixed seats &5% of Minimum NJA NJA 2% of Auto Minimwn
Convention Facilities
Hospitals 2 per bed 85% of Minimum N/A MIA 2% of Auto Minimum
Intcnnediato care facili1ies 1 per 3 beds 85% ofMininwm NJA MIA 2% of Auto MiDimwn
. and nuaing 1icilit\u
Interpretive Centm 3.3 2.8 NJA NJA 2"10 of Auto Minimum
Museums 3,3 2.8 NJA N/A 2% of AulO Minimum
RadID .t Television 3.3 2.9 5.0 0.3 0.03 -+- .D3 _ Iockm
Broldcasting wi!h Mower
Retail Sales: See Table 142-0SD
Commercial Services I
Eatbac '" DriIIldDg See Tablc 142~5E I
lstabUshmellts
PublIc assembly &:
entertaInment
ThcaIcI3 1-3 saeeer. 1 per 3 seats 85% of~um MIA N/A :ze/. oi Auto Minimum
4+ S=:lS: I per 3.3 seats
Per assembly area jf not fIXed seats:
50.0
Health clubs S.O 85% of Minimum NJA NlA 2% of AulO ~nimum
Clubs with Courts: I additional space
per the maximum number of
authorized playm (Amateur Athletic
Union) per court
Swinuning pools CAnunet"l:ial: 1 per 100 sq. It 85% or Minimum NJA NlA 2% of AI.lO ~fiIIimum
ofpoal sumce area
CAmmunily: 1 per 175 sq. It of pool -
surface area
All ather pubJic assembly 1 per 3 sealS; 30,0 una fIXed se3ts 8S% of Minimum NIA NIA 2% of Auto Minunum
and entertainment
VlJitor accommodatlons I per guest room . I per guut room N/A NJA 2~'" of Auto ~imwn
Conference Area: 10.D Conierence Area: 10,0
Separately Re;nlatcd Uses
C'I. Art. Vi".
114 I Z I 5 .,,1IIiI
ATTACHMENT 5
Disclosure Statement
-Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-a1, prior to any adon upon matters that wiD require discretionary ac=!on by the C~uncil.
Planntng Commission and all o1her official bod:es of the City, a staten:ent of discJOsure of certain ownership er financ:al
interests, payments, or campaign contributions fer a City of Chula VIsta electfon must be filed. The foncwing infCm'.ati:::n
m~st be discosee:
1, Ust the nan:es of aU persons having a financial :nterest in the propertl that Is the subj~ of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, appficant, centraC:Cr, sUbc::ntraeor, material supplier,
Innkeepers USA
Eastlake Cor=orat~ Ce~ter, LLC
2.- If any person-'dentified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ef aJI indrJiduals with
a $2000 investment in the business (cerpcratiorJpartnership) entity.
See attached
3. If any person- identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-prof.t organization or 1rust.. !1st :he narr.es cf ar.y ;erscn
serving as din!c:tor of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of 1he !rust,
See attac~ed
4, Please identify every person. induding any agents. employees, conscftants. or independern c.:ntra2ors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
~fnt~a Morg~~: Seltzer Capl~~ M~~~cn Vitek
Ri~~rd Gallecos: ?aci=i= Design Concept3
Andrew Dz~:'rn3k';, ~a=e Ma:zcmb Mike Voat; Alan Hu=f~~~: IRE Cevelcpment
5. Has any pernon" associated wit... this centract had any financial dealings with an cffic:a;- of :he C:ty of C:'ufa
VISta as it :'e!ates to :his C:::1trad within !he past 12 mcntt1s. Yes_ NC2-
If Yes, brieffy desc:Ibe tt1e nature of :he financial :nter~ the official- may ha\te in :his cen~ct.
6.
Have 'IOU made a contr.'buticn of mere than $2:0 within the past twelve (12} months to a c:;r.-ent member of the
Cht:!a'Vista C;ty Council? No ~ Yes _If yes, whic:1 C~uncil member?
------
7. Have ycu ;::t'r.~;d ;:-.:::a ::1;m ~ (cr an ~:::;! etj,;~~c!':~ valu~) to ar: o~ciar- ol!he C;tt cf Chula 'f;stz; in :roe
p~t ~....er,e (~2} mor.lM:' (This ir.cr:;c~s tci.'9 a scurce ot ir.c::m~, rr.cr.cy :0 re!irc a ~a1 debt, g:ft. lean, etc.)
Yes No..:i-
If Yo:. whk:., offiCar. and 'fn-klt ....-as tt:e nature cf i/om prOvided7
Date: -4- -k.., !o 7
I I
IUctar:i Mielbye
Print Of"~e narr.e of C<:rrtr-GCtCflJl.ppJJcant
Por.!on Is d..ru:ed 35: any itdMduaf, linn, c::-pazmezst'.:p, ~fr.1 ven:ure.. assoc.~n, scc:az C:::=, 1r.;'.crn.1
e19aniza~n. c=r;:cr.1Iion. estate. tnm, receiver, syndicate, arrf ether c:ur..'y, ~. rnunid;alily. di:itr.c:.. or C'.l1er
politiQI ~'Vi3ion, -cr any oilier g:a:p or c::mtinaIIon ading as a unit.
~:::aI ~udes, hut is not IfmIted tc: Mayer; Cca:ndl or.ember.ChuIa \I1stI R.ed.9e!apment CCtp0r3::cn merrl:er.
F!anning Comrroissicr'.et', memI:er of a Ccard, ~..ssion. cr ~ of the C"dy, lrr.pXIye&, or s:a:f rr.emters.
..
September 8, 2CCS
"
As of 3/30/07
SERIES C PREFERRED UNITS
Name and Address
INNKEEPERS FINANCIAL
CORPORATION
:140 Royal Poinciana Way~ Suite 306
Palm Beac~Florida 33480
SUB-TOTAL: SERIES C
-1-
Series C Units
5.800.000
Series C
Percentage
Interest of
~
"
Name and Address
INNKEEPERS FINANCIAL
CORPORATION
340 Royal Poinciana Way, Suite 306
Palm Beach, FL 33480
Jeffrey H. Fisher
255 Clark Avenue
Palm Beach, FL 33480
Martin A. List and
Karen G. List as JTWROS
223 Sunset Ave.
Suite #110
Palm Beach, FL 33480
The Tina Newmark.
Revocable Trust
145 Atlantis Boulevard
Atlantis, FL 33462
The Shoor Family Trust fIb/o Adrienne
Shoar
c/o Gina D. Silvestri, Trustee
Cwnmings & Lockwood LLC
29 South Main Street
West Hartford, CT 06107
The Shoor Fannly Trust fIb/o Barbara
Chesler
clo Gina D. Silvestri, Trustee
Cummings & Lockwood LLC
29 South Main Street
West Hartford, cT 06107
I / May not include recent DRIP Shares
As of 3/30/07
COMMON UNITS
Common
Units
47,805,76511
348,2892/
52,013
99
329
328
2! 71,429 pledged to Jerome Fisher, 161,450 pledged to SunTrust Bank.
-2-
Common
Percentage
Interest
98.6%
.72
.11
,-
As of 3/30/07
Common
Common Percentage
Name and Address Units Interest
Route 611 Corp. 20,013- .04
306 Royal Poin~iana Way
Palm Beach, FL 33480
Route 454 Corp. 45,293 .09
306 Royal Poinciana Way
Palm Beach, FL 33480
-
William Hamrick 61,991 .13
c/o TMH Hotels
lMA P~ Suite 325
250 NoUh Water Street
Wichita, KS 67201
Theodore 1. Moss 30,814 .06
677 Forest Hill Road
Lake Forest, IL 60045
Hotel Growth Partners, L.P. 6,201 .01
cIa Lodge Works Corporation ,
8100 E. 22nd St., North
Building 500
Wichi~ KS 67226
HotelWorks Holding LLc 21,075 ,04
c/o Lodgeworks Corporation
8100 E. 22nd St., North
Building 500
Wichi~ KS 67226
TMI Shore Partnership, L.P. 5,929 .01
2927 Wilderness Court
Wichita, KS 67226
Consolidated Equities Trust 5,929 .01
1725 N. Cypress Street
Wichita, KS 67206-3302
-3-
Name and Address
Don Marvin
1505 Rubin Ridge Circle
Wichita, KS 67230
John Morse
1159 Junonia St.
$anibel, FL 33957
-
Ed Socha
681 N. Broadmoor
Wichi~ KS 67206
Tina Gunderson
321 S. Lynwood
Wichi~ KS 67218
San Mateo Residence Associates, L.P.
Attn: Kevin Jantzen
Consolidated Holdings
8621 E. 21st St. North, Suite 200
Wichi~ KS 67206
Kentwood Residence Associates
Attn: Kevin Jantzen
Consolidated Holdings
8621 E. 21st St. North, Suite 200
Wichita, KS 67206
East Lansing Residence Associates
Attn: Roy Baker
8100 E. 2200 Street N.
Building 500
Wichita, KS 67226
SUB-TOTAL: COMMON
As of 3/30/07
Common
Units
5,929 '
5,929
4,150
1 ,779
32,878
15,164
1,849
48.471.746 If
Common -
Series C -
48,471,746 (including 665,981 held by third parties)
5,800,000
Common
Percentage
Interest
.01
.01
.01
.07
"
.03
100%
II May not include recent DRIP Shares or incentive plan-related issuances (Le., option exercises; restricted share
grants, etc.)
v:\userlmark\innkecp\capcon 3-28-4J7.doc
-4-
Exhibit A
EASTLAKE CORPORATE CENTER, LLC
MEMBERS
Member Name:
- ASLI, L.P~, a California limited partnership
- c/o Oliver R. McElroy, CPA
Bernard C. Simkin
Catherine Benkairn, as Trustee of the Benkaim Family Trust
Charles J. Pethtel, Jr., as Trustee of the Charles J. Pethtel Defined Benefit Plan
Craig Sapin
Donald M. and Joan V. Dolgas, as Co-Trustees of the Dolgas Family Trust
Dr. Cole and Judy Willoughby, husband and wife, as joint tenants
Eastlake C.C. Partners, a California general partnership
Gary 1. Greenberg, as Trustee of the Gary 1. Greenberg DDS PC Defined
Benefit Pension Plan
Hal and Debby Jacobs, husband and wife, as joint tenants
Ian Stuart, as Trustee of The Stuart Fami~y Trust U/A dated September 1,2000
James L. and Sandra K. Courtney, as Co-Trustees of the James and Sandra
Courtney Trust
James E. and Carol A. Williams, as Co-Trustees of the Williams Family Living
Trust
Janine M. Dolgas
o \.~~ "~ac.\J.i"R.()I'-JU!E.W.:c.:C(!-Md.aU (.:~ L:.-t.WtC~,..lmon.atiuft'IECC..u..c ~ Plot.... E..\hiW A:.(I4:50S.doc
Member Name:
Jason and Tricia Ashman, as Co-Trustees of the Ashman Family Trust dated
October 18, .1999 '
Jeff and Deni Jacobs, husband and wife, as joint tenants
John J. and Dorothy B. Miller, husband and wife, as community property
- June G. Lovelady, as Trustee of the June G. Lovelady Trust dated October 3,
1984
Lainer Investments, a California general partnership
Lawrence M. Cushman
Lawrence R. and Sandra C. Armstrong, as Co-Trustees of The Annstrong
Family Trust U/T/D November 29, 1988
Mina Levin
Bill Levin
Roberto and Julia Levin, as Co-Trustees of the Roberto and Julie Levin Family
Trust dated July 23, 2004
Arturo and Claris Levin, as Co- Truste~f the Levin Family Trust dated
December 14, 200 I
Robert and Barbara A. Scott, as CQ-Trustees of the Mascot Realty Inc.
Retirement Trust
Maureen Hallahan
Oliver R. McElroy, as Trustee of the McElroy Family Trust
Sun State LLC, a California limited liability company
Michael A. and Kellie J. Vogt, as Co-Trustees of the Vogt Family Trust dated
January 28, 2005
Oliver R. McElroy and Karen H. DeLaurier, as Co-Trustees ofthe OK Trust
2
r,,'.?nofl"" M~\1-i"'~OI"l-:"'RTt::.5\T..cc(P""LaU .;.~ CcnwJ'l)RC;t~I""onaatanc.CC.UC c:o.np.n- J'tula!.. ~ A.tJ.t2s:15.doe
Member Name:
Paul and Stacy Jacobs, as Co-Trustees of the Paul and Stacy Jacobs Family Trust
dated May 3, 2000
Peter B. and Kathleen E. Stark, as Co-Trustees of the Stark Family Revocable
Trust dated December 12, 1997
Randall S. and Karin J. Leavitt, husband and wife, as joint tenants
- Robert G. Russell, Jr. and Beverly A. Russell, husband and wife, as community
property
Robert W. White
Sandra F. Fisher, as Trustee of the Sandra Fisher Trust
c/o Oliver R. McElroy
Steven J. Untiedt
Steven M. Strauss, as Trustee of the Wilson-Strauss Trust U/D/T December 8,
1992
William J. and Bonita R. Ashman., as Co-Trustees of the Ashman Family Trust
Eric B. Shwisberg
Regan R. Tul1y
3
Ci;'o!'faop:ny ~cm\l.PR:on<:RT'U'"..3't'.CC \1".-Jab: ~ ~)'DRC R~ bll'tIFUWIOa'Ecc..u.c CoepaIn' t>mtUr. t'.J.l:.lbrt A.,O"2jQ'.iSoc
-
J