HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1987/11/04 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, November 4, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an
item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five
minutes.
1. REPORT: Proposed Open Space District No. 17 (Bel Air Ridge)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-10: Montgomery Specific Plan, Parts One
and Two (Continued)
3. Consideration of Final EIR-87-1, Rancho del Rey SPA-I (Continued)
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the adoption of the General Development
Plan, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (PCM-87-6),
Public Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis, Develop-
ment Agreement, Design Guidelines and Development
Regulation for Rancho del Rey SPA-I Rancho del Rey
Partnership (Continued)
5. Consideration of CEQA Findings, EIR-87-1, Rancho del Rey SPA-I (Continued)
6. Statement of Overriding Considerations - Rancho del Rey SPA-I (Continued)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of November 18, 1987
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
October 19, 1987
File: OS-O18
TO: George Krempl, Director of Planning ~
FROM: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works/City En~
Manuel A. Mollinedo, Director of Parks and Recreatfd~71~
SUBJECT: Report on Proposed Open Space District No. 17 (Bel Air Ridge)
Attached is a proposed report to the Planning Commission regarding the
proposed Open Space District for Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. We would like to
request that this report be submitted to the Planning Commission at its
November 4, 1987 meeting.
CST:fp
WPC 3270E
TO: City Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Staff Report. on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting
of November 4, 1987
1. REPORT: Proposed Open Space District No. 17 (Bel Air Ridge)
Background
On June 16, 1987, the City Council approved the Tentative Map for Chula Vista
Tract 87-7, Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The proposed subdivision is located on
the north side of East "J" Street, just west of Paseo Ladera and consists of
46 single family residential lots and one open space lot (Lot A). Lot A will
contain a fill slope, approximately 90 feet in height, in the south leg of
Rice Canyon. Lot A will also contain a 48-inch storm drain which collects the
storm runoff from the subdivision and adjacent properties. The outlet of the
storm drain is near the bottom of the canyon.
The Tentative Map was approved by Planning Commission Resolution PCS-87-7 and
Council Resolution 13085. Those resolutions contain the following conditions
of approval relevant to the subject of this report:
"f. Graded access shall be provided to all drainage structures, including
outlets, This requirement may be waived if the City Engineer
determines that the 'outlet .to sterm drains can be adequately
maintained by an open space maintenance district. Paved access shall
be provided to drainage structures located in the rear yards of lots."
"m. Open Space Lot A shall be dedicated to the City in fee title as open
space. The developer shall request the inclusion of open space Lot A
in the formation of open space district 13 prior to the recordation
of the final map."
Louis Cohen, the developer/owner of Bel Air Ridge has submitted a letter dated
August 21, 1987, in which he requests that the subject property be included in
open space district no. 13.
Open space district no. 13 which was to have been formed for E1 Rancho del Rey
No. 6 was not formed. Instead, it was determined that it would be more
practical to include the area of E1 Rancho del Rey No. 6 into the existing
open space no. l0 (Casa del Rey Open Space District).
Staff review and discussions with the developer and Rancho del Rey Partnership
(the owners of the adjacent undeveloped land) has led us to the conclusion
that it is in the best interest of all parties and the general public to form
a new district comprising, initially, the Bel Air Ridge subdivision. As the
adjacent properties develop, those properties would be annexed to the new
district.
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending formation of the
proposed open space district by the City Council. A public hearing before
that body must be held before it may approve formation of the district.
Discussion
The boundary of the proposed open space district will be the subdivision
boundary of Chula Vista Tract 87-7 IBel Air Ridge Subdivision). The district
will initially contain 46 single family lots and one open space lot (Lot A).
The adjacent undeveloped properties are owned by Rancho del Rey partnership,
and are currently identified as SPA II. Precisely when the adjacent
properties are to be developed is uncertain, but when such development occurs,
the properties will be required to annex to the proposed open space district.
The proposed open space district will have two maintenance requirements:
maintenance of the slope contained in Lot A and maintenance of the outlet of
the storm drain to be constructed with this subdivision. The slope is a~ fill
slope, approximately 90 feet high, located on the south slope of Rice Canyon
Isouth leg). The top 10 feet of the slope is private property (to allow for
the construction of decks). The remaining slope is located in Lot "A" and
will be maintained by the open space district. It is a non-irrigated slope,
designed for low maintenance requirements, but some maintenance Iweed
abatement, etc) is inevitable. The developer's landscape architect estimates
that the annual cost of maintaining the slope will be $2,800 or $60.87 per
lot. The cost per lot is expected to diminish when subsequent developments
are annexed to the district. In open space district 10, which contains 587
lots, the assessment for FY 86-87 was $45 per lot.
Fee title to Lot A will be granted to the City in conjunction with approval of
the Subdivision Map for Bel Air Ridge.
Maintenance of the outlet of the storm drain will contain two aspects: weed
abatement and erosion repair. In both aspects, design techniques are being
utilized to prevent the need for any major work. A rip rap energy dissipator
is to be constructed at the outlet to eliminate erosion problems, and the rock
will be grouted to prevent weeds from obstructing the outlet. Staff's concern
is that any construction in a major watercourse must consider the
unpredictable effects of large volumes of water and high velocities, and
therefore, must have some provision for maintenance.
Inclusion of this maintenance in the open space district will satisfy the
requirements cited in condition (m) of the Council resolution approving the
Tentative Map.
Since the nature and frequency of occurrence of the maintenance requirements
for the outlet are not predictable, it is impossible to realistically estimate
the cost of such maintenance. Staff feels that is is unreasonable to place
this additional burden on an existing open space district, where maintenance
needs have been clearly established over a period of years. In open space
districts lO, there is no requirement for maintenance of storm drain outlets.
The south leg of Rice Canyon, where the subject storm drain outlet is located,
is typically a narrow canyon with steep sides. There are very few places
where a maintenance vehicle can drive to the bottom. As further development
occurs, the need to provide maintenance to storm drain outlets and the canyon
bottom itself will recur on a larger scale. In conjunction with the future
development, a comprehensive plan for maintenance of the canyon needs to be
developed.
-2-
The fill slope on the northerly subdivision boundary extends through Lot A,
and runs to a point approximately 600 feet easterly of the subdivision
boundary. The purpose of extending this slope beyond the subdivision boundary
is to balance earthwork in the subdivision grading to prevent costly export
and disposal of the soil. The location of the slope extension is designed to
coincide with plans for development of the adjacent property. Since the
development plans for the adjacent property are preliminary in nature, the
property owner is reluctant to dedicate the area containing the slope. The
developer of Bel Air Ridge has agreed with the adjacent property owner to be
responsible for maintenance of the offsite slope for a period of seven years.
The onsite slope (within Lot A) is proposed to be maintained by open space
district. The offsite slope can be included in the open space maintenance
district when development plans are sufficiently firm, and the owner of the
property is willing to grant the City title to the land to be maintained.
CST:fp
WPC 3270E
-3-
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-10 - Montgomery Specific Plan, Parts One and Two
A. BACKGROUND
1. At the Planning Commission meeting of October 14, 1987, the
Commission voted to continue the public hearing to consider adoption
of Parts One and Two of the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan to the
meeting of November 4, 1987. At that time, after hearing the staff
report and public testimony on the subject plan, the Commission
directed staff to return with additional information relating to
phasing out heavy industrial uses, the SDG&E right-of-way, and
economic impacts of the proposed plan on the property owners in
Broderick's Acres.
The following staff report addresses the Commission"s aforementioned
direction to staff.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that adoption of Parts One and Two of the Draft Montgomery
Specific Plan will have no significant environmental impact and adopt
the Negative Declaration issued under IS-88-04M.
2. Adopt a motion approving Parts One and Two of the Draft Montgomery
Specific Plan and recommending that the City Council adopt such.
C. ANALYSIS
1. Phase Out of Heavy Industrial Uses
a. Montgomery, from its inception has been an industrial center,
and its economy remains, to a significant degree, dependent on
industry. The Specific Plan supports the establishment of light
and limited industrial land uses within the community. The
Plan, furthermore, calls for the devotion of much of the land
which abuts upon Main Street and Broadway, south of Palomar
Street, to the said land uses.
Montgomery has too often accepted the land use burdens of other
areas within the region. It must now plan for its own
resurgence and progress. This planning should entail the
limitation of new storage facilities within the community. For
example, Montgomery has enough, if not, too many,
mini-warehouses and surface-storage lots.
Notwithstanding the Specific Plan's proposal that Montgomery
remain an industrial center, it is essential that the existing
wrecking yards, junk yards, open storage areas, salvage
operations, batching plants and other marginal or heavy
industrial uses be, to a substantial extent, phased out or
discontinued. It is envisioned this phasing out or
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 2
discontinuance will be accomplished gradually over a long period
of time, and in accordance with a systematic program designed to
cause a minimum of disruption or economic hardship. The
specific regulations and policies to implement a phase-out
program will be addressed in Part Three of the Montgomery
Specific Plan. Part Three will contain the implementation or
regulatory mechanisms which are designed to execute or
effectuate the plan. Prior to Part Three being adopted as
official City land use policy, it must be subjected to a full
public review and hearing process.
During its discussion relative to phasing out of heavy
industrial uses, the Commission requested specific information
pertaining to wrecking yards. As requested by the Commission,
the following table lists those uses operating under a
conditional use permit, with specified time limits. Other such
uses, including heavy industrial uses, currently operating in
Montgomery are governed by zoning regulations which do no% place
time limits on the subject operations. These uses either are
now, or would become, non-conforming once the Plan is adopted,
and at present would not be under any onus to move or relocate.
MAJOR USE PERMITS APPROVED FOR
SCRAP YARDS AND WRECKING YARDS IN MONTGOMERY
Major Use Type of Expiration
Business Name Location Permit Use Date
J and C Auto Wreckers 3513 & 3517 P79-013 Auto 1989
Main Street Dismantling
Standard Auto Recycling 150 Center St. P87-40M Auto June 1989
Dismantling or 90 days
after
specific
plan
adoption
Phil Reed's 3525 Main Street P85-Ogl Auto 1990
Auto Recycling Dismantling
Phil Reed's West side of PCC 86-24M Auto June 1988
Auto Recycling 128 Mace Street Dismantling or 60 days
after
specific
plan
adoption
Action Auto Dismantlers 151 Center St. P80-055 Auto 1991
Dismantling
Chula Vista Recycling East side of PCC 86-24M Scrap Yard Oct. 25,
128 Mace Street 1987
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 3
Conclusion: It is staff's polemic, that to extend heavy
industrial uses indefinitely is inconsistent with the Montgomery
Specific Plan's principles, inconsistent with the physical,
social, economic and environmental interests of this community
and are not presently supportable.
2. San Diego Gas and Electric Company Right-of-Way
a. Comprised of a strip of land approximately 250 feet wide,
containing approximately 30 acres. The SDG&E right-of-way
crosses the central spine of Montgomery in an east-west
direction. This crossing presents an opportunity to
establish a green belt in an area that is substantially
built out. Therefore, where feasible, the Draft Montgomery
Specific Plan proposes that the SDG&E right-of-way be
reserved and improved for public parks or open space.
While the primary purpose of the SDG&E right-of-way is to
provide a power line transmission corridor, it could also
accommodate a broad spectrum of secondary recreational
uses, including bike and pedestrian paths, plant nurseries
and arboreta, community gardens, and related off-street
parking. Furthermore it should be noted that the said
right-of-way could provide a recreational linkage between
the parksite suggested for the Orange Avenue/Hermosa Avenue
area and the MTDB Station at Palomar Street.
b. Mr. Don Rose, representing the San Diego Gas and Electric
Company, reported to the Commission his company concurs
with the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan's designation of
parks and open space for the company's right-of-way, where
it passes through a residential area.
He requested, however, that the company be permitted to
lease those portions of the right-of-way adjacent to
commercial and industrial uses for parking, approximately
15 acres.
Mr. Rose further advised the Commission that revenue from
the aforementioned leasing would go into the rate base, and
benefit the rate payers. Subsequently, Mr. Rose has
advised staff that SDG&E estimates the potential annual
revenue from the subject leasing would amount to
$196,020.00. (Please see SDG&E letter, Exhibit "A"
attached.) Using this dollar amount, and the State
Department of Finance 820,000 dwelling unit estimate for
San Diego County, staff has computed the $196,020.00 lease
revenue would amount to about $0.23 per dwelling unit, per
annum.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 4
Since there is a critical shortage of open space and
recreational land in Montgomery, staff suggests that a much
higher order of the public interest would be served by
limiting the use of SDG&E right-of-way to parks and open
space.
3. Broderick's Otay Acres - Economic Impact of Proposed Residential
Density
a. Pursuant to the Commission's direction, staff has
investigated the issue of the economic impact of reducing
the residential density in Broderick's Acres, as proposed
by the Draft Montgomery Specific Plan. Upon review of this
matter, staff has concluded that the Planning Department
does not have the in-house capability to validly estimate,
or conduct a land value appraisal, which would provide a
dollar value comparison of the existing permitted
residential density versus the proposed residential density
for Broderick's Acres. However, there is considerable data
available which staff believes will aid the Commission in
its deliberations relative to deciding the appropriate
future residential density range for Broderick's Acres.
This data is presented in the following paragraphs.
b. Broderick's Acres is a small residential subdivision, which
is principally comprised of modest single family
dwellings. It functions as a residential neighborhood and
tends to be rural in appearance and land use pattern.
(Please see map, Exhibit "B" attached.)
The Chula Vista General Plan currently designates
Broderick's Acres as "Research and Limited Industrial."
The aforementioned land uses are not consistent with Chula
Vista's General Plan "Research and Limited Industrial"
designation for the area. Therefore, the Draft Montgomery
Specific Plan depicts the subcommunity as "Low/Medium
Density Residential (3-5 Du.Ac.)," and calls for an
amendment of the General Plan to reflect Broderick's Acres
existing residential land use pattern.
Except for three small parcels, which are zoned C-26 for
commercial use, the existing zoning of the subcommunity is
RVlS. This is a residential zone classification which
permits 14.5 dwelling units to the acre. It is a
continuation of the San Diego County zoning which existed
prior to the Montgomery annexation and was adopted by the
County May 15, 1985. For previous 18 years, while still
under County jurisdiction, the subcommunity was zoned for
single family residential use, with a permitted density of
approximately 7 dwelling units per acre.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 5
If Broderick's Acres were to be developed to the maximum
permitted density, 14.5 dwelling units per acre, the
character and amenity of the community would be adversely
affected; therefore, it is proposed the zoning be changed
to a zone classification consistent with the existing
single family residential development and density. The C36
Zone comprises a small commercial zone which should be
redesignated for low/medium density residential use on the
Specific Plan.
c. Staff has discussed the foregoing scenario with
professionals in the fields of land appraisal and
development. The responses as to its economic impact on
Broderick's Acres were varied. There was some thought that
reducing the permitted density would reduce the market
value of some parcels by as much as 20 'to 50 percent.
Conversely, it was thought that increased~development, as
permitted under the existing allowable density of 14.5
dwelling units to the acre, would have an adverse economic
impact on the community. This would occur due to increased
crowding, poor traffic circulation, greater on-street
parking demand, and a random unplanned mix of structure
types.
WPC 4428P
(~ EXHIBIT "A"
San Diego Gas & Electric
FILE NO
October 22, 1987
Frank Herrera
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
SUBJECT: Potential Revenue For A Portion of SDG&E Transmission
Right-of-Way Located In The Montgomery Community
Dear Frank:
I asked Land Management to provide some figures on what the
potential lease revenue could be for the subject right of way. They
give me an estimate based on the portion of the right of way that I
requested be designated the same as the surrounding areas which are
industrial and commercial. The attached map indicates the area in
question.
Land Management informs me that there are approximately 15 acres
of leasable land within that right of way. The potential annual revenue
for that land would be $196,020. This assumes a 12% annual rate of
return on capital and that 100% of the 15 acres would be leased.
If y~u have any questions regarding this letter or wish to discuss
the matter in general, please give me a call at 696-2409.
Sincerely,
Don L. Rose
DLR:ame
POST OFFICE BOX 1831 · SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112 · TELEPHONE: 619/696-2000
EXHI~ "A"
Z
MAIN ~,,~ ST.
--Single Family Dwelling BRODERICKJS OTAY ACRES
~Two Family Dwelling ~ LAND USE PATTERN
~ ,n,~,,s,ria, ~ ,5o'~ EXHIBIT B
0 300
V ac ant City of Chula Vista-Planning Dept.-11t4J87
EXCERPT FROM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 1987
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Parts One and Two of the Draft
Montgomery Specific Plan
Principal Planner Pass, in presenting an introduction to the Montgomery
Specific Plan, pointed out this is the first specific plan proposed for the
City of Chula Vista which covers an entirely built up area. It covers 3.5
square miles with a population between 20,000 and25,000 people. Its geometry
is free fo~m since it relates only to the area annexed to the City in 1985, an
area much reduced from the Montgomery community of the past which extended
from the Bayfront to Hilltop and from "L" Street to the river. The area
concerned represents the heart of Montgomery and consists of Otay Town, Castle
Park, Harborside, Woodlawn Park, Broderick Acres, West Fairfield and East
Fairfield.
Mr. Pass noted that Part One of the Plan surveys the community in considerable
depth as far as its social institutions, past activities, demographics and
land use characteristics. This survey finds that despite physical problems
Montgomery is characterized by vitality and viability in its commercial and
industrial areas and forward movement in the residential districts. It is the
purpose of the plan to stimulate these characteristics.
Mr. Pass reported that Part Two is the Policy Plan, and since it deals with an
area of integrated land uses, it is an organic plan--one that does not move in
spurts but on a gradual basis over a protracted period of time. It is long
range, comprehensive and general, and is best described as a blueprint for the
progress of the Montgomery community.
He stated it is a blueprint for the improvement of the urban fabric,
infrastructure and circulation of Montgomery. It recognizes that Montgomery
has become a part of Chula Vista and shows how it can be a principal and
integral part of the greater Chula Vista area without losin~ its own identity
and the identity of its several subcommunities. The plan is a counterattack
against the things that have kept Montgomery from achieving the order i%s
vitality and vigor should have produced. It is a counterattack against very
high density residential development and against marginal land uses that are
regionally essential but not attractive to the local scene. It promotes lower
density characterized by home ownership.
Mr. Pass advised that the policies contained in Part Two will be implemented
by Part Three, the Implementation Plan, which contains design standards, land
use standards and circulation standards. The Plan will be implemented by
zoning and subdivision regulations and by the City's rehabilitation program,
which affects the upgrading and conservation of housing stocks; and also by
the Capital Improvement Program, which has already brought improvements of the
infrastructure and circulation in the area.
Mr. Pass gave credit for the Plan to the Montgomery Planning Committee which
spent 18 months in regular monthly sessions and workshops, as well as making
contacts with the residents and industrial users, to the Planning Team
including Bill Heiter and Frank Herrera, and to the public and private persons
who gave input during the Planning Committee sessions.
Assistant Planner Herrera addressed the structure of the Montgomery Specific
Plan and covered the specifics of Part One, the Planning Study, which
generated the survey, evaluation, trends and analysis, and forecasts. The
survey consisted of the history, development, planning, zoning, and plan
overview. The evaluation analyzes land use and occupancy, availability of
land, public facilities and services, such as circulation, drainage, sewer,
water and schools.
The Plan evaluates the general economic conditions, employment statistics,
commercial-industrial analysis, local home and business ownership, and land
use patterns. It also addresses environmental concerns and potential land use
friction, as well as the basic needs of the community. Senior Planner Heiter
addressed Part Two of the Plan, which is comprised of the goals, objectives,
policies, and planning and development proposals; these components are based
on the planning study covered in Part One. He advised that the goals are the
aims or long range aspirations of the community; the objectives are
intermediate aims, being time measurable; and the policies are the rules that
help interpret the plan as it is implemented. The principles are the
fundamental truths upon which the plan is based; and the planning and
development proposals are suggestions for the improvement of the pattern of
the Montgomery community. In addition, the plan diagram is a very important
component of the specific plan; the land use designations and categories and
symbols shown on the plan diagram are substantive and represent part of the
text of the plan.
Mr. Heiter pointed out the various designations on the plan diagram, including
residential at ranges of low density, 3-5 dwellings per acre, up to high
density at 18-26 dwelling units per acre; the commercial areas along Third
Avenue and Broadway; research and limited industrial along Main Street and
between Palomar and Main; parks and open space, the largest being Otay River
flood area, and also including SDG&E right-of-way, Lauderbach Center, golf
course, and the Telegrapnh Canyon Creek area.
Mr. Heiter reviewed the following proposals which are included in the plan:
1. Reduce the residential density for Broderick's Otay acres, Castle Park,
and Otay Town site.
2. Retain and improve the commercial strips along the Broadway and Third
Avenue.
3. Establish or build up the focus of the community at the Oxford Street
area, which presently includes the post office, fire station and
Lauderbach Community Center.
-2-
4. Upgrade the industrial corridor along Main Street to establish it as a
research and limited industrial center and gradually phase out the heavy
industrial uses.
Mr. Heiter pointed out three areas where potential redevelopment projects are
needed; Faivre Street west of Broadway, portions of Otay Town, and West
Fairfield.
Mr. Heiter noted a shortage of parks and recreational facilities and pointed
out the following areas proposed to be reserved or used for this purpose:
SDG&E right-of-way, expansion of Lauderbach Center, library site at Hermosa
and Orange, Telegraph Canyon Creek area adjacent to Rice School, and the major
area of Otay River.
He reported that some areas could not be accommodated in the existing planning
study because of environmental situations that exist. One of these is the
Otay River, due to the several jurisdictions involved and major problems;
another is the West Fairfield area with extreme mixed uses and a condition of
decline. These are designated Whitelands on the plan diagram. Other areas
that could not be accommodated in the current study but are 'manageable with
further study are the Faivre Street area, Oxford Street focus, Woodlawn Park
Community Center, Telegraph Canyon Creek park area, Hermosa-Orange Avenue park
area and SDG&E right-of-way.
Mr. Heiter stated that the key proposals established in the plan form a bridge
between the goals, objectives and policies, and the later implementation
program.
Nancy Palmer, current chair of the Montgomery Planning Committee introduced
the other members of the committee who were present, and addressed the
Planning Commission on the areas of concern brought before the Committee at
the public hearing on September 2nd. She felt it is interesting that this
specific plan is being considered at the centennial of the community; maps
were recorded for the area of Otay Town in 1887 and for Rancho de la Nacion in
1888. She pointed out that for 94 years there was no planning, and not too
much since.
Ms. Palmer advised that one of the areas concern was East Fairfield, where the
current zoning is medium to high density, but the actual fabric of the
community is predominately single family dwellings and occasional duplexes on
larger lots. The recommendation of the plan was to lower the density to
accentuate the single family dwellings. She expressed the aim of not creating
high density development similar to that existing on Woodlawn Avenue, north of
"H" Street, in Chula Vista.
The second area of concentration was Main Street between Woodlawn Park and
Broderick's Acres. It was felt it could be used for low density residential
without having lots fronting on Main Street and without driveways into Main
Street.
She pointed out the excess of commercial development in the community, which
was 200% of the optimum number needed for the residents of the area. Many of
the small shopping centers have store spaces that have never been rented.
The final focus was the heavy industry along Main Street, in some cases across
the street from residential use. It the intent of the plan to upgrade the
type of industrial use so that it could cohabit with the residential
comfortably and provide a more suitable gateway to the park envisioned along
the Otay Valley.
Ms. Palmer applauded the efforts of the Committee over the past two years and
urged the Planning Commission to approve Parts One and Two and recommend its
adoption to the City Council.
In response to a question from Chairperson Carson, Ms. Palmer advised that all
regular monthly meetings and workshops were open to the public and, in
addition, two town meetings were held--one in Woodlawn Park and one in Otay
Community Center--where the communities were invited to come and give their
input. Attendance ranged from a few persons to in excess of 100.
With regard to the makeup of the Planning Committee, Ms. Palmer reported that
four of the present members were elected by Montgomery residents at the time
of the annexation and the other three have been appointed to fill vacancies as
they have occurred.
Ms. Carson questioned the statement in the report concerning the consistency
of the Montgomery Plan with the Chula Vista General Plan, inasmuch as the
General Plan has not been considered by the Commission.
Mr. Pass explained that it is consistent with the existing General Plan, and
with all its 16 elements. Some of those elements will not be changed, and
when the Land Use Element is considered, it will have to be responsive and
sensitive to the Montgomery Plan, as the Montgomery Plan will be as much a
part of the General Plan as Central Chula Vista or the Eastern Territories.
Director of Planning Krempl advised that it is contemplated to bring the
General Plan update to the Planning Commission shortly after the first of the
year in a draft final form. Whatever is adopted for Montgomery will be part
of that plan, along with plans for Central Chula Vista, Bayfront, Eastern
Territories, and the Sweetwater-Bonita area.
Commissioner Grasser asked if there is an area in the Montgomery Plan for
heavy industrial uses.
Mr. Pass advised that no new heavy industrial uses would be permitted and it
is anticipated that existing uses of that nature would be phased out and
replaced with more desirable research and limited industrial activity.
-4-
In response to questions from Commissioner Shipe, Mr. Pass indicated the
length of time for phasing out heavy industrial uses cannot be forecast as
much will depend on the market place and other development activity. With
respect to the commercial strips, they will be retained and upgraded through
infrastructure and circulation, interrelationship between the streets and the
land use, and an effort to get more landscaping and higher grade land uses.
With regard to the flexibility of the plan, Mr. Pass affirmed that the plan
can be changed at any time as required by environmental concerns, economic
changes, etc. He indicated that this plan will require an enormous amount of
fine tuning, which the Montgomery Planning Committee and this body will
undertake after the plan is adopted.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Donja Blokker, 353 Palm Avenue, in the area called Broderick's Otay Acres,
advised that she has lived there about a year and a half and has found it to
be a very vital and alive community. She favors the proposals to change it
back to single family residential since that is the zoning'under which it
originally developed. The zoning was changed to RV-15 just prior to the
annexation to Chula Vista.
Barry Isenberg of Isenberg Associates, representing five property
owners--Action Auto Dismantlers, J&C Auto Recycling, Standard Auto Recycling
and West Auto Wreckers--advised that his clients have no disagreement with the
goals and objectives of the Montgomery Specific Plan. They are modern auto
dismantling businesses and are concerned with not being distinguished from
junk yards, salvage yards or scrap yards. Mr. Isenberg distributed a prepared
report to the Commission which points out the distinction between auto
dismantlers and other types of wrecking or salvage yards.
He pointed out that auto dismantlers provide a vital function. The 20,000
auto dismantlers in th U.S. are a nearly five billion dollars a year industry,
providing used salable auto parts. If these modern auto dismantlers are
forced to leave an area, the need for parts does not go away, and they are
replaced by numerous small operations on vacant lots, backyards or driveways.
This presents more environmental problems than a properly operated business
under a conditional use permit. He indicated that a parts operation can be
designed to be conducted indoors.
Bob Fox, 1466 Lilac Avenue, Chula Vista, member of the Montgomery Planning
Committee, expressed his own personal views in supporting the plan. He noted
that the specific plan is in line with the position papers adopted by the City
Council in 1985 prior to the annexation. One of the needs addressed is the
provision of additional park land; by Chula Vista standards, the Montgomery
residents need 100 acres of park land, they currently have 3.9 acres. Mr. Fox
supported the designation of the existing industrial area to research and
limited industrial, contending that the present industrial uses are not
compatible with the adjacent residential area. He urged the Commission to
adopt the Plan.
-5-
Dick Kau, 3404 Bonita Road, expressed support for the plan and the belief that
with higher development standards it will improve the conditions that have
developed in the past.
Arthur Pino, 336 Palm Avenue, in Broderick's Acres, supported the plan for
lower density which he feels will improve the quality of life in the area.
Don Rose, representing San Diego Gas & Electric, lO1 Ash Street, San Diego,
concurred with the designation of the electric company's right-of-way for
parks and recreation where it passes through a residential area. He reported
that this is a fee owned right-of-way and asked that the City consider
permitting them to lease portions for parking where it is adjacent to
commercial and industrial uses. He advised that revenue from such leasing
would go into the rate base and benefit electric users.
Paul Kellogg, 660 Telegraph Canyon Road, reported that he obtained the
signatures of 15 of the 18 property owners in th 3900 and 4000 block of Main
Street requesting a change to light industrial use for that property since the
traffic and noise make is unsuitable for residential use.
Robert Jenkins, Jr., 131 Alvarado Street, a real estate broker, asked about
development in the East Fairfield area prior to the rezoning of the property.
He was advised that lots can be split and duplexes constructed in accordance
with City standards.
Juan Llamos, 210 Date Street, expressed opposition to changing his area from
the RV-15 zoning that was granted by the County.
The meeting recessed at 9:08 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
Ron Withall, 1431 Stratford Court, Del Mar, representing Beaty Development
Company, advised that they have operated an RV storage facility in the area
designated as a greenbelt since before the annexation. They also operate
Broadway Auto Center and Broadway Self Storage in that area. He reported that
they have 300 tenants in the RV storage facility, which is about 95%
occupancy, and it has been that way since shortly after it opened. He asked
for consideration of allowing the facility to remain since it provides a
service needed by the community. He applauded the overal plan and expressed
an interest in retaining and improving their existing commercial sites.
Phil Schuer, 1319 Costa Avenue, contended that the verbiage in the text of the
plan is a reiteration of previous studies made for the area in the past ten
years. He felt it was neither creative nor specific. He felt there had not
been enough resident participation in the preparation and discussion of the
plan. With reference to the plan diagram, or blueprint for the area, he
objected to changing an R-15 area to R-1 after people had worked for years to
get the higher density zoning.
-6-
Rose Duncan, 809 Dorothy Street, advised that she al so owns property at 280
and 286 Date in Broderick Acres. She stated that she had her property in the
RV-15 zone on the market for sale, but the potential buyer withdrew his offer
after learning from the City staff that the area is being considered for a
decrease in density, since his plan to purchase included building additional
units on the property. She contended the area is being infringed upon by
industry and higher density development and by the river which occasionally
floods. She felt the zoning should be left as it is for now, and in the
future possibly changed to industrial or higher density. She asked if it is
the intention of the City to pursue the redevelopment of the area identified
by creating a redevelopment district.
Director of Planning Krempl acknowledged the commitment by the City Council of
not having any redevelopment considered in the area for a four-year period.
He stated that while the Montgomery Specific Plan has identified study areas
and identified redevelopment as one of the tools to be considered in
implementing the plan, there has been no endorsement by anyone for
establishment of a redevelopment area in any portion of Montgomery. He
explained the process of public hearings that would be followed in
establishing such a district, if that is desired at a later date.
Mr. Krempl pointed out it is the staff's responsibility to advise potential
developers of the long range plans for an area as well as informing them of
the existing zoning and regulations applicable to the property. Based on the
wording in the letter read by Mrs. Duncan, he felt that the staff acted
appropriately.
Carol Marquez, 3517 Main Street, stated that she is not opposed to the
Specific Plan because she believes it is good to improve and clean up the
City. She has been in the auto recycling business in this area for 30 years,
has worked hard, paid taxes and abided by all the regulations. She felt they
should be recognized as a service essential to the area and treated as such.
Greg Rowe, 588 "L" Street, chairman of the Chula Vista Resource Conservation
Commission, a body charged with advising the Planning Commission on matters of
environmental significance, called attention to the Negative Declaration
issued for this plan. He pointed out that the plan diagram included in the
books identifies three areas to be withheld from any immediate action or
changes of any type to allow special study to be made with regard to any
possible impact, and if these areas are not retained in a special study status
the negative declaration would no longer hold.
Paul Brown, owner of Paul's South Bay Recycling at 149 Center Street, reported
that he recycles between 100 and 200 tons of non-ferrous metal and newspaper
in this City every month. He believes this a needed service, as are the auto
recyclers, in keeping the City clean. He suggested that the Commission think
very seriously about the impact if they get rid of the recyclers and
dismantlers.
-7-
Diane Tidey, 279 Palm Avenue, a 15 year resident in the area, addressed
problems facing their neighborhood. Some time ago, the County opened trenches
for drainage from Otay Valley Road and Main Street to the river, and when they
ran out of funds they left the trenches open. This now creates an
environmental hazard due to mosquitoes, water bugs, and rodents. There is
also a problem with cars going into the trenches at night due to inadequate
lighting. The County used to spray for mosquito abatement but this year the
residents have not been able to get anything done. She indicated this area is
south of Main Street between Hilltop and Melrose and while it was not included
in the Montgomery annexation, it was annexed at the same time.
Sherry Marquez, 3517 Main Street, asked about the time span for phasing out
the auto dismantlers.
Mr. Pass pointed out that this is a long range, comprehensive, and general
plan that sets the policy pattern, which will signal those who prepare the
third part of the plan, the implementation program, to address such matters.
It would be impossible to say at this time how long it will be, but probably
in excess of a year. He pointed out that after rezoning eac~ business would
be considered based on the type of permit under which they were operating at
the time of annexation, and whether or not it included a time limit.
Ms. Marquez asked if there is a plan to assist in the relocation.
Mr. Pass advised that if it were part of the redevelopment procedure, then
there would be relocation funds available, but at this time there is no formal
relocation policy.
As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commmissioner Shipe expressed the opinion that Montgomery is a hodge-podge
created by a disinterested and financially strapped San Diego County, which
has resulted in sprawl, economic and industrial obsolescence, urban blight,
nuisance and undermanaged land use. For those reasons, Montgomery needs help
and he supports the Montgomery Specific Plan.
Commissioner Casillas noted that while he is new on the Commission, he is not
new to Montgomery. He expressed concern over some of the public testimony,
such as the financial impact on property owners in Broderick Acres. He asked
if the staff could put together a summary of how the plan will impact every
property owner in the area.
He also expressed concern about the green space or park area in the SDG&E
right-of-way. He felt the electric company should attempt to optimize the use
of their property, and there would be some gain from leasing it, but it will
have an impact on the total community in terms of depriving them of park land
that is in short supply.
On the matter of phasing out heavy industry, the owners should have definite
assurance of how long they may remain.
-8-
Based on those concerns, Commissioner Casillas moved to continue consideration
of the Specific Plan to the first meeting in November.
Commissioner Grasser seconded the motion for discussion.
Commissioner Fuller acknowledged Mr. Casillas' concerns but pointed out the
issues have been studied and discussed over a period of a year and half and
anyone interested had an opportunity to attend discussions and hearings and
present their views. She pointed out improvements that she has observed in
the community within the past two years and feels it is time to move ahead and
recommend adoption of this plan to the City Council.
The motion to continue consideration of the Montgomery Specific Plan to the
meeting of November 4, 1987, carried 4-1 with Commissioner Fuller voting no.
WPC 4434P
-9-
negative declaration__
PROJECT NAME: Montgomery Specific Plan
PROJECT LOCATION: 3.5 square mile area located in the southwesterly part of
the City of Chula Vista
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS 88-4M DATE: August 21, 1987
A. Project Setting
The Montgomery Specific Plan comprises an area of approximately 3.5 square
miles located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista. It
lies within the area generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, "L"
Street on the north, Interstate 805 on the east, and the San Diego City
Limits on the south.
The Montgomery Specific Plan area is divided into several subcommunities
which are significant in reference to land use planning. They have been
identified by considering such factors as social relationships, historical
reference, and geographical place name. The subcommuni ties are:
Broderick's Otay Acres, Castle Park, Harborside and West Fairfield, Otay,
and Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park. (Please see map, Exhibit A.)
Within the Montgomery planning area lies a diversity of land uses which
vary substantially by their degree and intensity. Residential, commercial
and industrial land uses are fully represented within the planning area,
and in several instances are intermixed to the point where substantial
land use conflicts are occurring. Generalized existing land use is shown
in Exhibit B of this report.
Residential uses are distributed-throughout the planning area and occupy
878 acres, or 50% of the community. Of these existing residential uses,
single family housing types constitute 522 acres (30%) mobilehomes occupy
155 acres (9%), apartments occupy 155 acres (9%) and duplexes constitute
48 acres (3%).
Although each of the subcommunities contains substantial acreage devoted
to residential usage, Castle Park contains the bulk of residences,
containing 55% of all single, family acreage in Montgomery and 71% of all
apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 78% of the mobilehome
acreage.
Commercial activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres within
Montgomery, representing roughly 8% of the planning area. Most commercial
use types follow a strip pattern of development and predominate along
Broadway, Main Street and Third Avenue.
city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF
environmental review section CHULA VJ~J'A
Industrial uses exist in major concentrations within the subcommunities of
Harborside B and Otay; industrial uses occupy lll acres or 42% of
Harborside 'B' and 166 acres or 32% of Otay. Together, they represent 89%
of all industrially used land in the planning area.
Substantial areas given over to industrial uses within the planning area
are intermixed with residential and commercial, and the combination tends
to result in land use conflicts. By the same token, heavy and light
industrial uses are intermixed resulting in continuing adverse impacts
from noise, dust, parking, and aesthetic conflicts.
Public and quasi-public land uses include such uses as schools, churches
and other public facilities, comprising a total of 83 acres or 5% of the
planning area. The predominant land use in this respect is the public
school system within the planning area, consisting of two high schools,
two elementary schools, and a district administrative center.
Park uses within the planning area are confined to one public park of 3.9
acres within the Lauderbach Community Center; this acreage includes
buildings for the community center and parking.
The Chula Vista General Plan establishes a park standard ratio of 4 acres
of local park land for every 1,000 persons served, which includes the
combined total needs for both neighborhood and community parks. Using
this standard, the existing park requirement for the Montgomery planning
area is 100 acres.
There are 202 acres of land within the planning area classified as vacant,
or agricultural land. Larger parcels and concentrations of vacant land
are located within the subcommunities of Harborside 'B' and Otay,
amounting to 136 acres or 67% of the total. (These figures do not include
151 acres located within Castle Park owned by the San Diego Country Club
for use as a golf course.)
Of the vacant property, only 64 acres or 3.6% of the project area are
suitable for development. The remaining 138 acres are subject to
constraints imposed by lack off access, adverse topographic conditions, or
location within the Otay River floodplain and its associated wetlands.
Additional areas classified as under-utilized constitute 342 acres within
the planning area. Under-utilized territory is defined as property which
contains land uses of a type or intensity substantially below that
currently permitted by zoning and any physical constraints which limit
permitted uses.
Areas surrounding the Montgomery Planning Area include the San Diego Bay
to the west, the City of Chula Vista to the north, Interstate 805 and the
Otay River Valley to the east, and the Otay River Valley and the City of
San Diego to tile south.
B. Project Description
The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development,
redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when
adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance
currently in effect for the area.
The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies
and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of
the relationship between the Montgomery SpecSfic Plan and the Chula Vista
General Plan.
Please note that the scope of this initial study only addresses Parts I
and II of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and does not include Part III, the
implementation phase. An additional initial study will be required upon
completion of that document.
The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under
the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the
plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current
residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land
uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type,
where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy
industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan
document are contained within Part II.
The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center
for the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and
Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition,
present deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through
proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space,
as well as property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the
southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed
parkland and civic mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas
pending further analysis of issues involving socio-economic,
environmental, housing, townscape planning and traffic concerns.
Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special
comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity
known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the
floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street
between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in
conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment
of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are
presently conducted.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan is fully consistent with the
spirit, purpose, and primary goals and objectives of the Chula Vista
General Plan, and its text and diagram are designed to methodically
express and depict the General Plan at a larger scale, and a finer detail.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
Groundwater/Drainage
There are two areas which involve water courses as they fl ow through
the Montgomery Planning area, the Telegraph Canyon Creek and the Otay
River Valley. Both water courses flow from east to west draining
into the San Diego Bay. Areas subject to potential environmental
impacts from location within a floodplain are shown on Exhibit C of
this report.
1. Telegraph Canyon Creek
The Telegraph Canyon Creek flows through the northern portion of
the Montgomery Planning Area from approximately 400 feet east of
Third Avenue and "L" Street through property south of Arizona
Street crossing. Industrial Boulevard where it flows to the "J"
Street Marsh. At present, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
engaged in channeling the creek from 450 feet east of Fourth
Avenue west to Industrial Boulevard, which will remove
properties adjacent to the channel from the lO0 year
floodplain. The channelization project does not include
properties within 500 feet of either side of Third Avenue, and
some areas which are not contained within a channel will
continue to be subject to inundation. The proposed plan shows
these flood impact areas as parks and open space (west of Third
Avenue subject to further study) and private country club to
signify flood areas contained within the golf course east of
Third Avenue. Both proposed land uses involve presently vacant
areas of land for activities which do not propose permanent
structures and are, therefore, compatible with the floodplain
designation. In addition, since the special study area requires
project specific environmental review to assess potential issues
with respect to any biological resources present, the proposals
will not result in significant adverse environmental effects.
2. Otay River Valley
The Otay River Valley bounds the southern edge of the planning
area between Main Street and Palm Avenue (within the City of San
Diego). At present, large tracts of vacant land are
interspersed with two batch plant operations and marginal
industrial activities such as open storage and manufacturing
yards.
The area south of Nain Street between Broadway and Industrial
and a small area north of Main Street between Industrial
Boulevard and Interstate 5 (see Exhibit C) also within the 100
year floodplain for the Otay River. The area north of Main
Street was developed with industrial buildings under County
regulations prior to annexation under development regulations
requiring pad elevations to protect from inundation, if and when
flooding occurs. The area south of Main Street contains a
combination of large industrial uses with interim type storage
and industrial yards, intermixed with residential and commercial
uses, as well as vacant and under-utilized properties.
The area north of Main Street is urbanized under current County
floodplain development regulations so that a permanent
development pattern has alreaay been established. The area
south of Main Street is proposed for Research and Industrial
land uses subject to special study prior to designation of
permanent land uses.
The balance of parcels wi thin the Montgomery portion of the Otay
River Valley is proposed for inclusion as "Whitelands." Under
this designation, no new land use activities would be permitted
until the completion of comprehensive biological and wetlands
determination studies, as well as development of a regional
park, green belt/open space or nature preserve plan, subject to
review by neighboring jurisdictions as well as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
The special study area and "Whitelands" function as a holding
designation pending resolution of complex environmental and
jurisoictional land use issues. As such, no adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the
proposals outlined in the plan.
Land Use/Social Displacement
There are three areas within Montgomery for which the draft plan
proposes land uses that are substantially different from land uses
which presently exist or are permitted under present zoning. These
areas are: 1) properties south of Main Street between Date Street
and Rios Avenue (Brodericks Otay Acres), 2) properties south of Main
Street, and 3) parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and
Kennedy Street, adjacent to Del Mar Avenue. (See Exhibit C.)
T~ese areas have the potential for displacement of residents or
people employed on these sites as an indirect result of a change in
land use designation. The specific effects are discussed as follows.
l) Brodericks Otay Acres
The area known as Brodericks Otay Acres is developed primarily
with single family dwellings having access to narrow residential
streets in combination with the use of private streets and
drives. Historically zoning restricted development to single
family uses.
-6-
In May of 1955, the zoning and General Plan for the County's
Southbay Community Planning Area was amended to allow
development of multiple units with a density not to exceed 14.5
net dwellings per acre. In the interval that multi family units
have been pemitted no actual approvals and/or construction of
apartments have occurred. The draft Montgomery Specific Plan
proposes to return the designated land use to single family
development with a density of no more than five dwellings per
ac re.
Since the propose~ land use designation is in keeping with the
existing land uses present and the circulation system available,
and since there are no actual apartments developed within this
subarea, no substantial adverse environmental impacts will occur
from this action.
2) Mace and Center Street south of Main Street
Parcels which access Center Street and Mace Street are currently
zoned to allow Heavy Industrial Uses. Most of those properties
operate under major use permits which allow scrap operations and
include scrapyards and auto dismantling yards. The activities
conducted at these locations occur for the most part as open
uses within fenced yards. Those uses are unsightly by nature
and are subject to numerous conditions through the use permit
process to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts resulting from
operation of these businesses.
The proposeO land use designation under the draft plan would
prohibit scrap and dismantling operations and restrict
development to Research and Limited Industrial uses. Although
displacement of existing scrapyards and auto dismantling yards
would occur, development of other industrial activities which do
not result in adverse aesthetic impacts could take place under
implementation of the specific plan. The development of other
industrial uses which are not unsightly will result in a
beneficial environmental effect to the area, while employment
associated with limited industrial uses will mitigate the
displacement of people currently employed at these sites to a
level below significance.
3) Properties east of Third Avenue between Naples and Kennedy
The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to develop a focus
point for community civic and commercial activities within the
area surrounding the Lauderbach Community Center of Oxford
Street and along Third Avenue between Naples and Oxford Street.
This civic and commercial activity center is referred to in the
plan as the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Focus.
-7-
Part of this proposal entails deepening and expansion of
commercial land use designations along the east side of Third
Avenue to encompass properties along Del Mar Avenue, as shown in
Exhibit C. The expansion of commercial land use designations
would take place on properties which are currently residential
in nature, and could displace residents and affect existing
housing as an indirect result of development according to the
plan.
However, the area subject to adverse impacts has been designated
as a special study area, and the text of the plan indicates
that: "Any rezoning of building sites within the Focus to a
commercial classification should be preceded by comprehensive
studies which address socio-economic, environmental, housing,
townscape planning, and traffic issues."
The special study area is structured so that commercial
development on properties with existing residential uses is
precluded until appropriate studies and mitigation is effected.
In addition, any specific proposal for development is subject to
further environmental study and must include these comprehensive
stuoies as part of the review. Therefore, the propose~ action
at this point does not constitute an adverse and significant
environmental impact.
Transportation/Access
Among the proposals presented within the Montgomery Specific Plan are
suggestions for revisions to circulation, transportation drainage and
infrastructure. Chief amongst these suggestions are proposals to
widen the right-of-way for Main Street beneath the MTDB bridge at
Industrial Boulevard/Hollister Avenue, and to reopen Banner Avenue at
Orange Avenue. While these actions would result in traffic effects
which are not known at this time, the text stipulates that these
revisions not occur unless supported by traffic and engineering
studies which would assess these effects. Therefore, the proposals
to revise or enhance traffic circulation systems are contingent upon
further assessment and as such do not constitute significant adverse
environmental impact.
Landform/Topography
One subcommunity within the Montgomery Specific Plan, ~oodlawn Park,
is locateO in rolling, often steep terrain containing a number of
larger parcels with substandard or nonexistent access. Further
development of this area for single family residential uses as
outlined by the Montgomery Specific Plan would potentially involve
substantial alteration of existing topography. However, standard
development regulations outlined within the grading Ordinance for the
City of Chula Vista require that grading and construction permits be
-8-
obtained for development of those properties, as well as proposed
circulation improvements to the area. Further environmental
assessments are also required at the project stage to assess specific
impacts, as required through the Environmental Review Procedures
Manual for the City of Chula Vista.
Given these standard development regulations, no significant and
adverse environmental effects will occur to existing steep
topographic conditions at the plan stage.
E. Project Modifications
Groundwater/Drainage
Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas
is precluded by the plan through use of special study area and
whitelands designations, no mitigation is required.
Land Use/Social Development
Three potential impact areas were identified with proposed land uses
which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted,
and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on
site. Those areas are listed as follows:
A. Brodericks Otay Acres
Since development has not occurred at currently permitted
residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since
the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by
the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is
required.
B. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street
Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and
heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and
Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft
Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result.
However, since the proposed land use designation would foster
industrial activities offering other employment opportunities
without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap and
dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will
occur and no mitigation is required.
C. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy
Street
Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with
existing established single family dwellings as part of a
proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus.
However, since implementation of the commercial land use is
precluded by the require for assessment of impacts to residences
and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study
area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is
required.
Transportation/Access
The plan suggests certain proposals to revise and expand traffic
circulation through the Montgomery area, chief among these is the
widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hollister
Street, and extension of Second Avenue to Banner Street at Orange
Avenue. Since the plan text precludes implementation of these
proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, not
significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required
at this point.
Landform/Topography
The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling
topography and inadequate access. Further development for single
family residences may include significant alteration of existing
slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require
grading and construction permits at the project level with attendant
environmental review, therefore, no significant adverse impacts will
occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future
review.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
No mitigation measures are necessary because the plan has been modified to
avoid any significant impact.
G. Findings of Insignificant Impact
l) Since the proposed plan affords protection from premature development
within floodplain with the potential for biologically sensitive
areas, pending completion of comprehensive assessment studies and
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed
project will not degrade the quality of the environment.
2) Through implementation of the proposed plan, both short- and
long-term planning and environmental goals will be achieved through
protection of riverine open space, gradual termination of unsightly
and marginal heavy industrial uses, and expansion and improvement of
the traffic circulation system within the Montgomery Planning Area.
3) The draft Montgomery Specific Plan is an area wide plan in which no
significant and adverse environmental effects have been identified;
there are no environmental effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively conservative.
4) Implementation of Montgomery Specific Plan will not cause substantial
adverse effects to human beings either directly or indirectly.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
2. Documents
l) Chapter 19.70, Title 19 (Zoning), Chula Vista Municipal Code
2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista
3) Draft Montgomery Specific Plan Parts I and II, 1987
4) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Channel Realignment, San Diego County,
California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corps
of Engineers Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment, March
1987
5) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Detailed Project Report for Flood
Control ano Draft Environmental Impact Statement" U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, September 1979
6) Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-2152,
060284-2154, 060284-2158, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
June 15, 1964
7) Sout~ Bay Community PI.an, County of San Diego, May 1985
8) City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance
9) Design Standards for Street Construction, City of Chula Vista
lO) Environmental Review Procedures, City of Chula Vista
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
N~TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
city of chula vista planning department ('I~Y OF
environmental review section ( HULAVIS-I'^..
RECEIVED
2EORGE KREMPL OCTOBFR 278~9~T 28 A9:36
PLANNING COMMISSION
276 FOURTH AVE.
CHULA VISTA. CA. 92010 CITY OF CHULA u~e~
DEAR SIR:
WE THE UNDERSIGNED RECQUEST THE HEARING ON THE MONTGOMERY
SPECIFIC PLAN OF NOVEMBER 4. 1987 BE CONTINUED AT LEAST~30 DAYS.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
NOTIFICATION AND INPUT.
RESF'EC]-FULLY
NAME ADDRESS
I
GEORGE KREMPL
PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27. 1987
276 FOURTH AVE.
CHULA VISTA. CA. 92010
DEAR 8IR:
WE THE UNDERSIGNED REQUE8T THE HEARING ON THE MONTGOMERY
~SPECIFIC PLAN OF NOVEMBER 4. 1987 BE CONTINUED AT LEAST 30 DAYS.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
NO?IFICATION AND INF'UT.
RESPECTFULLY
NAME
ADDRESS
'
GEORGE KREMPL OCT[]BER 27.1987
PLANNING COMMISSION
276 FOURTH AVE.
CHULA VISTA. CA. 92010
DEAR SIR:
WE THE UNDER8IGNED REQUE8T THE HEARING ON THE MONTGOMERY
SPECIFIC PLAN OF NOVEMBER 4, 1987 BE CONTINUED AT LEAST ~0 DAYS.
THE PURPO8E OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL FU£LIC" ~
NOTIFICATION AND INPUT.
'WE. THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK~D OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPEGIFIG PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK~A~ANDOTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA.
WE. THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK~'A-N~OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA.
p~.~,,., ~. ~
.......... ~~ ~ . ~ ,
-, ~ --~ ........ ~ ................................... I ...........
---~--~ ............... I ............... ~-~-- ............... I ...........
/~ ....... ~_ _ z~z~L~X~ .................. ~ .................. I ...........
/
WE. THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK~"~"~y ACRES. OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK~[ND OT~ ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA.
NAME ADDRESS I ~-0~ ¢~ 'ii,- I DATE
_ .: . x z dr _ _I ........
.......
~<_ ~/~__~_ 1~ .......z~'~ ....... ~_c:~ ~ ___:_~=;_2~
_~::c~,: .~: 9(¢z~'~. /z ¢ ,¢:/>~.~, i,f':v [:~zL, ,o-/.~.~-~
__:_,.. .:_ :. _~. __: ....................... ~ ;~_~ __.___:___
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA, THI~ I~CLUDE~ FAIRFI~[.n ~C~.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
.[PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
~WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
('AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA, THIS INCLUDES FAIRFIELD. ACRES~
NAME IADDRESS ~' DATE I PHONE
......................... I .......................... 3 .... k___~ ...........
~~_~ ....... :~__~:~___~_~ ....
..... .-~ ....... , ............ =_~ ........... .__~_ .... ,
_~~~~~_ , __~ ......... ~ ...... . ..... =___:~___ , ...........
~ ~ _. , , ...............
~ ......... ~___~_~ .... ~ .... ~ , ............
- ~ .....~---~ - '~ .... i -~ .................... ~ ....~-~--'-~1~-~ ........
.... , .... ............ , ...........
_ _~ . ~ .... ~_~ ~----~_ -= .... ~ ..... ~ ......... cC_=-b_.~..,~- ..........
~..~~ ......., ~ 2-~__~ ~_ .~ ~__c~_~ =_= ~ ~f z~y ...........
WE, TffE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF ERODERICK AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN T}{E GENERAL PLAN
t
WE. THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK~D OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE-
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA, THIS INCLUDES.~AIJ~E.IELD.
.................................................... ¥--~--~---~---
NAME {ADDRESS
r ~ -7 .... , ...... ~--~ .... ~-- -~-'- -i .................
...... .... ..........
~ ~ ~~ ...... ~ .... ..... ~- ....... ~--~ .... , ...........
' ~ ~ ...... ~ ....... ~'- ' -'--- -~ .... ~-- I ........
..... ~_~~_~ ..... m-?~ ~ ~: ~:~-
_~__%_~__~ ........ ~c_~_~n, ...... a_~
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA, THIS INCLUDES FAIRFIELD. ACRES ~SV~ t~j~
NAME ADDRESS ~ DATE I PHONE
r
--, ~. ~
-~ ...... ~-~--~ ..... -- ........................
77o
~ ~ _ ~5;z_ ZL~__~ ......... L ........ ~ .... ~ ......
-- -~TX ~ ~ ............... , .......... q--7 ...................
-~~ ~ ~-/~. ;.~ ....... ~ ~_( ~_ _
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPEUIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
NAME ] ADDRESS ~.f~.~.~.' ,~-~ .. I DATE
- ~.--~ ..................... ~ ........................ ---- ~- ~-,f-?-~2~ ........ ~--
.....
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERICK AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE BOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA, _THIS ~NC,LUD~S ~rRPTE[.n. ACRES.
I
t
WE. THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS ~ AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
HONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REOARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA, THIS INCLUDES FAIRFIEL~ ACRES.
NAME IADDRESS ~' DATE ! PHONE
.... r-)- .......... ~ ....... ! .......................... 3 ........ ~ ...........
- W- ---~ ........ ~--~ ~---~---~ ......... - ~-~ ..... ,---~ ....
I
---," ;~~-~ .......... ~ ~ ~- ~_ _~l~ ' _~ .~_~ ~
............... ~_~_ _~ ....
~ : ............. V, .................
.................. ~ ..... '~ ........~-~--~- ~ -'t-J~__c3--
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA, THIS INCLUDES FAIRFIELD ACRES.
NAME [ADDRESS [' DATE PHONE
__ ~ .... .......... ~ ~ /~.~-~
'7 .... ~ ....... ~_~-~_~h~_=~ ............ ~__~:~~
., ........... ~ .... ~__~&___l .......
-- ............ ~_C_~___~ ~,~ ~=~_ :~:~
~~m ,-..
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODERIC~ AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA, THIS INCLUDES FAIRFIELD.ACRES.
_ _ _;%'_ ,Z_ .O_/v. s_ _ _~5 _ _~ ~ ~_r_, ~_/.~'~- ~ ~- ="<~-C~ ~, ............................. ,_~___2 .............
.,,t--~-~i.,, L' ,~ ............... £- ......... 7 ...................
~_~ ............ ~_ ......... ~ ...... ~_ ..........
.......... = ............. ~.~--~.--~ ................ ~ ........
1' ' ~. ~ ' - : ' - ' '~'~ ' ' ~
, =~ ~--*.- ........ , ~ ..... -~- ....................................
,,~ > ~. ~ ~ .?-~.~.-,~ , ,. ~
..... ~~ ....... ~ ~ ~ _ _~ ~ ........ '~ /:hh_ z l
...... = .... '~7=) ............. - ...... =-= ............... 7---7-~;- I
// ~ ¢ , , . . .-~.. ¢ ( .¢ ; I...' .~%-, :.
_;i=L._=5__=___: ............ %--='-_=2=___3_2 ....... -L ........ I ....... =w
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODER[~K AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS O~~ AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
ANO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA.
NAME I ADDRESS I DATE
¢
~_~' ~ ~X__~_~_A~~ .......... ~l~Z__ c
I
I
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BRODR~ICK AND OTAY ACRES, OPPOSE THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING THE DOWN ZONING WITHIN THESE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS. WE SUPPORT HIGHER DENSITY TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHICH WILL BENEFIT ITS RESIDENTS AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE ZONING TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA, THIS INCLUDES FAIRFIELD. ACRES.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 1
3. Consideration of Final EIR-87-1, Rancho del Rey SPA I
A. BACKGROUND
The Draft of this EIR was before the Planning Commission at the August 12,
1987 meeting, a copy of the transcript along with written comments on the
Draft EIR are included in the final EIR along with written comments and
responses to both.
The Resource Conservation Commission has recommended certification of the
document.
B. RECO~MENDATION
Certify that EIR-83-2 and EIR-87-1 have been prepared in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, the environmental procedures of the City of Chula Vista and
that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the documents as
it reaches a decision on the project.
The above recommendation is conditioned upon the substitution of a
reference to the Public Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis in
lieu of the Table 4-F-4 which follows Page 4-106.
C. ORGANIZATION
The Environmental Review Documents for this project consist of the Master
EIR for the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan (EIR-83-3), the technical
appendices on file in the Planning Department, the addendum to EIR-87-1,
Comments & Responses to EIR-87-1, EIR-87-1, and the technical appendices
to EIR-87-1 on file in the Planning Department.
D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Prior Project Characteristics
The Rancho del Rey development addressed in the circulated Draft EIR
(87-1) 'was to involve the construction of 982 single-family units and
1212 multi-family units in a variety of density categories on 305.1
acres (see Figure 2-4 on page 2-14 of the EIR). Non-residential
uses, including an employment park (84.5 acres), community facilities
(5.6 acres), neighborhood and community parks (55.7 acres), a school
site (12.6 acres), open space (272.6 acres) and a circulation system
(72.5 acres), aware proposed on the remaining 503.5 acres. The
original proposal incorporated density transfers among residential
density categories ~ithin the project site; the concept of such
transfers was introduced in the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan to
allow for site specific adjustment in residential densities as plans
were refined. The density transfers proposed in the SPA I ?lan do
not result in an overall increase in the number of residential units
nor does it result in any transfer units into or out of t~e SPA I
Plan area.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 2
2. Revised Project
In response to public review of the draft Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan
EIR and in conjunction with City of Chula Vista staff
recommendations, the applicant has submitted a revised project
design. The revised design responds to concerns expressed by the
school district regarding the location of a proposed school in
immediate proximity to existing SDG&E transmission lines.
The revised plan retains the majority of the elements of the original
plan, including the circulation pattern and the conceptual grading
plan; additionally, the exception of two of the parcels, the land use
designations and configurations across the site remain the same.
The two parcels which are affected by the revision are the original
school site and the new school site. Under the revised plan, the
school would be located along the internal loop road and the
residential units that are displaced by the school would be relocated
to the original school site. As a result of this change, an
additional 1.4 acres would be developed with residential land uses,
with a corresponding reduction of 1.4 acres in the size of the school
site. As stated above, the total number of residential units on the
project site would remain the same; however, under the revised plan
the number of single-family "cottage" units would be increased by 90,
with a corresponding decrease in the number of duplex units.
E. MAJOR ISSUES
Biological Resources
Investigation of biological resources associated with the previously
considered E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan identified significant,
unmitigable impacts related to development of the proposed project. On
the basis of these findings, the SPA I Plan incorporated design
modifications and additional mitigation measures in an attempt to reduce
biological impacts. Specifically, this included the consolidation of open
space in the main canyon systems, specific measures a to prevent impacts
to sensitive species, programs to restore natural habitat to disturbed
areas, and the reduction of impacts to wetlands habitat through
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. These measures, while realizing a number of
reductions to potential ~mpacts, do not change the original assessment
that significant, unmitigable biological impacts will result from the
proposed project. However, identified mitigation measures are fully and
properly implemented, the overall mitigation plan is considered adequate
with respect to the proposed development. Potential biological impacts
would also be associated with changes in onsite hydrology/water quality
and with proposed alterations in the onsite stream channels.
Specifically, these would be related to loss of sensitive habits and/or
species related to the construction of drainage improvements in Rice
Canyon.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 3
Landform/Aesthetics
Development of the Rancho del Rey project as proposed would substantially
alter the landform and visual character of the site, resulting in a number
of highly visible changes to existing topographic features and the
creation of large manufactured slopes.
Implementation of the grading plan would entail cutting most of the ridges
and filling in the lower elevations, including many of the finger
canyons. Much of the exiting open space in the north and central legs of
Rice Canyon would be preserved, however, pursuant to recommendations
contained in the 1985 Master EIR. A total of 9,500,000 cubic yards of
grading would occur throughout the project site, with maximum cut and fill
slopes of 100 and 130 feet, respectively. The proposed grading would
result in a number of potential adverse visual impacts within and near the
project site, including the alteration of on- and off-site views. Of
particular importance with respect to visual alteration are potential
impacts to designated Scenic Highway corridors along East "H" Street and
Otay Lakes Road.
Mitigation for potential impacts to landform and visual resources are
contained within the specific design guidelines of the SPA I Plan.
Additionally, a design manual is currently being prepared which, will
supplement the SPA I Plan design criteria. Project development will
require the implementation of all the above guidelines, including those
related to grading, landscaping, fencing, signing, lighting, parking and
scenic highways. These guidelines are intended to provide flexible
direction through the different levels of project development, rather than
to serve as absolute design standards. The impacts from the proposed
project associated with landform and visual alteration would be mitigated
to a level of insignificance with implementation of the guidelines.
Geology/Soils
Available data from the site specific geotechnical investigation indicates
that there are no major geological constraints on the project site that
would preclude development. Potential identified impacts include the
expansion of surficial deposits, the compaction of alluvial soils, the
effect of bentonitic clay seams and poorly litnified zones on slope
stability, the generation of oversized material from cemented or dense
bedrock, and the presence of the potentially active La Nacion Fault Zone.
A number of mitigation .measures were identified in the geotechnical
investigation, including specific guidelines pertaining to grading, soil
and slope stability, fill materials, faulting seismicity, and foundation
design. With implementation of the mitigation measure, no significant
geotechnical conditions would adversely affect the proposed project.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 4
Traffic Circulation and Access
Vehicular use associated with the proposed project is projected to result
in 41,054 ADT for the SPA-I area. This would produce significant traffic
circulation and access impacts within the project vicinity, particularly
along East "H" Street and at the "H" Street/I-805 interchange. A number
of mitigation measures have been developed which would reduce these
impacts below levels of significance. This assumption is contingent,
however, on the proposed development maintaining a maximum volume of
56,500 vehicles per day on East "H" Street east of Hidden Vista Drive
prior to the construction of Route 125 (the transportation analysis notes
that, if development in the vicinity of the project site does not occur a
the rate assumed in the analysis, a greater number of ADT could be
accommodated on local roadways).
The proposed mitigation measures consist primarily of constructing and/or
improving a number of roads in the project vicinity to accommodate the
projected traffic volumes. Assuming that the referenced maximum ADT ARE
maintained on East "H" Street, no significant impacts related to traffic
would be expected from the proposed project development with
implementation of the mitigation measures.
Noise
Potential noise impacts associated with the Rancho del Rey project were
calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Stamina 2.0 noise
prediction model. To determine the maximum noise levels that could be
experienced onsite, community buildout traffic volumes provided by the
technical transportation analysis were used for East "H" Street and Otay
Lakes Road. Additionally, projected internal traffic volumes and proposed
grade elevations were used to model future onsite noise levels. The
results of the noise analysis indicate that upon buildout of the proposed
project, portions of the site (particularly along East "H" Street and Otay
Lakes Road)'would be subject to noise levels exceeding the City of Chula
Vista exterior noise standards. In addition, areas of the site exposed to
noise elves of 65 dB(A) or greater would experience significant interior
noise impacts. Mitigation measures have been developed which would reduce
the majority of identified noise impacts below levels of significance.
These include the use of appropriately sized and located walls, berms, and
building setbacks for mitigating exterior noise levels and the use of
appropriate building design and insulating materials to adequately
attenuate interior noise levels. Impacts which would not be adequately
mitigated by the measures listed above include those associated with the
multi-family areas adjacent to East "H" Street (parcels R-15 and R-14),
and the East "H" Street Park (parcel P2). These areas will require
further analysis and mitigation once detailed development plans are made
available.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 5
Land Use
The proposed project would alter the utilization of the site from
essentially undeveloped open space to a mixed use development containing
residential, industrial, and open space areas. This change would result
in impacts such as increased traffic flows, the alteration of natural
landforms, reduced visual quality, additional public service and utility
demands, increased noise, and the loss of native habitats and sensitive
plant and animal species. The proposed land uses for Rancho del Rey are,
however, compatible with the existing and planned land uses in the project
vicinity, and the project is consistent with all applicable land use
policies. Therefore, no adverse land use impacts are anticipated from the
implementation of the SPA-I Plan, and no mitigation measures would be
required.
Hydrol ogy/Water Quality
The proposed development would require substantial grading, infilling of
drainages, and construction of impervious surfaces to accommodate the
planned community. This would result in impacts to both the quality and
quantity of runoff within and downstream from the site. Specifically,
grading and drainage alteration would change the direction and velocity of
runoff, and increase the potential for erosion by removing vegetatio~ and
creating artificial slopes. The construction of impervious surfaces would
decrease infiltration and increase the runoff from the site. Increasing
the runoff from the site (and the associated increase in erosion) would
increase the potential for a reduction in water quality (both onsite and
downstream) due to the associated rise in suspended and dissolved
streamloads. In addition, water quality would be impacted by the proposed
increase in urban development, which generally increases the potential for
runoff contamination. Locally perched groundwater was identified onsite,
and represent a significant potential flooding impact to proposed
structures and facilities, especially during wet climatic periods when
groundwater 'levels rise.
Mitigation measures regarding hydrology/water quality include guidelines
related to drainage facilities, building pad drainage, soil and slope
stability, runoff control, and revegetation of disturbed areas. The
identified mitigation measures will reduce significant hydrology/water
quality impacts from the proposed project.
Parks/Recreation and Open Space
The Rancho del Rey project proposes to incorporate a series of parks,
community facilities, and hiking and equestrian trails totalling 105.2
acres, as well as 227.1 acres of open space. These proposed acreages
exceed all appropriate dedication standards of the City of Chula Vista,
and would preserve much of the existing open space in Rice and Otay Lakes
Canyons. While the location and size of proposed parks and open space is
not expected to be an issue, the nature and schedule of development of the
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 6
parks and recreational facilities are conceptual and have not been
finalized. Consequently, a number of mitigation measures have been
established relating to the nature and schedule of parks and recreation
development, as well as biological and hydrological concerns within the
major onsite canyons. These measures will reduce or eliminate adverse
impacts related to parks/recreation and open space from the proposed
project.
Water
The proposed water demand for the Rancho del Rey project at full buildout
would be 1.54 million gallons per day (mgd), with nearly 90 percent
utilized by the residential (70 percent) and employment park (19.5
percent) developments. The project proposal includes an internal water
conveyance system capable of meeting the projected onsite water needs, as
well as a umber of offsite improvements designed to offset the project's
impacts to the regional water distribution system. Specifically, the
offsite facilities include a 30-inch water transmission main beneath East
"H" Street, from the proposed Reservoir 22-3 to the intersection of Yuba
and "H" Streets, and, from that point, a 24-inch line to the intersection
of "H" Street and Buena Vista Way. To reduce onsite water demands,
however, it is recommended that the water conservation policies currently
endorsed by the State of California and the City of Chula Vista be
implemented by the Rancho del Rey project. These include various
water-saving techniques such as drought-resistant landscaping, drip
irrigation systems, low-flow shower and faucet restrictors, and toilet
dams.
Sewer
The proposed Rancho del Rey community is projected to produce an average
sewage flow of 0.75 million gallons per day. The proposed project design
includes a ~wastewater conveyance system to transport project-generated
waste into the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer System via the City of Chula
Vista sewage infrastructure. The Rancho del Rey project would not produce
any significant adverse impacts to the City of Chula Vista sewage
infrastructure. Implementation of the project may, however, require the
developer to contribute either financially or through construction of
appropriate facilities to provide contribution to the regional system.
Additionally, the project proposes the construction of a sewer line
maintenance road in the main leg of Rice Canyon, which could result in
significant impacts to biological and/or hydrological resources.
Mitigation measures have been developed which would reduce these impacts
below levels of insignificance, including maintenance road location,
design, and construction specifications, as well as appropriate
rehabilitation efforts. The above measures would reduce or avoid
significant adverse impacts related to sewer service as a result of the
proposed project development.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 7
Schools
The Chula Vista Elementary School and Sweetwater Union High School
Districts both assume an average generation rate of 0.3 students per
dwelling unit. Based on the proposed 2201 residences for Rancho del Rey,
therefore, 660 elementary and 660 secondary students would be generated
from the proposed project. While these additional students would result
in incremental impacts to existing school facilities, current regional
development plans call for the construction of three elementary schools,
one junior high school, and one high school in the vicinity of the project
site. These facilities would reduce nearly all adverse project-related
impacts related to schools below levels of significance. The exception to
this is related to elementary school capacity, for which a shortage of
classroom space is projected in two local schools if current growth rates
continue. In addition to the three proposed elementary schools in the
project vicinity, a 12.6 acre parcel has been reserved within the Rancho
del Rey site for future development of an elementary school (financing for
the construction of school facilities is proposed via the formation of a
Mello Roos District). While the construction of a new school is not a
portion of the currently proposed Rancho del Rey development plan, the
elementary school facility would be built once a sufficient number of
students were generated. Assuming all of the above measures are
implemented, no significant adverse impacts to schools would be exOected
from the proposed project development.
Fire
The proposed development would incrementally increase demand for fire
protection services within the project vicinity. In addition, it would
contribute to the cumulative impact of growth in eastern Chula Vista on
fire facilities. Existing Fire Station No. 4 is scheduled for relocation
to the east of the project site to meet fire protection demands associated
with new development in that area. This move is proposed to occur within
approximatel~ 4 to 5 years, and would affect the ability to efficiently
respond to fire suppression needs in the project area. The Rancho del Rey
development plan, however, includes a proposal to construct a fire station
onsite. If the fire station is constructed in a timely manner (i.e.,
relative to the relocation of Fire Station No. 4), this action would
reduce impacts related to onsite fire suppression efforts below levels of
significance.
A related impact of the Rancho del Rey project related to fire services is
the site design of the project. The Fire Department has expressed concern
over the number of homes which are proposed to be located adjacent to the
open space chaparral areas of Rice Canyon. Because the chaparral is
highly flammable, certain site-related, landscaping, and architectural
design features would need to be incorporated into the final design of the
lots to insure that a significant hazard was not created upon project
implementation.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 8
Mitigation measures necessary to counteract the onsite fire potential
include adequate backyard setbacks and flame resistant vegetation combined
with a low fuel firebreak; these measures should be incorporated into the
final design of the lots adjacent to open space areas, such as Rice
Canyon, to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department. In addition,
adequate water pressure must be provided to meet the City's fire flow
requirements. No significant adverse impacts related to fire would be
expected from the proposed project development upon implementation of the
mitigation measures.
F. ALTERNATIVES
There are various alternatives which are discussed in the environmental
documents for this property. They include:
1. The previous specific plan for the property (EIR-83-2) which proposed
a lower density, no employment park, and no filling of the main leg
of Rice Canyon.
2. The revised specific plan (EIR-83-2) as proposed which included a
higher density, an employment park with a different configuration and
grading in main leg of Rice Canyon.
3. The staff recommended Specific Plan Amendment {Addendum, EIR-83-2)
which provided for an employment park with a different configuration,
lower density residential and no grading in main leg of Rice Canyon.
4. The no project alternative {EIR-83-2 and EIR-87-1).
WPC 4429P
DRAFT
gRAFT
DgAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
1459 Summit Drive
D~AFT
Commissioners present: Tugenberg, Carson, Cannon, Casillas and Shipe
Commissioners excused: Fuller and Grasser
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-6: Errata sheet to staff report - Rancho del
Rey SPA I Plan
At the October 28, 1987, Planning Commission hearing on this item staff
indicated there would be minor "housecleaning" items to add to the conditions
for approval for this item. Those are as follows:
In addition to the four conditions of approval contained within the staff
report for the meeting of October 28, 1987, the following conditions are
submitted:
1. Revise the PC Regulations to read as follows:
a) P. VIII-4, RP District, Side Yard Setback
(b) Distance between detached residential units should be l~O feet.
b) P. VIII-5, D. Parking Standards for Senior Citizen's Housing
Delete this paragraph.
c) P. XIII-5, Offstreet Parking Requirements,
E. Single Family Residential/Multiple Family Residential
Revise asterisk to read, "May be combination of on-
and off-street parking (private streets only).
d) P. XIII, 7, XIII.3 Property Development Standards, revised uncovered
parking space to be 9'x19'.
WPC 4448P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Staff Response to Rancho del Rey letter dated
October 27, 19~7
A. DISCUSSION
At the Planning Commission public hearing of October 28, 1987, on the Rancho
Del Rey SPA I project, Mr. Ken Baumgartner of the Rancho del Rey Partnership
submitted a letter to your Commission dealing with seven points on the public
facilities financing plan. The purpose of this letter is to respond to detail
staff's recommendations concerning those points. For organization purposes,
we will repeat the item from the Rancho del Rey letter and follow with the
staff response.
The following are the seven items identified by the Partnership:
1. On page 6, item 23 Road "A" change from 4 lane to 2 lane per R.D.R.
traffic report as accepted by City.
Staff Response There appears to be a major disagreement regarding the
amount of trips being carried on Road "A". This road would connect the loop
road to Otay Lakes Road on the northeasterly portion of SPA I. The Rancho Del
Rey traffic analysis projects 2,000 ADT while the City General Plan Update
study projects a range of 10,000 to 16,000 trips depending on the development
scenario within the General Plan. Staff would recommend that, at this point,
since 84 feet of right-of-way is being dedicated for this road that the actual
number of lanes be a condition of the first tentative map consideration. This
would give the developer and the City sufficient time to identify the actual
trips that will be on this road.
2. On page 10, item 34 - The site for the elementary school shall be conveyed
to the District with Phase 2. The construction of the school will be at
the discretion of the school board. Delete reference to Phase 5/6.
Staff Response - We agree with this change.
3. On page 15, delete the last sentence of the first paragraph and replace it
with a sentence reading:
"Developer will be given credit for all regional road construction
costs against the development impact fee subject to City Engineer's
determination that such costs are allowable and reasonably
competitive."
Also on page 15,. delete the fifth paragraph and replace it with the
following two paragraphs that read:
"Developer shall be given credit against the development impact fee
for permanent regional road improvements of East "H" Street subject
to City Engineer's determination that such costs are allowable and
reasonably competitive."
"The 1980 East "H" Street Agreement between the City of Chula Vista
and the previous owner of the Rancho del Rey project will be
discharged by the construction of East "H" Street to 6 lanes."
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 2
Staff Response - We agree with the intent of the statements. The problem is
one of timing. The Rancho del Rey public facilities plan stipulates that it
is the intent to include East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road utility
relocation in the revised interim development impact fee program that will be
considered by the Council later this year. That revised development impact
fee would also discharge the 1980 East "H" Street agreement.
Since both staff and the developer agree about the intent and since the public
facilities plan incorporates the regional road improvements that are included
in any revised development impact fee program, we believe that ultimately
their concern will be satisfied. Since that is so, we would recommend that
your Commission recommend to staff that either:
a. the development impact fee program be revised prior to or concurrent with
the transmittal of the Rancho del Rey SPA I project to the City Council, or
b. that staff prepare a separate resolution of intent to the City Council
that would stipulate that prior to the approval of the Rancho del Rey SPA
I public facilities plan that East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road will be
included within the Regional Impact Fee Program and that the East "H"
Street agreement will be discharged.
4. On page 19, change the first paragraph in the Parks and Recreation section
by adding, prior to the last sentence, a sentence to read:
"Fees for dedication of land, fees for improvements to community
parks, and fees for improvements to neighborhood parks shall be
waived for SPA's II-IV."
Change the last sentence in this paragraph to read:
"Additional land dedication and improvements for local parks in SPA's
II-IV will be required with the processing of those SPA's in
· accordance with acreages designated in the Specific Plan."
Staff Response Staff concurs with the first part of the request to waive
any park dedication or improvement fees for SPA's II-IV. Staff does not agree
that additional land dedication and improvements for local par-l~6~- SPA's
II-IV should be limited to the acreages as designated on the specific plan.
We have not reviewed SPA's II-IV at this point and there may be a need to make
future changes. We believe it would not be prudent at this time to limit your
Commission and the City Council's consideration of those SPAs relative to park
improvements.
5. Page 27 Delete staging area IP 3a) from Phase 2 and indicate this
improvement will be done with Phase 3. The road in front of this
improvement will be built with Phase 3, however, the grading will occur
with Phase 2. This would be consistent with Page 9, item 18.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 3
Staff Response - Staff agrees with this change.
6. On page 38, add the following paragraph:
In the reconsideration of a Regional Transportation Facility Plan, the
City will give consideration to the regional road improvements made by
Rancho del Rey and the City Council action of March lO, 1987. Note:
{Resolution #12934) allocates 30,000 trips from SPA I to the Rancho del
Rey Partnership not 30,000 trips on East "H" Street as referenced in Mr.
Baumgartner's October 27, 1987 letter.
Staff Response Under the guidelines of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the supplemental environmental impact report has analyzed the
impacts this project would have on East "H" Street as well as other roads in
the subregion. Based on that analysis, a cap of 56,500 trips per day would
alleviate any significant impact on East "H" Street while at the same time
maintaining level of service "C" for that roadway.
Isolating Rancho del Rey by allocating a total of 30,000 trips for SPA I or
guaranteeing a certain number of trips on East "H" Street could cause future
capacity problems on East "H" Street for a number of different reasons. The
first is that the City General Plan is currently being revised and the Council
and your Commission have yet to make major policy decisions relative to the
land uses and densities being proposed in the Eastern Territories. The second
reason is that much of the Eastern Territories planning area is in
unincorporated territory. The City does not have control over ultimate land
use decisions that will impact all of the traffic arteries of the City. The
third reason is that the City has no control over the traffic impacts of such
facilities as Southwestern College and other public and quasi-public uses in
the vicinity of East "H" Street. Since a monitoring program is proposed as
part of this project and since part of the determination of significant but
mitigable impact on East "H" Street is based on that monitoring program and
maintaining a level of service "C" (56,500 ADT), then a guarantee of a fixed
number of trips for this project could run in conflict with the Environmental
Impact Report findings.
7. On page 44, add a sentence to the second paragraph in the Annual Fiscal
Impact Analysis Update section that reads:
"The assumptions and methodology used in this analysis shall be
subject to later agreement between the City and developer."
There are certain issues that need to be clarified prior to the
preparation of an analysis of SPA I's actual fiscal impact on the City.
Staff Response - We agree to this change.
WPC 4447P
. [2~NCIIO.Dr:L.DEY.
October 27, 1987
Ms. Joanne Carson,
Chairwoman and Commissioners
Planning Commission
City of CNu~a Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Chairwoman Carson and Commissioners:
The Rancho del Rey Partnership requests specific changes be made
to the proposed Public Facilities Plan and Financin9 Analysis for
Rancho del Rey SPA I. The changes and the reasons for them are as
follows:
1. On page 6, item 23) - Road "A" change from 4 lane to 2 lane per
R.D.R. traffic report as accepted by City. (See Attachment "A")
2. On page 10, item. 34, the site for the elementary school shall
be conveyed to the District with Phase 2. The construction of
the school will be at the discretion of the school board. Delete
reference to Phase 5/6.
3. On page 15, delete the last sentence of the first paragraph and
replace it with a sentence reading:
"Developer will be given credit for all regional road
construction costs against the development impact fee
subject to City Engineer's determination that such costs
are allowable and reasonably competitive."
Also on page 15, delete the fifth paragraph and replace it with
the following two paragraphs that read:
"Developer shall be given credit against the development
impact fee for permanent regional road improvements of
East "H" Street subject to City Engineer's determination
that such costs are allowable and reasonably competitive."
"The 1980 East "H" Street Agreement between the City of
Chula Vista and the previous owner of the Rancho del
Rey project will be discharged by the construction of
East "H" Street to 6 lanes."
2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 92050-9973 (619) 477-4117
October 27, 1987
Letter to Ms. Joanne Carson
and Commissioners Planning Commission
Page 2
4. On page 19, change the first paragraph in the Parks and Recreation
section by adding, prior to the last sentence, a sentence to read:
"Fees for dedication of land, fees for improvements to
community parks, and fees for improvements to neighbor-
hood parks shall be waived for SPA's II-IV."
Change the last sentence in this paragraph to read:
"Addit'ional land dedication and improvements for local parks in
SPA's II-IV will be required with the processing of those SPA's
in accordance with acreages designated in the Specific Plan."
These changes are the intent of the proposed plan. It should be
noted that under these provisions, Rancho del Rey SPA's I-IV will
provide the City with more in park land and improvements when
compared to the fees under the proposed revised ordinance for
land and development of improvements for park and recreation
purposes.
5. Page 27 Delete staging area (P 3a) from Phase 2 and indicate
this improvement will be done with Phase 3. The road in front
of this improvement will be built with Phase 3, however, the
grading will occur with Phase 2. This would be consistent with
Page 9 item 18.
6. On page 38, add the following paragraph:
In the reconsideration of a Regional Transportation Facility Plan,
the City will give consideration to the regional road improvements
made by Rancho del Rey and the City Council action of March 10,
1987 (Resolution #12934) allocating 30,000 trips on East "H" Street
to the Rancho del Rey Partnership. (See Attachment "B")
7. On page 44, add a sentence to the second paragraph in the Annual
Fiscal Impact Analysis Update section that reads:
"The assumptions and methodology used in this analysis shall
be subject to later agreement between the City and developer."
There are certain issues, such as the allocation of cost for
maintenance of the community park, that need to be clarified prior
to the preparation of an analysis of SPA I's actual fiscal impact
on the City.
Thank you for your consideration of these changes.
Sincerely,
Ken Baumgartner
Attachments "A" and "B"
r~
EAST H STREET
NO SC&L[
64/84 Four Line Collector
52/72 Two Line Induetrl~l Collector
40/60 Two LI~ Collector
FIGURE 14
.RECOMMENDED INTERNAL STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
RANCHO DEL REY
~'~ U.S.A, INC. ~
12/86 O0 ! 186B
OTAY
)AD
1255
165
1032 1000
616 1000 688
1255 354 642
165 3422 500
1416
924
1548
2422
525
5O82
738 4215
1620 1143 625
5308 747 80 896
108 720 83 150 1560
127 180 200 .360
54 16 82 90 1920
90 2314 2314
3386 6636
3525
5416 695
6525
3386 3625 352~ 695 ~
8802 69____~5 69._.~5 -4220
4220 4220
4220
£^S1' H STP, F. ET 4220
4220 695
4220 ,, 695
LEGEND: 695
X X X - ADT 696 9830
XXX --Distribution 98~0
FIGURE 13
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
ADT
INTERNAL STREETS
RANCHO DEL REY
USA NC ~"
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO... 12934
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA STATING ITS INTENTION TO RESERVE
DEVELOPMENT CREDITS FOR RANCHO DEL REY
PARTNERSHIP
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Rancho Del Rey Partnership, a general
partnership,, with McMillin Development, Inc. and Home Capital
Corporation, as general partners, owns approximately 1600 acres
of land commonly referred to as "El Rancho del Rey", and
WHEREAS, the Rancho Del Rey Partnership is in the
process of seeking land development approvals, including
approvals of tentative maps, SPAs, development agreements,
financing plans and other items necessary to allow construction
of residences and certain industrial improvements. SPA-l, the
tentative map, the development agreement and the financing plan
for approximately 2100 single-family residences and 84 acres of
industrial improvements are expected to be approved by the fall
df 1987, and
WHEREAS, an agreement entitled "Agreement Between the
City of Chula Vista, E1 Rancho Del Rey Corporation, Otay Land
Company and Roll Investment for the Construction of East H Street
Phase 1 Improvements' (referred to as the"1980 H Street
Agreement") is in existence and, pursuant to said agreement, it
is expected that East H Street would be expanded incrementally to
six lanes and that incremental development of E1 Rancho del Rey
would be conditioned upon such incremental expansion, and
.... WHEREAS, prior to any further building permits being
issued to EastLake Development Corporation, construction to
expand East "H" Street from its existing two lanes to four lanes
must have begun, and
WHEREAS, it would be desirable to the City, 'E~stLake and
the Rancho Del Re~ Partnership to coordinate their efforts and
have East "H" Street expanded to its ultimate six lanes at the
same time, and
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish this, the Rancho Del Rey
Partnership would have to construct these improvements prior to
it receiving any development approvals from the City, and
-1-
WHEREAS, it would be unfair to Rancho Del Rey
Partnership to have it construct improvements on "H" Street and
then not be able to use the improvements to serve its property,
and
WHEREAS, the City a~d Rancho Del Rey Partnership believe
it would be reasonable to allocate and reserve to E1 RanchoS.del
Rey 30,800 average daily trips for SPA-1 because of the East H
Street improvements which will be installed by Rancho Del Rey
Partnership, and that this allocation of 30,000 average daily
trips not be dependent or conditional upon the status of SR 125,
and
WHEREAS, substantial existing traffic on East H Street
is generated from projects east of E1 Rancho del Rey, and
WHEREAS, such existing easterly generated traffic on
East H Street will be reduced when SR 125 is constructed, and
WHEREAS, such reduction of traffic on East H Street will
add to the capacity of East H Street to accept additional daily
trips from E1 Rancho del Rey, and therefore, E1 Rancho del Rey
should be given equitable consideration for additional average
daily ~trips upon construction of a roadway in the SR 125
corridor, or by any other means, as follow:
(a) An additional 10,000 average daily trips (for a
total of 40,000 average daily trips) for SPA-l, and
(b) An additional 18,000 average daily trips for future
SPAs within E1 Rancho del Rey, and
WHEREAS, the City Of Chula Vista intends to impose a
'facilities benefit assessment district against development
project in .the east Chula Vista area, including those areas
covered by the 1980 H'Street'Agreement, and
WHEREAS, any and all sums which may be reimbursable to
the City under the 1980 H Street Agreement may be paid to the
City pursuant to the facilities benefit assessment distrigt which
the City intends to establish and in,which the E1 Rancho del Rey
property shall participate fully, and'
WHEREAS, Rancho Del Rey Partnership, EastLake and the
City of Chula Vista all recognize that this resolution does not
establish any binding duty on the part of the City, but instead
contemplates a moral obligation ~on the part of the City to deal
fairly with Rancho Del Rey Partnership in light of the fact that
the partnership has taken a risk in constructing improvements
prior to receiving any City approvals for development.
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City~ o~. Chula Vista
allocate 30~000 trips~!to~E1 Ranch~.ide! Rey,/SPA-I based on Rancho
Del Rey PartR~rshi~s.~co~$truction!~o~.t~e~ultimate six. lanes of:
prime 'ar t er ia~[ r 0adw~ ~Oa~ E~s~
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this statement of intention
in no way limits the City's right to act in accordance with its
police powers to protect the general health, safety and welfare
of the City of Chula Vista.
BE IT' FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff is directed to
bring back a proposal to include in the east Chula Vista
facilities benefit assessment district the sums which are
reimbursable to the City pursuant to the 1980 H Street Agreement.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. LipPitt, Director of / T~omas J.,4q~'rron, City Attorney
Public Works/city Engineer '
2523a
-3-
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this lOth dc~y of HaTch
19 ~7 , by the following vote, to-wit:
\
AYES: Counci]membevs Cox, IdooTe, Nad. eT, Ha].co].m, HcCancl].'~ss
NAYES: Counci 1member's None
ABSTAIN: Counci 1member's None
ABSENT: Counci I member's None
Mayor~6fi~ie City'of"C~a Vista
ATTEST~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Vista, Coliforni(3,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY thor the (~bove and foregoing is (3 full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 12934 ,and that the some has not been a.me. ndedor repealed.
City Clerk
filly OF
CHULA VISTA
THIS COPY IS THE DEVELOPER'S VERSION. IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED
BY STAFF.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
California Government Code
Sections 65864-65869.5
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("this Agreement") is entered
into on , 19 , between RANCHO DEL REY PARTNER-
SHIP, a California general partnership ("Developer"), and the
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation having charter
powers ("City"), with reference to the recitals set forth below.
1. Recitals.
1.1 City's Authority to Enter into Development
Agreement. City, as a charter city, is authorized under
California Government Code Sections 65865 through 65869.5,
Resolution No. __, its Charter, and its self-rule powers to
enter into binding development agreements with persons having
legal or equitable interests in real property for the purposes of
assuring, among other things, (i) certainty as to permitted land
uses in the development of such property, and (ii) construction
of adequate public facilities to service such property.
1.2 The Property; Developer's Interest. Developer
holds fee title to the property known as Rancho del Rey SPA-I
described in Exhibit "A-l" ("the Property"). The Property is the
subject of this Agreement. Developer is master planning the
Property as the initial phase of the Rancho del Rey Planned
Community. Developer represents that it has a legal interest in
the Property and that Developer intends that all other persons
holding legal or equitable interest in the Property be bound by
this Agreement. SPA-I is a portion of the Corcoran Ranch
Sectional Planning Area as described in the Specific Plan and,
except for a few small parcels, Developer is the owner of the ~
land covered by the Corcoran Ranch Sectional Planning Area. The
overall real property so owned by Developer is described on
Exhibit "A-2" attached hereto. Developer has proposed that this
overall area be divided into four separate Sectional Planning
Areas (i.e. SPAs I through IV). Reference to "SPAs I through IV"
means the real property described on Exhibit "A-2#.
1.3 Property Covered by this Agreement. This Develop-
ment Agreement covers only the Property; provided, however, the
Paragraph below entitled "Release From 1980 East H Street
Agreement" also cover SPAs II through IV. The parties may, at a
-1-
10/30/87
later date, enter in separate development agreements for each of
SPAs II through IV.
1.4 Benefit to City. City, by virtue of the develop-
ment of the Rancho del Rey Planned Community, will receive
development impact fees and other benefits.
1.5 Intentions of Parties in Entering into this
Agreement. Developer and City intend to enter into this Agree-
ment to: (i) assure Developer's participation in the construc-
tion and financing of public facilities pursuant to the Financing
Plan, (ii) provide certainty in the land use regulations and
policies applicable to the development of the Property, (iii)
.. provide Developer with a vesting of rights to proceed in accor-
dance with the development of the Property as limited below, and
(iv) provide that the improvements required by the SPA-I shall be
completed when necessary to service the needs created by
Developer's project.
1.6 Resolution No. 12934. The City and Developer each
intend that the vesting provisions of this Agreement implement
and make contractually binding, to the extent stated in this
Development Agreement, the City's moral commitment stated in
Resolution No. 12934 adopted by the City Council on March 10,
1987.
1.7 Adoption of Ordinance Approving Agreement. On
, 1987, City Council adopted Ordinance No.
approving this Agreement: the Ordinance took effect on
, 1987.
2. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context
otherwise requires:
2.1 "Builder" or "Merchant Builder" means a developer
to whom Developer has sold or conveyed property within the SPA-I
for purposes of its improvement for residential, commercial or
industrial use.
2.2 "City Council" means the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista.
2.3 "Developer" means Rancho del Rey Partnership and
the legal persons to which or whom it may assign all or any
portion of its rights under this Agreement.
2.4 "Development Regulations" means the development
regulations set forth in Part III of SPA-I.
2.5 "Financing Plan" means the Rancho del Rey SPA-I
Public Facilities and Financing Plan adopted by City on
, 1987, pursuant to Resolution No. , and any
-2-
10/30/87
modification thereto agreed upon by the parties to this Agree-
ment. The Financing Plan is, by this reference, made a part of
this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
2.6 "1980 East H Street Agreement" shall refer to that
certain agreement entitled "Agreement Between the City of Chula
Vista, E1 Rancho del Rey Corporation, Otay Land Company and Roll
Investments for the Construction of East H Street Phase I
Improvements (From Hidden Vista to 576.42 Feet West of Buena
Vista Way)# entered into between the City, The Gersten Companies
and Roll Investments during 1982 pursuant to the City's Resolu-
tion No. 10878.
2.7 #Phase" means a particular phase of SPA-I and
related public facilities as described in Chapter 3 of the
Financing Plan.
2.8 "Planning Commission" means the Planning Commis-
sion of the City of Chula Vista.
2.9 "Project" means the development of the Property as
represented by the SPA-I (defined below) and the Tentative Maps.
2.10 "Property" means the real property described in
Exhibit "A-i".
2.11 "SPA-I" means the "Sectional Planning Area 1 SPA
Plan for the Colonies of Rancho del Rey# approved by City on
, 1987, and any modifications thereto agreed upon
by the parties to this Agreement. SPA-I covers the Property
(defined above). SPA-I is by this reference made a part of this
Agreement.
2.12 mSpecific Plan" means the E1 Rancho del Rey
Specific Plan adopted by the City on November 12, 1985 by City
Council Resolution No.
2.13 "Substantial Compliance," for the purposes of this
Agreement and periodic review hereunder, shall mean that the
party has sufficiently followed the terms of this Agreement so as
to carry out the intent of the parties in entering into this
Agreement.
2.14 "Tentative Map(s)' or "Tentative Subdivision
Map(s)" shall refer to the Tentative Subdivision Maps for SPA-I.
The term "Final Subdivision Map(s)# shall refer to any Final Map
approved pursuant to such Tentative Subdivision Map(s).
3. Description of Property. The Property subject to this
Agreement consists of approximately 809 acres in area and is
located approximately __ miles east of downtown Chula Vista,
approximately miles west of the Eastlake project. The
-3-
10/30/87
Property is bounded on the north by Otay Lakes Road and on the
south by East H Street. The Property is more particularly
described on Exhibit "A-l".
4. Vested Riqhts. In consideration of Developer's
participation in the construction and financing of public
facilities, all as more particularly described in the Financing
Plan and this Agreement, Developer is vested with the right to
develop and maintain the Property pursuant to the provisions set
forth in this Paragraph 4.
4.1 Right to Develop. Subject to complying with
applicable requirements of the Financing Plan, including the
thresholds and monitoring program described below, the Developer
and Merchant Builders shall have the right to develop the
Property for the uses and to the densities set forth in
SPA-I.
4.2 Maximu~ Height and Size of Structures. The
maximum height and size of structures to be constructed on the
Property will be governed by City ordinances.
4.3 Thresholds. The City shall have the right to
withhold the issuance of building permits for lots in SPA-I any
time after it is reasonably determined by the City that:
(a) A threshold of development ("Threshold")
(as described in Chapter 3 of the Financing Plan) has
been reached, unless and until the City is provided a
bonded agreement reasonably acceptable to the City to
guarantee completion of the Facility(ies) which
correspond to the Threshold.
(b) The Yacility(ies) corresponding to a
prior threshold have not yet been completed.
The Threshold Cumulative Regional Development standards set forth
on Table 4 of the Financing Plan refer to residential dwelling
units, commercial/office square footage and industrial square
footage within the Area of Benefit described on Exhibit 7 in -
Chapter 3 of the Financing Plan.
4.4 Occupancy Permits. In the event the City issues
building permits for lots after a Threshold has been reached, but
prior to completion of the corresponding Facility(ies), the City
shall have the right to withhold occupancy permits unless and
until the corresponding Facility(ies) have been completed.
4.5 Required Condemnation. Should the construction of
any Facility require construction or installation of offsite
improvements on land which neither the Developer nor the City has
sufficient title or interest at the time the Threshold becomes
-4-
10/30/87
applicable, the City shall, within 120 days after determining
such Threshold is applicable, acquire by negotiation or commence
proceedings pursuant to Title 7 (commencing with Section
1230.010) of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to acquire an
interest in the land which will permit the improvements to be
made, including proceedings for immediate possession of the land.
In the event the City fails to meet this 120-day time limitation,
construction of the offsite Facility will be conclusively deemed
to be removed as a basis for withholding building permits or
occupancy permits. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to
preclude the City from requiring the Developer to pay the cost of
acquiring such offsite land.
· 4.6 Changes in Thresholds. The Financing Plan
anticipates an annual monitoring program and possible adoption of
and revisions to a Regional Transportation Facility Financing
Program. The City agrees, however, that it will not, without
Developer's written consent, add any Threshold or Facility to the
Financing Plan which would apply to less than any of the follow-.
ing Cumulative Regional Development Not To Be Exceeded figures
(see Table 4, page 38 of the Financing Plan):
(a) 7,867 Residential Dwelling Units.
(b) 877,000 Commercial/Office square feet.
(c) 1,904,000 Industrial square feet.
4.7 East H Street Monitoring. The City shall have the
right to withhold the issuance of building permits for lots in
SPA-I any time after it reasonably determines that vehicular
traffic on East H Street immediately east of Hidden Vista Way
exceeds 56,500 average daily trips (#ADTs").
4.8 30,000 ADT Reservation. In consideration of
Developer "pioneering# the offsite widening of East H Street to a
full six (6) lanes, the City agrees to reserve to SPA-I, during
the term of this Development Agreement, 30,000 ADTs on East H
Street. The City shall exclude such 30,000 ADTs from its
determination of available East H Street capacity when the City-
considers approvals for development projects other than SPA-I.
Developer acknowledges its understanding that the City does not
have jurisdiction over the approval of all projects which could
impact traffic on East H Street and that therefore the City does
not represent or warrant that any particular capacity on H Street
will be available to SPA-I.
4.9 Benefit of Earlier Vesting. Nothing in this
Agreement will be construed as affecting Developer's earlier
vested right, if any, to the development and use of the Property
in the manner specified in this Paragraph 4 pursuant to the
-5-
10/30/87
provisions of California's Constitutional, statutory and deci-
sional law.
4.10 Information Regarding Thresholds. City will,
from time to time, within a reasonable time after Developer's
request, provide Developer with information regarding the current
status of each Threshold (i.e. the then-existing cumulative
number of residential dwelling units, etc. in the Area of
Benefit). As of October 1, 1987 there were 3,074 residential
dwelling units, 540,000 square feet of commercial/office space
and 66,800 square feet of industrial space in the Area of
Benefit.
5. Development Program.
5.1 Processing of Application and Permits. City will
accept the processing and review of all Tentative Maps, Final
Maps, development applications and permits or other entitlements
with respect to the development and use of the Property in
accordance with this Agreement and SPA-I.
5.2 Pre-Final Map Development. If Developer desires
to do certain work on the Property (including, without limita-
tion, grading) prior to the recordation of a Final Map for such
portion of the Property, it may do so by obtaining a grading or
other permit from the Director of Public Works of City. The
Director of Public Works will issue such permit to Developer or
its contractor upon Developer's application for the same if
Developer posts a bond or other reasonably adequate security
required by City in an amount to assure the rehabilitation of the
land if the applicable Final Maps do not record.
5.3 Estate Lots Schedule. Pursuant to the requirement
set forth in Part C of Section IX of the Specific Plan, Exhibit
"B# attached hereto sets forth Developer's estimated schedule for
the development and marketing of the Estate Lots (as #Estate
Lots" is referred to in the Specific Plan). Developer cannot,
however, guarantee the accuracy of this schedule.
6. Urban Infrastructure.
6.1 Dedications, Reservations and Improvements of Land
for Public Purposes. The portions of the Property to be
reserved, dedicated and/or improved for public purposes are
designated in SPA-I and the Financing Plan and may be further
described in the Tentative Subdivision Map(s). Such dedications,
reservations and improvements will be imposed in accordance with
the provisions of the California Government Code and the Chula
Vista Municipal Code in effect as of the commencement date of
this Agreement and the Financing Plan.
-6-
10/30/87
6.2 Pioneering of Facilities. Developer shall have
the right, but not the obligation, to complete those offsite
Facilities which constitute regional Thresholds within the
Financing Plan. To the extent Developer itself constructs (i.e.
"pioneers") any improvements which are covered by a development
impact fee program (including the DIF program described in
Paragraph 7 below), Developer shall be given a credit against
development impact fees otherwise payable, subject to the City
Engineer's reasonable determination that such costs are allowable
under the applicable development impact fee program. It is
specifically intended that Developer be given DIF credit for the
DIF program improvements it makes to East H Street and Otay Lakes
Road Facilities, and the fact that such improvements may be
financed by an assessment district shall not prevent DIF credit
from being given to the extent such district creates liened
indebtedness against the Property.
6.3 Parks. In consideration of the vesting provisions
of this Agreement, Developer agrees to comply with the parks and
recreation requirements set forth in Chapter 2 of the Financing
Plan, regardless of whether the requirements of such program
exceed the requirements of existing City ordinances.
6.4 Insurance. Developer shall name City as addi-
tional insured for all insurance policies obtained by Developer
for this project as pertains to the Developer's activities and
operation on the project.
7. Development Impact Fees. The following development
impact fee program is hereby established for the Property.
7.1 Development Impact Fee Payments. Developer shall
pay to the City a Development Impact Fee (#DIF#) equal to the
applicable amount described in Table 2 of the Financing Plan for
each portion of the Property to be developed; however, Developer
shall pay the DIF in place at the time the DIF is payable. The
DIF for portions of the Property to be developed shall become due
and payable at the time application is made for a building permit
covering such portion. The per-acre DIF for industrial buildings
shall be prorated on the basis of acreage covered by each -P
applicable building permit for such buildings.
7.2 Other Developers. The City will use its best
efforts to impose and collect, or cause the imposition and
collection of, the same DIF program on all the undeveloped real
property located in the Area of Benefit described on Table 7 of
Chapter 3 of the Financing Plan.
7.3 Use of DIF. The DIF amounts paid to the City by
Developer and others with respect to the Area of Benefit shall be
placed by the City in a capital facility fund account established
pursuant to California Government Code Section 53077. The City
-7-
10/30/87
shall expend such funds only for the transportation projects
described in the Financing Plan. The City will use its best
efforts to cause such projects to be completed as soon as
practicable; provided, however, the City shall not be obligated
to use its general funds for such projects. Nothing herein
stated shall, however, prevent the City from using its general
funds for such purpose.
7.4 Withhold of Permits. Developer agrees that City
shall have the right to withhold issuance of the building permit
for any dwelling unit in the Property unless and until the DIF is
paid for such dwelling unit.
7.5 New or Additional DIF Programs. Nothing stated in
this Development Agreement is intended to limit the City in its
establishment of any new or additional DIF or related program,
nor from replacing the DIF program with another program. Any
such new, additional or replacement program shall include such
other land as would have a reasonable nexus to the program.
7.6 Release From 1980 East H Street Agreement.
Subject to Developer's completion of Public Facility Improvement
Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (the East H Street extension), City hereby
releases E1 Rancho del Rey Corporation, Developer and SPAs I
through IV from all past, present and future obligations under
the 1980 East H Street Agreement. In particular, but without
limitation, it is intended that subject to the completion of
Public Facility Improvement Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Developer and SPAs I
through IV be released from any obligation to reimburse City
pursuant to the 1980 East H Street Agreement. Within thirty (30)
days of Developer's written request after completion of Public
Facility Improvement Nos. 1, 2 and 3, City shall record with the
County Recorder of San Diego County a statement that the release
herein stated is no longer conditional. Nothing stated herein is
intended to imply any admission of liability by Developer under
the 1980 East H Street Agreement and Developer expressly denies
any such liability.
8. Bindlnq Effect; Encumbrance of Property; Statu~.
8.1 Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement
will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties'
successors in interest.
8.2 Discretion to Enc~mher. Nothing in this Agreement
will prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, at Developer's
sole discretion, from encumbering all or any portion of the
Property or improvement thereon by any deed of trust or other
security device.
8.3 Status. Each party will, within fifteen (15) days
prior written request, give written notice to the other party of
-8-
10/30/87
whether the party giving the notice knows of any breach of this
Agreement and its current understanding of status of performance
under this Agreement.
9. Annual Review; Notice. City will, once every twelve
(12) months during the term of this Agreement, pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65865.1 and Chula Vista City
Council Resolution No. , undertake a periodic review of the
parties' compliance with the terms of this Agreement pursuant to
the procedures set forth below. Developer shall present informa-
tion with respect to Developer's good-faith compliance with
Paragraph 9.1. In addition to the information provided by
Developer in accord with Paragraph 9.1, City may request
Developer address additional issues with respect to Developer's
good-faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. City
shall deliver no less than thirty (30) days' written notice to'
Developer prior to any hearing of any requirement City desires to
be addressed, and applicable staff reports, in a manner suffi-
cient for Developer to respond. Either party may address any
requirement of this Agreement during the review period. If at
any time of review, an issue not previously identified in writing
pursuant to Paragraph 9 is required to be addressed by City, the
review at the request of either party may be continued to afford
sufficient time for analysis and preparation. Such review by the
City may be conducted by the City Manager.
9.1 Information to be Provided Developer. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65865.1, Developer shall have the duty to
demonstrate its good-faith compliance with the terms of this
Agreement at each periodic review. Developer's duty to demon-
strate may be satisfied (except for additional issues raised by
City pursuant to Paragraph 9) by the presentation to the City of:
(i) a written report identifying Developer's performance or the
reasons for its nonperformance or excused performance pursuant to
Paragraph 12.1 of the requirements of this Agreement, or (ii)
oral or written evidence submitted at the time of review.
9.1.1 The parties recognize that this
Agreement and the documents incorporated herein could
be deemed to contain thousands of requirements (i.e.,
construction standards, landscaping standards, et al.),
and that evidence of each and every requirement would
be a wasteful exercise of the parties' resources.
Accordingly, Developer shall be deemed to have satis-
fied its duty of demonstration when it presents
evidence of its good faith and substantial compliance
with any issues requested to be addressed by City in
accordance with Paragraph 9, and substantial compliance
with the major provisions of the Financing Plan, SPA-I,
and compliance with the restrictions on the uses,
number, type, lots and sizes of structures completed,
and any required reservations and dedications to the
-9-
10/30/87
City. Generalized evidence or statements shall be
accepted in the absence of any evidence that such
evidence is untrue.
9.2 Finding by City During Annual Review Period That
Developer is in Default. If, during any annual review period,
City, on the basis of substantial evidence, finds Developer has
not in good faith complied with this Agreement, it will give
Developer thirty (30) days' notice of default pursuant to
Paragraph 10.
10. Default. If either party defaults under this Agree-
ment, the party alleging such default will give the breaching
party not less than thirty (30) days' notice of default in
writing. The notice of default will specify the nature of the
alleged default and, where appropriate, the manner and period of
time in which said default may be satisfactorily cured. During
any period of cure, the party charged will not be considered in
default for the purposes of termination or institution of leg-al
proceedings. If the default is cured, then no default will exist
and the noticing party will take no further action.
10.1 Option to Set Matter for Hearing or Institute
Legal Proceedings. After proper notice and the expiration of the
cure period, the noticing party to this Agreement, at its option,
may (i) institute legal proceedings, or (ii) request hearings
before the Planning Commission and the City Council for a
determination as to whether this Agreement should be modified,
suspended or terminated as a result of each default.
10.2 Waiver. Except as otherwise expressly provided
in this Agreement, any failure or delay by a party in asserting
any of its rights or remedies as to any default by the other
party will not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such
rights or remedies or deprive such party of its right to insti-
tute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem
necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or
remedies.
10.3 Remedies Upon Default. In the event of a default
by either party to this Agreement, the parties shall have the
remedies of specific performance, mandamus, injunction and other
equitable remedies. Neither party shall have the remedy of
monetary damages against the other except for costs of litiga-
tion, including reasonably incurred attorneys' fees.
11. Modification; SusDension; Termination.
11.1 Emergency Circumstances. If, as a result of
specific facts, events or circumstances, City finds that a severe
and immediate emergency threat to the health, safety and general
-10-
10/30/87
welfare of City require the modification, suspension or termina-
tion of this Agreement, City will:
11.1.1 Notification of Unforeseen Circum-
stances. Notify Developer of (i) City's determination,
and (ii) the reasons for City's determination and all
facts upon which such reasons are based;
11.1.2 Notice of Hearinq. Notify Developer
in writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to the
date, of the date, time and place of the hearing and
forward to Developer, a minimum of ten (10) days prior
to the hearing described in Paragraph 11.1.3, all
documents related to such determination and reasons
therefor; and
11.1.3 Hearinq. Hold a hearing on the
determination at which hearing Developer will have the
right to address the City Council. At the conclusion
of said hearing, City Council may take action to
suspend this Agreement. City Council may suspend this
Agreement if, at the conclusion of said hearing, based
upon the evidence presented by the parties, the City
finds that the suspension of this Agreement is required
to avoid an immediate and severe threat to the health,
safety and general welfare of the City.
Anything stated in this paragraph to the contrary notwithstand-
ing, no limited growth or similar ordinances, regulations or
policies which may be enacted or adopted to control growth in
Chula Vista shall be applied to the Property during the term of
this Agreement.
11.2 Change in State or Federal Law or Regulations.
If any state or federal law or regulation enacted during the term
of this Agreement or the action or inaction of any other affected
governmental jurisdiction precludes compliance with one or more
provisions of this Agreement, or requires changes in plans, maps
or permits approved by City, the parties will act pursuant to
Paragraphs 11.2.1 and 11.2.2.
11.2.1 Notice; Meeting. The party first
becoming aware of such enactment or action or inaction
will provide the other party with written notice of
such state or federal law or regulation and provide a
copy of such law or regulation and a statement regard-
ing its conflict with the provisions of this Agreement.
The parties will promptly meet and confer in a good-
faith and reasonable attempt to modify or suspend this
Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or
regulation.
-11-
10/30/87
11.2.2 Hearinq on SuDersession of DeveloD-
ment Agreement. Thereafter, regardless of whether the
parties reach agreement on the effect of such federal
or state law or regulation, the matter will be
scheduled for hearing before the City Council no sooner
than ten (10) days following written notice of such
hearing to Developer. City Council, at such hearing,
will determine the exact modification, suspension or
termination which is required by the federal or state
law or regulation, if any. Developer, at the hearing,
will have the right to offer oral and written testimony
regarding any proposed action by City. Any modifica-
tions, suspension or termination are subject to
judicial review.
12. General Provisions.
12.1 Enforced Delay; Extension of Time of Performance.
Failure to perform or delay in performance by either party will
not constitute a default where such delay or failure in perfor-
mance is due to war, insurrection, riots, floods, earthquakes,
fires, casualties, acts of God, litigation involving both parties
to this Agreement or other occurrence beyond the party's reason-
able control. If written notice of such delay is given by the
delayed party within thirty (30) days of the commencement of such
delay, an extension of time for such cause will be granted in
writing for the period of the enforced delay, or a longer period
as may be mutually agreed upon.
12.2 Notices. All notices required by or provided for
under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person
or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the principal offices of the City and Developer.
Notice shall be effective on the date delivered in person or the
date when the postal authorities indicate that the mailing was
delivered to the address of the receiving party indicated below:
Notice to Developer:
Rancho del Rey Partnership _.
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, California 92050
Attention:
Notice to City:
City Manager
The City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
-12-
10/30/87
Such written notices may be sent in the same manner to
such other persons and addresses as either party may from time to
time designate by mail.
12.3 Joint and Several Liability. If either party
consists of more than one legal person, their obligations are
joint and several.
12.4 Severabillty. If any material provision of this
Agreement is held invalid, this Agreement will be automatically
terminated unless within fifteen (15) days after such provision
is held invalid the party holding rights under the invalidated
provision affirms the balance of this Agreement in writing. This
provision will not affect the right of the parties to modify or
suspend this Agreement by mutual consent pursuant to Paragraph
11.1.
12.5 Recordation of Agreement; Amendments. All
amendments hereto must be in writing signed by the appropriate
agents of City and Developer, in a form suitable for recording in
the Office of the Recorder, County of San Diego. Within ten (10)
days of the date of this Agreement, a copy will be recorded in
the Official Records of San Diego County, California. Upon
completion of performance of this Agreement or its earlier
termination, a statement evidencing said completion or termina-
tion, signed by the appropriate agents of Developer and City,
will be recorded in the Official Records of San Diego County,
California.
12.6 Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If either party
commences litigation or other proceeding (including, without
limitation, arbitration) for the interpretation, reformation,
enforcement or rescission of this Agreement, the prevailing party
will be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
12.7 Applicable Law. This Agreement will be construed
and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of
California.
12.8 Assignment. Developer may transfer its rights
and obligations under this Agreement if such transfer or assign-
ment is made as part of a transfer, assignment, sale or lease of
all or a portion of the Property and the City consents to said
transfer. Said consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
12.9 Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall expire
ten (10) years after the date it is entered into.
-13-
10/30/87
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
on the date first above written.
'City"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal
corporation
By
Gregory Cox, Mayor
"Developer"
RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP, a
California general partnership
By: McMILLIN DEVELOPMENT, INC., a
California corporation,
General Partner
By
By
By: HOME CAPITAL CORPORATION, a
California corporation,
General Partner
By
I hereby approve the form and legality of the foregoing
Agreement this day of , 19__.
Thomas Harron, City Attorney
-14-
10/30/87
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
On this day of , 19__, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for said
state, personally appeared ·
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfac-
tory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument as
of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political
subdivision of the State of California, and acknowledged to me
that the CITY OF CHULA VISTA executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
On this day of , 19 , before me,
, a Notary Public in-~nd for said
state, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfac-
tory evidence) to be the President, and
, personally known to me (or
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
Secretary of McMILLIN DEVELOPMENT, INC., the
corporation that executed the within instrument and known to me
to be the persons who executed the within instrument on behalf of
said corporation, said corporation being known to me to be one of
the partners of RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP, the partnership that
executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such
corporation executed the same as such partner and that such
partnership executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
On this day of , 19 , before me,
, a Notary Public in and for said
state, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfac-
tory evidence) to be the President, and
, personally known to me (or
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
Secretary of HOME CAPITAL CORPORATION, the
corporation that executed the within instrument and known to me
to be the persons who executed the within instrument on behalf of
said corporation, said corporation being known to me to be one of
the partners of RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP, the partnership that
executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such
corporation executed the same as such partner and that such
partnership executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
EXHIBIT "A-1m
The Property
(to be attached)
EXHIBIT
SPAs I throuqh IV
(to be attached)
EX}{IBIT 'B#
Schedule for Development and Marketinq of Estate Lot~'.
(to be attached)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 1
5.. Candidate CEQA Findings Rancho del Rey SPA I EIR-87-1
A. The EIR for this project concluded that there would be potentially
significant environmental impacts. The CEQA findings conclude that with
one exception impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance.
The one significant impact is because of the biological resources on the
property.
The findings provides a more detailed evaluation of the project impacts
and feasibility of mitigation or alternatives.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the CEQA findings for Rancho del Rey SPA I.
WPC 4430P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 4, 1987 Page 1
6. Statement of Overridin§ Considerations - Rancho del Rey SPA-I (Continued)
RECOMMENDATION
The attached sta~ment reflects staff's view of the reasons why the project,
given the recommended conditions of approval, should be supported.