Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Comm Reports/1988/06/08
AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, June 8, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. Conference Rooms #2 and 3 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of May 11 and May 18, 1988 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. PUBLIC HEARING. EIR-88-3: Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan Amendment ~2 2. OTHER BUSINESS: General Plan Policy Discussion (Continued) DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting on June 15, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 June 2, 1988 TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 1988 1. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-88-3 Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan Amendment #2 A. BACKGROUND: The Redevelopment Agency is processing the second amendment to its Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan in order to add ten new sites to the existing Redevelopment Project Area. On February 10, 1988, the Commission approved the proposed new sites and the Preliminary Plan for the proposed Amendment to the Project Area. A Draft Redevelopment Plan Amendment and a Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Amendment have been prepared and are to be reviewed at this public hearing. B. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission conduct the public hearing and, if no comments are received, certify that the Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with rules and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and those of the City of Chula Vista and recommend that the Redevelopment Agency and City Council adopt the Plan Amendment and Final EIR. If during the public hearing comments are received which warrant further study and/or responses or amendments in the EIR and/or Plan Amendment, it is recommended that the Commission direct that a Final EIR and Plan Amendment be returned to the Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting for consideration of certification and recommendation of approval. C. ANALYSIS: The proposed Plan Amendment and EIR are attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively. Since the Planning Commission approved the proposed new Town Centre II sites, the proposed sites have been further expanded to include the street rights-of-way fronting the proposed new sites. The total proposed expansion to the Town Centre II Project Area is 147.11 acres. The ten sites are listed and described on page 9 of the attached EIR. The Plan Amendment involves the addition of new territory only and includes no specific development proposals or projects. The Amendment states that allowed land use in the expanded Project Area is to remain consistent with the current and future General Plan. Therefore, allowed land uses would change only when the General Plan is amended. Because of the limited scope of the Plan Amendment, n~ significant impacts were identified in the EIR as resulting from the Amendment. The EIR also analyzed the potential impact of future development on the selected City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 8, 1988 Page 2 sites. The document states that if the sites were to develop according to a projected "worst case" scenario, potentially significant impacts could occur in the areas of geology/soils, drainage, water quality, traffic circulation, wetland biota from sedimentation, cultural resources and business and tenant relocation. The EIR states that all of these impacts could be mitigated to an insignificant level, with the exception of traffic impacts, which is expected to experience significant future problems in the Project Area regardless of whether or not the Redevelopment Plan is amended or the selected sites are redeveloped. It is unknown how the selected sites will be reused or redeveloped in the future and separate environmental review should be done for each of these individual projects. D. FINDINGS: Approval of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan Amendment is recommended for approval for three basic reasons: 1. It will provide increased financial, planning and staffing resources to address identified problems of blight, inappropriate land use and deteriorated or lacking public facilities which the private sector, acting of its own accord has been unable to ameliorate; 2. It will bring to the City additional financial means to develop and improve public facilities in the Civic Center, Bayfront Trolley Station and Eucalyptus Park; and 3. It will provide the Sweetwater Union High School District with the additional financial means needed to relocate, expand and improve the administrative and public works facilities. With certification of the EIR and recommendation for approval of the Plan Amendment, the Redevelopment Agency/City Council can proceed to conduct their joint public hearing on the EIR and Amendment scheduled for July 12, 1988. WPC 3603H NORMAN W. HICKEY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (619) 236-2726 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-2472 May 23, 1988 Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Comments Regarding Town Centre II Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 88-3) Dear Mr. Reid: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmen- tal Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed expansion of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area. The office of Special Projects has reviewed the draft EIR with respect to its discussion of potential fiscal impacts. The draft EIR has also been referred to the County Department of Planning and Land Use. The office of Special Projects has the follow- ing comments regarding fiscal issues: 1. The draft EIR correctly indicates that expansion of the Town Centre II would have a negative fiscal impact on the County, since future property tax revenues would be diverted from the County to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. As noted in the EIR, mitigation of this impact is expected to occur as a result of negotiations between the Agency and the County. 2. The final EIR should include a description of the regional services provided by the County both within the Project Area and throughout the San Diego region. These include social services, public health, wel- fare, courts and criminal justice programs. The County's ability to provide these services will be Douglas D. Reid May 23, 1988 Page Two undermined unless the County is compensated for the loss of property tax revenue which will result from use of tax increment financing for redevelopment activities in the expanded Project Area. If you have any questions on these comments~ please contact me at 531-4848. Sincerely, RICH ROBINSON, Director office of Special Projects RR:CL:me cc: Ray Silver, Director Department of Planning and Land Use May 26, 1988 MAY 5 1 1988 File # YE-027 TO: Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator FROM: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Draft E.I.R., Town Centre II Amendment The Engineering Division has reviewed the subject draft EIR and has the following comments: 1. Discussions regarding Fifth Avenue state incorrectly that Fifth Avenue is a four lane road way between "F" and "H" Streets, with a capacity of 27,400 vehicles. Fifth Avenue is a two lane roadway in the described segments, widening to four lanes at its intersection with "H" Street. 2. Discussions regarding trip generation for the individual sites and for the overall project do not include an analysis of existing trips generated. However, the overall impact on the street system is identified as being the difference between existing trips and proposed trips. 3. On Table 3-2 it is unclear whether trip ends for the civic Center and Park expansion (sites 7 and 10) are incremental additional trips or overall trips for the site (existing and proposed). The text (page 50) suggests that development of the Civic Center would only increase traffic on "F" Street by 200 trips whereas table 3-2 shows 8000 trips generated. 4. Considering the potential significance of the impacts, projects will have to be reviewed on a case by case basis to determine the incremental significance of traffic impacts. 5. Likewise, each project will need to be reviewed to determine whether there are any potential impact on the City's sewer system. CST:ljr (L~FORMS~EIR) PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTREIIPROJECT Prepared for: Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency 276 Fourth Avenue ChulaVista, California 92010 Prepared by: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 414 West 4th Street, Suite E SantaAna, California 92701 (714) 541-4585 May, 1988 EXHIBIT PREFACE The Town Centre No. II Project was adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 15, 1978, by Ordinance No. 1827. The adopted Project Area was a rectangular shaped area consisting of the Chula Vista Shopping Center and the Sears retail center and encompassed approximately 65.41 acres of property. Although the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Project was adopted in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law (Section 33000 e.t. seq. of the Health and Safety Code) then in effect, sub-section 710.1 of Section 700, ARTICLE VII - METHODS FOR FINANCING THE PROJECT of the Redevelopment Plan relating to "tax increments" stated, "the use of tax increment for the financing of this Project is not provided for in this Plan." Since the Plan's adoption, several attempts were made to revitalize and redevelop both the Chula Vista Shopping Center and the Sears retail center without success, either individually or jointly between private enterprise and the Redevelopment Agency. The constraints on implementation were directly related to the inability of the Redevelopment Agency to provide the financial assistance required for on- or off-site improvements, and the lack of financial resources available to the Agency to create the public/private partnership necessary for implementation. In order to relieve this constraint, the Redevelopment Agency adopted the first amendment to the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Project on May 19, 1987, and incorporated therein the authority to obtain tax increment revenues in accordance with Section 33670 of the California Community Redevelopment Law. Additionally, as part of the negotiations with the taxing entities to include the provisions for tax ncrement financing in the first amendment to the Redevelopment Project, the Agency agreed to amend the Redevelopment Project a second t me, at a future date, to add additional territory ("Amendment Area") to facilitate various school district projects and to facilitate the expansion and redevelopment of existing businesses in both the existing Project Area and the Amendment Area. This Second Amendment to the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Project reflects the Agency's fulfillment of that agreement. For convenience and clarification purposes, and where appropriate, the amendments contained in this proposed Second Amendment show both the current text of the Redevelopment Plan as amended and the proposed changes, deletions and/or additions to such text. Words to be deleted are shown lined through, thus: de~ete. Words to be added are shown underlined, thus: add. It is intended that upon adoption of this Second Amendment and the subsequent printing of the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan thereafter, the deleted words shall be omitted and the added words shall not be underlined. THE TEXTOFTHE PROPOSED SECONDAMENDMENT TO THE TOWN CENTRE NO, IIREDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1 That the title page be amended to show the dates of adoption and adopting ordinance numbers for the original adoption and each amendment to the Plan. AMENDMENT NO. 2 That the pages of the Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the First Amendment on May 19, 1987, and as further amended by this Second Amendment be renumbered to reflect correct pagination and that the Table of Contents be modified as appropriate. AMENDMENT NO. 3 That Section 110 of ARTICLE I - INTRODUCTION be amended to read as follows: "The goal of this redevelopment project is to revitalize the original Town Centre No. II Project Area as the principal regional shopping center of the South Bay; and to facilitate various school district proiects and the expansion and redevelopment of existinq businesses in the Amendment Area. AMENDMENT NO. 4 That Section 120, sub-section (k), of ARTICLE I - INTRODUCTION be amended to read as follows: k. The fostering of cooperation between the Town Centre No. II Project Area, the Chula Vista Town Centre Project (No. 1) and the Amended Area, and the protection of the goals, objectives and economic resurgence of all the Project and Amendment Areas. AMENDMENT NO. 5 That the following term be added to Section 200 of ARTICLE II - GENERAL DEFINITIONS: "Amendment Area" - The Amendment Area consists of ten (10) areas as shown on the attached Map, Exhibit A. The legal description of the Amendment Area is contained in Section 300 of this document. AMENDMENT NO. 6 The sub-section 220.7 of Section 200, ARTICLE II - GENERAL DEFINITION be amended to read as follows: "Project Area" - The Redevelopment Project Area consists of the Chula Vista Shopping Center/Sears retail center and the ten (10) areas added b~, the Second Amendment (~,mendment Area)._ The legal description of this area these areas is contained in Section 300 of this document. \chulav~s\am®ndno2 1 AMENDMENT NO. 7 That sub-section 200.21 of Section 200, ARTICLE II - GENERAL DEFINITIONS be amended to read as follows: "Project" - The Chula Vista Redevelopment Project inclusive of all Project and/or Amendment Areas. AMENDMENT NO. 8 That the following legal description be added to the end of sub-section 300.1 of Section 300, ARTICLE III - PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES: \chula~s\ame~dno2 2 ~[E N DMEN T AREA AREA 1 THAT CERTAIN AREA WITHIN THE CITY O__F CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN D_~, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE RANCHO DE LA NACION, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 595, FILED I_~_N THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION O__F THE CENTERLINES STREET AND FIFTH AVENUE AS SHOWN O__N RECORD O__F SURVEY ~MAF NO. 6866, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; ~HENCE, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, N18°2]'lO"W, 339.42 FEET TO THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE O__F ~OT 26 OF QUARTER SECTION 145 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 595, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY PROLONGATION AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, S71°38'52'W, 315.99 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EASTERLY 275.09 FEET OF SAID LOT 26; THENCE, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, N18°2]'1~TM, 339.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE O__F LOT 23 OF SAID QUARTER SECTION 145; THENCE, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE S71°38'45"W, 345.20 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 23 A__S ~HOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY MAP NO. 6866; THENCE, ~LONG THE EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LAND SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY MAP NO. 6866, N18°22'39"W, 132.17 FEET; THENCE, N71°38'42"E, 307.75 FEET; THENCE, N18°21'l~"W, 198.24 FEET; THENCE, N71°38'38"E, 2.59 FEET; THENCE, N18°21'10TM, 148.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHERLY 142.99 FEET OF ~OT ]8 OF SAID 9UARTER SECTION 145; THENCE, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE ANB THE ~ASTERLY ?ROLONGATION THEREOF, N71°38'39"E, 390.00 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID FIFTH AVENUE (82.09 FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, S18°21'10-E, 809.23 FEET TO THE ABOVE SAID EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 2__6; THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY PROLONGATION, S71°38'52"W, 49.ZO ~EET T£~, THE TRUE ~OINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING AN AREA O__F 7.93 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 3 AREA 2 THAT CERTAIN AREA WITHIN THE CITY O__F_F CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE O~F CALIFORNIA, ~EING A PORTION OF THE RANCHO DE LA NACION, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5~5., FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:' BEGINNING A_~_T ~ POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID CITY OF CHULA VISTA, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTI©N OF THE CENTERLINES OF BROADWAY (NATIONAL AVENUE) AND "C- STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF "C" STREET, S71°15'~5"W, 10.~ FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF OUARTER SECTION 161 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 505; THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SAID CENTERLINE O__~F "C" STREET, N71°lS'~5-E, 5~.~ FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BROADWAY ~1~.~ FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, S18°42'36"E, 36~.O~ FEET TO THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SEA VALE STREET (60.~ FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY PROLONGATION AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, S71°18'~5-W, 7~.O~ FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EASTERLY 660 FEET OF ~AID QUARTER SECTION 161; THENCE, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, N18°42'36"W, 360.00 ~EET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 9UARTER ~ECTION 161 AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID CITY OF CHULA VISTA; THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, N71°lS'~5"E, 65~.O~ FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A_~N AREA OF 5.79 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 4 AREA 3 THAT CERTAIN AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE RANCHO DE LA NACION, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5~5, FILED I__N THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT ~ POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID CITY @~F CHULA VISTA, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINES OF~ NATIONAL AVENUE (BROADWAY) AND "C" STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF -C" STREET, S71°18'~5"W, 1~.OO FEET FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF QUARTER SECTION 151 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 505; THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY ~tNE OF SAID CITY OF gHULA VISTA AND SAID CENTERLINE OF "C" STREET, N71°18'~5-E, FEET TO ~ POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF EAID NATIONAL AVENUE (10~.O~ FEET WIDE), SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF COURSE NO. 1._kl O__F THE HUNTINGTON ANNEXATION TO SAID CITY OF CHULA VISTA; THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE AND SAID COURSE NO. N18°O9'18"W, 220.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF HODGE BROS. INDUSTRIAL PARK A~S SHOWN ON MAP NO. 8755, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID NORTHWESTERLY CORNER BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, CONTINUEING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF ~ATIONAL AVENUE AND ALONG SAID COURSE NO. l_~_], ~18°~9']8TM, I~60.~O FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE O__F "B" STREET, SAID SOUTHERLY LINE ALSO BEIN-~ ~HE SOUTHERLY LINE O~F PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY THENCE, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, N71°46'24-E, 132~.O~ FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF FIFTH AVENUE (8~.0~ FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, S18°~5'23"E, IO6~.~ FEET TO THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF ABOVE SAID HODGE BROS. INDUSTRIAL PARK; THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY FROLONGATI©N AND ALONG ~AID NORTHERLY LINE, S71°46'24TM, 1320.~ FEET ?0 THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING AN AREA OF ~2.]2 ACRES, MCEE OR 5 AREA 4 and AREA 9 THAT CERTAIN AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO STATE OF ~A~IFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE RANCHO DE LA --- - . _0_, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF NACION, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO ~ c, __ THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT TH$ ~ORTHEASTERLY CORNEI~ OF THE TOWN. CENTER ii PROJECT AREA, SAID CORNER BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY ~ORNER OF PARCEL "A" OF ~ARCEL MAP NO. 155, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND ALSO BEING A__ POINT O_~..N THE NORTHERLY .LINE O__F "H- STREET FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, S7]°20'2~TM, 7~.62 FEET T__O THE WESTERLY LINE OF FIFTH AVENUE (80.~ FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, N18°36'26TM, 1322.18 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY .LINE O__~_F "G" STREET (8~.~'$ .FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, N71°2~ ~5 ~, FEET TO THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WEo~ERL5 LINE OF KUEBLER TERRACE NO. 6--, MAP NO. 2857, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION AND ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, S19°O2'2~"E, 370.52 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID KUEBLER TERRACE NO. 6; THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY .LINE OF .SAID KUEBLER TERRACE NO. 6, N70°59'O3''E, 141.51 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EASTERLY 188.OO FEET OF LOT 15 OF QUARTER SECTION 148 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 505; THENCE, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, S19°~2'20''E, 198.~ FEE____T_T T__O TH__E NORTHERLY LINE OF THE ~D.882 ACRES PARCEL SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY MAP NO. RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, S71°2~3'O2"W, 142.~ FEET; THENCE, .ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL, S18"40'57"E, 132.~4 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 1__~ OF SAID 9UARTER SECTION 14B; THENCE, ALONG SAiD NORTHERLY LINE, S71 ~t. 40"W, 33t:.19 FEET T__O THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE WESTERLY ONE-HALF OF LOT 14 OF SAID ~UARTER SECTION 148; THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE AND THE EASTERLY LIN__E O__F TH__g_E ONE-HALF O__F .LOT 13 (iF SAID QUARTER SECTION 148, S18"37'~0"E, 620.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A__N AREA OF 27.38 ACRES, MORE OR AREA 5 and AREA 8 THAT CERTAIN AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGQ, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION O__F THE RANCHO DE LA NACION, .ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 595, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF BAN DIEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A__T THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WOODLAWN .AVENUE (69.99 FEET WIDE) AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF "F" STF, EET (89.90 FEET WIDE), SAID INTERSECTION .BEING N71°51'4~"E, FEET AND S19°~'9~3-E, 40.9~ FEET OF THE CENTER OF QUARTER SECTION 162 A_~_S SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 505; THENCE, ALONG SAiD SOUTHERLY LINE OF -F" STREET, S71°5! '49"W, 559.~ FEET TO THE EASTERLY LIN5 OF THE S.D. & A.E. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE, ALf~NG .~AID RIGHT-OF-WAY, N19°91'19"W, 1464.86 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE ©F "E" STREET (80.9~ FEET WIDE); THENCE, .ALONG SAID NORTHEELY LINE, N79°56'lg'E, 289.99 FEET T__O THE NORTHERLY .PROLONGATION OF A LINE PARALLEL T__O AND 230.90 FEET WESTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, OF THE CENTERLINE OF ABOVE SAID ~WOODLAWN AVENUE; THENCE, ALONG S--~ID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION AND ~LONG .SAID PARALLEL LINE, S19°99'~O"E, 22~.O~ FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 180.99 FEET SOUTHERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE CENTERLINE OF ABOVE SAID "E" STREET; THENCE, ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE, S79°56'19"W, 42.93 _FEET TQ THE EA~,T~RLY LINE OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 14, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, S19°91'10"E, 162,45 FEET; THENCE, N7~°51'5~'E, 3.O~ FEET; THENCE, S19°91'lO"E, 32~.~ FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ~ORTHEASTERLY ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWESTERLY QUARTER OF SAID QUARTER SECTION 162; THENCE, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, N79°51'59-E, 299.78 FEET TO THE ABOVE SAID EASTERLY LINE OF WOODLAWN AVENUE (6~.~,~ FEET W~DE); ~H~N E, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, S19°O~'~¥'E_, 7~2.1~? FEET T~ THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A__N AREA O._~_P 13.29 ACRES, MORE fir 7 AREA 6 THAT CERTAIN AREA WITHIN THE CITY O__F CHULA VISTA_, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIEOR[IIA, ~EING A PORTION O__F THE RANCHO DE LA NACION, ACCORDING ~f.~ ~AP THEREf'F NO. 5~5, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE C__OUNTY RECORDER ~)__F SAN [_~IEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTER~ECTION <)__F THE EASTERLY LINE O_~ ~ROADWAY (_]:_)?.O~ FEE__T WIDE) AND iTi{E SOUTHERLY LINE OF "E' STREET [_8~.~~O FEET WIDE), SA--t~I _INTER~ECTIO~ _BEING N71°~'-~D''E, 4~.~.~ FEET AND S18~54 I~"E, 4f4.~ FEET OF THE ._OUTHEA~.TnRLE. CORNER ('F QUARTER S__ECTION 161 AS SHOW~,~ ON SAID MAP NO. 5fDE; THENCE, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LIN--~. OF "E"--~-".TREET (~:~z.t~D FEET WIDE), S71°~:~-'~3~''W, 74~.89 FEET T'__2> ~-~E SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION O__F THE. ~ESTERLY LINE OF JEFFERSON AVENUE (6~.~f~ FEET WIDE); THE~ICE, ALONi] SAID SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION AND SAID WESTERLY LINE, N18°57'4,l''W, 734.53 FEET TO THE .NORTHERLY Li~-E~__F FLOWER STREET (6~.~D FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, N7~D°59'I2''E, 74D.89 FEET TO THE ABOVE SAID EASTERLY LINE OF BROADWAY (1DO.DO FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, S18°5~'IO''E, 734.68 FEET T_pO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING AND AREA OF 12.49 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 8 AREA 7 THAT CERTAIN AREA WI. THIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING ~ PORTION O__F THE RANCHO DE LA NACION, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 505, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION O__F THE CENTERLINE OF F~R~H AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF "F'I STREET (80.~0 FEET WIDE?, SAID INTERSECTION BEING S19°OO'OO''E, 40.00 FEET OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF QUARTER SECTION 149 AS ~HOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 505; THENCE, kI,ONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, g. 71°OO'30TM, 734.O~ FEET ~HE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION O_~_F ~ ~INE PARALLEL TO AND 7~.~O FEET WESTERLY, ~EASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, OF THE EA~_,TER=Y LINE OF THE WESTERLY ONE-HALF OF LOT 13 OF SAID QUARTER SECTION 149; THE~CE, 'ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION AND ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, N18~40'45"W, 370.00 FEET T__q THE NORTHERLY LINE O__F SAID LOT !--3; THENCE, ALONG SAID ~ORTHERLY LINE, N71°O~'22"E, 74.~ FEET TO THE · WESTERLY ~INE OF FIG AVENUE (60.OO'FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF, N18°40'22"W, 36~.O~ TO THE ~ORTHERLY ~INE OF DAVIDSON STREET (60.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF, N71°OO'15''E, 70~.~0 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF FOURTH AVENUE (80.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, S19°OOTM, 30.~O FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 9 OF QUARTER SECTION ]3! AS~HOWN O__N SAID MAP NO. 505; THENCE, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE O__~_F SAID LOT ~ AND THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF, N70°59'30"E, 650.-~ FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF GARRETT AVENUE (60.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF, S18°46'14"E, 700.00 FEET T__q THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF "F" STREET (80.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY ~INE, S70°59'18"W, 690.O~ FEET T__qO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A__N_N AREA O__F 23.11 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 9 AREA 10 THAT CERTAI![ AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING ~ PORT/ON O_[_F ~HE RANCHO DE LA ~ACION 6SCORD--i-NG TO MAF ~HEREOF NO. 5~5, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF T--HE C~UNTY RECORDE~--O__~F SAN plEGO COUNTY, DESCFIBED A_~_S [OLLOWS: .... ~°~'~T~N OF THE UOBTHERLY LINE OF -C" STREET BEGINNING AT THE i~l=~,:,~-~ __ - ~ND THE EASTERLY LINE OF FOURTH AVENUE, S__A[[~ ~NTERSETION BEING N7I°!8'~"E, 4~.~O FEET AND NIS°3©, 4~.~0 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF QUARTER c.~TION i~ AS SHOWN 0~._~] ~AID MAP NO. 5~5; THENCE, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE O~ SAID FOURTH AVENUE ' ~ ' 5"E, 7~5 43 FEET T~f~ THE EkSTERLY (~.~ FEET WIDE) .:,18 36'1 PROLONGATION O~ THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 15 OF SAID 2UARTER ~ECTION 15~ A~ SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 46!P, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE, ALON~SAID EASTERLY' PROLONGATION AND ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, S71~21'16''W, ~13.75 FEET; THENCE, S18~32'27"E, 232.O~ FEET; THENCE, S63~31'~''E, 42.44 FEET; THENCe, ~ ~1 16'W, 185.~ FEET; 518~32'27"E, ~8.~ FEET; THENCe, ~,71~9 ' - THENCE, N18'32'27"W, 3~.~ [EET; THENCE, S7!~21'16''w, 235.~ FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF FIFTH AVENUE (8~.~ FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, N18~32'27"~, 954.3~ [EET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE O~ ABOVE SAID "C" STREET (~g.~ FEET WIDE); THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, N71~lS'~e"~ 14~3.~2 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A~ AREA O~ -~, ~9 ACRES, ~ORE O~ LESS 10 AMENDMENT NO. 9 That sub-section 440.4 (a) of Section 440, ARTICLE IV -_PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS (AGENCY) be amended to read as follows: 440.4 a. Whenever dwelling units, housing persons and families of Iow or moderate income are destroyed or removed form the Iow- and moderate-income housing market as part of the Town Centre Cf II redevelopment project, the Agency shall, within four years of such destruction or removal, rehabilitate, develop or constructed, for rental or sale to persons and families of Iow or moderate income an equal number of replacement dweIling units at affordable reP, t-s wit~ the Rrejeet Area er wit-M~ ~he Gity ef Ghula ¥ist~ housinq costs within the territorial jurisdiction of the Aqency or within the City of Chula Vista. The Agency may replace destroyed or removed dwelling units housing persons and families of Iow or moderate income with a fewer number of dwelling units if the units have a greater o( equal number of bedrooms and are available to the same Iow and moderate income groups. AMENDMENT NO. 10 That sub-section 460.8 of Section 460, ARTICLE IV - PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS (AGENCY) be amended to read as follows: 460.8 A time limit of twelve (12) years from the date of the Second Amendment to this Plan, shall herein be established within which time the Agency may commence eminent domain proceedings as herein above set forth. Such time limit may be extended only by amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. AMENDMENT NO. 11 That sub-section 600.2 of Section 600, ARTICLE VI - PERMII-I'ED USES AND CONTROLS be amended to read as follows: "All of the area within the RFejeet Area original Town Centre No. II Project Area (Chula Vista Shoppinq Center and Sears retail center) is designated "Central Commercial" on the Plan, and may be used as a mixture of reg. ional-type commercial uses, including but not limited to retail, office, serwce, entertainment, educational, and auxiliary uses. The areas within the Amendment Area may consist of a mixture of commercial, industrial, residential and institutional uses. AMENDMENT NO. 12 That sub-section 640.1 of Section 640, ARTICLE VI - PERMITTED USES AND CONTROLS be amended to read as follows: The provisions and guidelines of the Procedures Manual of the Chula Vista Town Centre Project Area (Town Centre Project No. I) shall be applicable to the Town Centre No. II Project and the Amendment Area. \chulavls\amendno2 1 1 AMENDMENT NO. 13 That sub-section 1000.1 of Section 1000, ARTICLE X - DURATION OF THIS PLAN be amended as follows: Except for the nondiscrimination and nonsegregation provisions, which shall run in perpetuity, the provisions of this plan shall be effective and the provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to this Plan may be made effective for forty-five (45) years from the date of the Second Amendment of this Plan by the City Council; provided, however, that the Agency may issue bonds and incur obligations pursuant to this Plan which extends beyond the termination date, and in such event, this Plan shall continue in effect for the purpose of repaying such bonds or other obligations as determined b_~ the City Council. Unless projects contemplated under the Redevelopment Plan are undertaken within ten (10) years of the date of the amendment of the Redevelopment Plan, then said projects will not be undertaken thereafter unless a public hearing is conducted by the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council with notice of the public hearing given by pub cat on nd distribution. The purpose of said public hearing is to consider the desirability of undertaking the proposed projects in ght of the conditions as the then exist. AMENDMENT NO. 14 That the Town Centre II Boundary Map (Exhibit "A") be modified to .ad.d..th.e ?,rea described in Amendment No. 8 above. The existing Exhibit "A" shall be SUDSbtutea Tor the modified Exhibit "A" that is attached hereto. \chulavls\&mendno2 1 2 MOSS STREFT NICKMAN NAPLES STREET DRIVE OXFORD STREET AMENDMENT AREA CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~' ........ .... BOUNDARY ~ ~,TEV~.SO., ~.0.~o ~, .,~.c~ ~S~. ~o~ *~ AMENDMENT AREA EXHIBIT CHUL~ VISI'A m "C" STREE1 i , AMENDMENT AREA CiTY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~x,s~r ..O,~CT ~,.,U, AMENDMENT AREA BXHIBIT cm, o~ DAVIDSON CHUI, A Vb-I'A ¼- PA R K W AY I STA - · T~ ,_L_J I VANCE STT II I Ii ~OOSEVELT STI EET ~,-.. AMENDME~ AREA CI~ OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY .... BOUNDARY ~Y ~o~ ~.~ AMENDMENT AREA EXHIBIT ~A~ FEASTER STREET AMENDMENT AREA CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROSENOW Sp[VACEK GROUP · X.~T...OJEC~ ..£A AMENDMENT AREA EXHIBIT '" ..... AMENDMENT AREA CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY .... BOUNDARY ~ ~x~.'r. ~o,~' ~,.~A AMENDMENT AREA EXHIBIT EXHIBIT NQTIQE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CHULAVISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN CENTRE NO. II REDEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a joint public hearing will be held by the City Councit of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency at the Chula Vista City Council Chambers, Chula Vista City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, July 12, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter, to consider approval and adoption of a Second Amendment to the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan ("Project") for the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"). The scope and objectives of the Project are to accommodate various school district projects, and to facilitate the redevelopment and expansion of uses in the Project Area. The Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency's Report to the City Council on the proposed Pro ect has been prepared and will be presented at the hearing. The Report includes, but is not limited to the Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Plan, the reports and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other documentation required by the Community Redevelopment Law. The Report is available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk, Chula Vista City Hall. The Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency will undertake the proposed Project if, after public hearing, the City Council approves and adopts the Project. All persons having any objections to the Project or the regularity of any prior proceedings, or deny the need to amend the Project Area, may appear before the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and the City Council and show cause why the Project should not be adopted. At any time no later than the hour aforesaid set for the hearing, any person or organization may file in writing with the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista a statement of his or her objections to the proposed Project. Any person or organization desiring to be heard will be given an opportunity to be heard. At the aforesaid hour, the City Council and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency shall proceed to hear and pass upon all written and oral objections to the proposed Project. The Agency and the City Council shall consider all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the proposed Project. A legal description of the original Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Project Area was recorded with the San Diego County Recorder in August 1978. A map and lega descr pt on of the properties that comprise the Amendment Area to the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Project Area is prov ded herew th. Interested persons may inspect the Project and all other information pertaining thereto at the Community Development Department, Chula Vista City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California or call the Community Development Department at (619) 691-5047. Paul G. Desrochers (date) Community Development Director June 8, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning ~ (~ SUBJECT: Open Space Policies - General Plan Update On May 18, 1988, the Planning Commission held a workshop to consider the Open Space Policies and Density Credit for Public Facilities. After hearing from the General Plan consultant, Mr. Gary Wood, and staff as well as representatives of the Buie Corporation, UNOCAL and the Baldwin Company, the Commission approved staff's recommendation on the Density Credit for certain Public Facilities to be changed from 0% to 0% to 100% and requested staff to draft guidelines to permit limited encroachment into open space areas. The Commission did not take a position on the encroachment issue at the workshop, but simply asked for some written guidelines to be prepared in order to study the matter further. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a policy of no encroachment into open space areas designated on the General Plan including slopes in excess of 25%. 2. Adopt the attached guidelines permitting limited encroachment into open space areas. Where density transfer from these steeper slopes is not possible, allow a density of one dwelling unit per l0 acres as an alternative. 3. Adopt a policy of no encroachment into open space areas designated on the General Plan including slopes in excess of 30%. ANALYSIS: The issue raised by the Buie Corporation involves whether or not the General Plan should allow a property owner to place some permitted dwelling units within areas of the property designated as open space and containing slopes over 25%. The staff and the General Plan consultant do not recommend any development within areas designated as open space, although a density credit of one dwelling unit per 10 acres would be allowed to avoid a taking. Other permitted uses compatible with open space would be defined in the zoning of the property at a later date. The Buie Corporation is seeking a modification to the General Plan Policies to permit limited residential development within any open space area in accordance with certain development criteria. (See attached letters Attachment 1 and 2.) Open Space Policies General Plan Update -2- June 8, 1988 The Planning Commission requested Planning staff to draft written guidelines to facilitate further discussion of the issue. Staff has prepared these guidelines in accordance with the Commission's request. The alternative guidelines are as follows: For steep slope areas designated as open space on the General Plan, density would be calculated as follows: 1. The total number of dwelling units permitted would be one dwelling unit for every 5 acres where the average slope is less than 35% and one dwelling unit for every l0 acres where the average slope is 35% or more. 2. Up to 20% of the area designated as open space and containing average slopes less than 35% could be encroached into and the balance of the open space lands would be dedicated for permanent open space. 3. Density transfer could be permitted from the open space lands to adjacent development areas within the same ownership. 4. Any projects developed within open space areas would be subject to review by the Design Review Committee and hillside development criteria. Individual projects proposed within open space areas in accordance with the above criteria would be allowed to cluster the permitted number of units within the 20% area. For example, if a property contained 200 acres with 100 acres designated as open space and contained average slopes less than 35%, the allowable number of dwelling units in the open space area would be 20 (1 du/5 acres). These 20 dwelling units could be placed on not more than 20% of the open space area (20 acres). Thus, the allowable number of dwellings could be clustered at a density of one du/ac. If less than 20 acres were utilized, the density would increase accordingly. This assures that all slope development criteria as to grading, site location, roads and infrastructure landscaping and zoning regulations would be complied with. Those standards are yet to be quantified. Another alternate, not recommended, would be to set the break point as to open space protection at 30% rather than 25%. This would greatly simplify the policy and its administration but allow additional steep slope development to occur. In summary, staff feels that the general direction of ordinances and initiatives County-wide is to discourage development of hillside slopes in excess of 25%. Reasonable hillside development could still occur in slopes of 0% - 25%. By policy, staff and the General Plan consultant suggest that Chula Vista has more than adequate lands for development that are flat or moderate in slope. While conceding that some steep slope development is possible, the preference, for aesthetics, view protection and preservation of the natural land form, is to preclude such development. WPC 5235P ALTERNATIVE POLICIES REGARDING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OPEN SPACE RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT OTHER OPEN SPACE FLOODPLAINS & AREA 0-25% WETLANDS OPEN SPACE ~ I DU/10 AC ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT OTHER OF EN SPACE FLOODPLAINS & AREA 0-25% 0-35% 35% ~- WETLANDS ~ OPEN SPACE 20% \. OF O.S~ 1-35% (1) THE 20% AREA OF OPEN SPACE MUST BE CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING OR PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT. MINUTES OF A GENERAL PLAN WORKSHOP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 4:30 p.m. Conference Room 2 & 3 Wednesday, May 18, 1988 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Carson, Commissioners Casillas, Fuller, Grasser, Shipe, and Tugenber9 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Cannon STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Krempl CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Gary Wood, Project Manager; Bud Gray, Project Coordinator INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Bud Gray, Project Coordinator, stated that the purpose of the workshop was to review and make recommendations to the City Council on certain preliminary General Plan Policies. The four policies provide guidelines for interpreting the preliminary General Plan Map (Scenario 4) regarding: (1) density ranges; (2) development areas; (3) criteria for achieving maximum densities; (4) criteria for allowing density transfers. Letters to the Planning Commission were received from Rikki Alberson of the Baldwin Company; Charles Gill, representing The Buie Corporation; Anthony Lettieri representing The Buie Corporation; and Wayne Loftus representing UNOCAL Investment. Gary Wood, Project Manager, presented an overview description of the preliminary General Plan Policies to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wood indicated that the City Council had referred these policies to the Planning Commission for recommendation. The City Council approved the General Plan Policies in concept, but requested the Planning Commission's recommendation on certain amendments regarding: (1) giving density credit for high schools, elementary schools, private schools, and day care centers within the 0-100% band; (2) giving density credit for community parks within the 0-100% band; and (3) reviewing the criteria proposed by The Buie Corporation for allowing some encroachment of development into open space areas. Mr. Wood indicated that these policies were intended to provide guidelines in the text of the General Plan to explain how the City would interpret the General Plan Map with respect to establishing the ranges of densities, areas where development will be permitted or not permitted, critenia for approving development densities above the "target" average expected density, and criteria for approving the transfer of allowable density within developable areas and criteria for density transfers from sites devoted to certain public or quasi-public use. Planning Commission Workshop -2- May 18, 1988 Director Krempl stated that a major controversy had developed having to do with whether transfer of density should be allowed into areas containing slopes in excess fo 25% that are designated open space on the General Plan Map. The Buie Corporation is proposing certain criteria to allow development to encroach into such open space areas. Director Krempl stated that the staff is opposed to allowing development to encroach into areas designated for open space because recent initiatives circulating in the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego reflect a desire on the part of citizens to preserve open space lands in their natural state. Staff is proposing allowing one dwelling unit per 10 acres in open space areas to avoid potential inverse condemnation suits. Charles Gill, representing The Buie Corporation on Bonita Meadows testified that they would like some flexibility included in the 2.5 policies to permit their project to place a limited number of dwelling units on slopes above 25%. Tony Lettieri, representing The Buie Corporation presented criteria representing methods to build on slopes over 25% without mass grading and other undesirable effects. Wayne Loftus, representing UNOCAL Investments, requested consideration for two dwelling units/acre density within open space areas which would be transferred to the flatter areas of the property. Mr. Loftus stated UNOCAL would also like density credit for the 30 acres of road right-of-way that will be taken by Route 125. Claudia Troisi of the Baldwin Company stated that density credit should be considered for developments that provide public facilities in advance of need. Ms. Troisi requested density transfer credit for property devoted to high schools, junior high schools, and community parks (0-100%). There should be some flexibility to place schools in the areas where growth is actually occurring without being penalized by loss of density credit. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Fuller questioned when the Growth Management Plan would be completed and what relationship is there between the General Plan and the Growth Management Plan? Director Krempl stated the Growth ~ana§ement Plan is just getting started and will not be ready until 1989. The Growth Management Plan will be tied to the General Plan and will deal with phasing, public facilities, and financing. Commissioner Grasser indicated that views are at a premium. She would like to see staff prepare a policy to allow limited development within open space areas based upon Mr. Lettieri's criteria. Commissioner Tugenberg stated that it may be innovative to allow some low density development within a certain percentage of open space areas based upon some criteria such as Policy 3.2.5 Mass grading should be avoided. Planning Commission Workshop -3- May 18, 1988 Commissioner Carson stated she felt the Commission needed some time to reflect on this issue because of this importance to the City. She requested copies of the City Council minutes referring this matter to the Planning Commission and have a further discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting. She requested staff to draft a conceptual outline of a policy to allow some development within open space areas so the Commission .could have something to discuss. MOTION BY Tugenberg/Casillas to direct staff to prepare guidelines for development on slopes over 25% and allow 0-100% credit, as per staff, for private schools, day care centers and special education centers. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED: Commissioner Cannon absent. WPC 5202P 'MINUTES -l? April 26, 1988 6. REPORT ON GENERAL PLAN POLICIES (Continued from meeting of April 19, 1988) (Director of Planning} Director of Planning Krempl reported this item is part of an ongoing discussion for the formulation of a draft General Plan and policies. Staff prepared a summary of developer comments and a side by side comparison on each item with a staff response incorporating a number of proposals made at previous meetings. The issues have been focused to a considerable extent and now are concerned with the definition of open space on the allowed usage and intensity of development within the. open space designated lands. The proposal by Bonita Meadows' proponents is not consistent with the Sensitive Lands Initiative. MINUTES - Z8 - April 26, 1988 Wayne Loftus, Ladera Associates, 6680 Convoy Court, reported the general statement and belief of Unocal Investment that when expectations are so high, there has to be recognition of adjusting policies or land use densities. Claudia Troisi, representing the Baldwin Company, stated agreement with what is being shown in the text but has concerns about the density transfer. Baldwin concurs with treatment of parks, schools and the circulation element. The neighborhood parks as well as regional parks are included in the density transfer category but community parks, junior high and high schools are not. This amendment should be offered to all developers and provided in all communities. It was requested that property owners be encouraged to do creative planning and the density transfer policy would not allow this. "We feel that what is being proposed is something that can be worked with but request flexibility." Councilwoman McCandliss questioned the incentives provided for private schools and why elementary schools are treated differently. Dr. Jun Onaka, Projects Director of P& D Technology, commented that elementary schools and day care centers are smaller and identified in the site plans, while the junior and high schools are larger schools that greatly impact the areas. Mr. Onaka agreed that private high schools requiring large amounts of land should be questioned relative to permitting 100%. The density transfer of 100% is established for universities to their location in this area. encourage Bob Santos, 900 Lane Avenue, Chula Vista, representing EastLake Development, commented on his submitted policy changes, several of which were agreed to, and reported that the EastLake Company is generally in agreement with staff policy but ask for flexibility. Charles Gill, 600 B. Street, Attorney representing the Buie Company as developer of Bonita Meadows, requested the ability to encroach into areas in excess of 25% slope when it is appropriate and suggested there are creative solutions to specific problems. ~Tony Lettieri, 533 F Street, (#209), San Diego, 92101, presented a model of Bonita Meadows to illustrate the constraints on the site which preclude development under present proposed policy. In conclusion, a request was made for the opportunity to present a product to Council at some future date realizing that criteria must be maintained. Stanley B. Waid, 5617 Galloping Way, Bonita, CA 92002, representing the Bonita Highlands Homeowners, stated concerns and asked Council to give tacit approval to the Buie Corporation to allow the subdivision above the 25% slope. 'MINUTES 19 - April 26, 1988 Tim Kruer, 2643 Fourth Avenue of SUNBOW, received staff's confirmation that the 25% slopes falls under under policy 2.5 in guidelines. Councilmembers questioned designated open space areas; the density transfers which demand flexibility when dealing with something required under existing zoning laws; the responses from the 3/24/88 Council; the need of the General P'lan to give direction to property owners and also have flexibility. MOTION ~-[S-C---~cCandliss:/Nader) to amend Exhibit 2 under Schools to allow under High Schools, Junior High Schools, Elementary Schools, Private Schools and Day Care Centers within the 0 to lO0 band ICouncilman Malcolm out). MOTION MS (McCandliss/Cox) to approve in concept the General Plan Policies and to send to the Planning Commission for evaluation and to also send the wording on the 4.4 and 4.4.1 through 4.4.5 as proposed by the Buie Corporation in their letter. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION M (Moore) so ~nclu~e in the motion to refer the above to both staff and the Planning Commission. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION M (Nader) to include in the 0 to 100% potential transfer density for community parks. SUBSTITUTE MOTION MSC (McCandliss/Nader) to approve in concept the General Plan Policies and to send to the Planning Commission and staff to have them evaluate them and to also include the letter from the Buie Corporation for consideration and the question of the density transfer for community parks (Councilman Malcolm out). RECEIVED LE'I-rl ERI- Mci NTYREANDASSOCIATES ..... , .... 533 F Street, Suite 209, San Diego, California 92101 /(619) 238-4241 JU I 3 988 June 2, 1988 FLANNING DEPARTMENT CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Ms. JoAnne Carson Chairman Chula Vista Planning Commission 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: General Plan Policies/Hillside Development Dear Ms. Carson and Members of the Planning Commission: At the Planning Commission workshop of May 18, 1988 staff distributed a letter from our firm on behalf of the Buie Corporation detailing criteria we believe is appropriate for development in hillsides (land in excess of 25% slope). We have continued to look at those policies as they apply to the Bonita Meadows property as well as other areas throughout the Eastern Territories. We believe that this set of policies is a comprehensive approach to promoting quality development while preserving major landforms in the city. Since the Planning Commission will be discussing criteria for Hillside development we are presenting our proposal again for your consideration. The following is our detailed criteria that we presented to the Planning Commission at the May 18, 1988 meeting. Criteria - Hillside Development (In excess of 25% slope) 1. Development not be located on lands designated as high priority for park or open space acquisition by acquiring agencies. 2. Areas to be development shall be free of any hazards such as earthquake fault zones and unstable soils which could cause landslides. 3. Road access can be provided without destroying riparian habitat or disrupting a stream corridor. 4. Site could accommodate development without adversely impacting habitat for endangered species. 5. Development within slopes in excess of 25% shall not exceed 25% of the total acreage within that slope category. LAND USE PLANNING . PROJECT MANAGEMENT · DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILII~( 6. The major existing predominant landform features shall be preserved and any grading shall duplicate the natural contours of the slopes. 7. The type of development proposed within the 25% slope category shall satisfy a need that could not be otherwise satisfied on the site (e.g. the creation of view sites, estate homes or other unique site specific opportunities). 8. The design criteria for hillside development (Chula Vista Municipal Codes 19.56.210 et seq.) shall be observed. 9. Development within hillside shall be required to follow criteria to minimize grading and visual intrusion by: a) preservation of prominent skyline ridge silhouettes b) all roads and structures shall be located below skyline ridges. c) preservation of or revegetation with natural landscaping. d) circulation shall relate to existing contours. e) varied lot sizes, building placements, setbacks and orientation are encouraged; f) variable changes in elevation and sighting of buildings to ensure views and avoid monotony g) maintenance and ownership of open space areas shall be approved by the City of Chula Vista. 10. All other policies of the General Plan shall be followed. We would appreciate your positive recommendation on these criteria. If there are any additional comments or questions we will be at the hearing to respond to those. Sincerely, ~. Lettieri, AICP Principal cc: Mr. George Krempl Mr. Charles Gill Mr. Doug Buie Ms. Sheryl Mercado Mr. Bob Rubalcaba Mr. Mark Rowson 262-300 LADERA ASSOCIATES INC, ~ ~onne~ · CMl E~in~ · 5urveyoG June 3, 1988 Ms. Joanne E. Carson Chairman of Chula Vista Planning Commission City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 SUBJECT: UNOCAL PROPERTY - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Dear Chairman: On behalf of Unocal Investment I would like to thank you and the other members of the Commission who were able to tour the Bonita Miguel site. I am Sure that the opportunity to see first hand such a significant land form and the resulting identification of the slope cantegories was enlightening. As we have previously stated to the Commission, there are opportunities to develop topographic areas with slopes greater than 25% if the proper development techniques and sensitivity are part of the consideration. At your study session on May 18 Tony Lettieri, representing the Buie Corporation, presented a number of concepts that address topographic conditions of 25% slope and steeper. We believe that development concepts such as those depicted by Mr. Lettieri are workable and sensitive to the land. Additionally, the guidelines outlined in his letter to George Krempl tend to offer an additional 'safety net' to the community to assure a well done project. It is hoped that the combination of the Unocal field trip and the Buie present- ation including inspection of existing development on slopes over 25% will assist the Commission in their decision on this issue. As you may be aware, we have previ6usly sent communications to the staff and the City Council outlining our concerns. Attached to this letter are copies of two of these letters. Also included with this letter is an aerial photo of the Sweetwater Valley with the Unocal ownership outlined. This letter is to again emphasize the willingness on the part of Unocal Investment to participate with the City of Chula Vista in achieving the Community Goals. As an example, Unocal has gone on record concerning their.willingness to assist in the preservation of the upper reaches of Mother Miguel mountain, which is the smaller land form as compared to San Miguel or Mt. Miguel mountain. Unocal has also stated a willingness to participate with other Eastern Territories' 6680 Convoy Cour~ SanD,ego CA921!1 Telephc~'~e (<d9) 292-52B5 .iS. Joanne E. Carson Chula Vista Planning Commission June 3, 1988 Page 2 developers in dealing with transportation issues such as Route 125. There is a 'bottom line', however for Unocal, that being the identification of sufficient development opportunity to allow full participation in solving these issues. Unocal is no different from any other developer in their desire for equity and a reasonable development opportunity. Unocal remains concerned over the issues of Route 125 right-of- way dedication aad grading, land use adjacent to 125, the Open Space designation which encompases the northern 1780+ acres of their ownership, and the policies on density transfer and development limitation on 25% and steeper slopes. Limiting development on slopes steeper than 25% will not insure that the Eastern Territories becomes the vision of the future. The fact is that it is guaranteed to become a recreation of the past, where each project or home resembles the one next door or down the street. Communities like Pt. Loma, Mt. Helix, Mt. $oledad, Eastridge aad portions of Rancho Bernardo which are amount the most desirable areas in San. Diego County would not have happened under the current staff proposal. The Unocal property and others i~ the Eastern Territories offer a unique opportunity for the blendin~ of quality projects in an unusual setting. This can be accomplished with sensitivity, if the implementing policies of the General Plan are progressive enough and imaginative enough to encourage creativity and discourage the generic solutions of the past. Sincerely, LADERA ASSOCIATES, INC. Chief Planner WL:pcp ~ Enclosures(3 : Letter - Krempl, 1/12/88 Letter - Mayor Cox, 5/13/88 Aerial Photo cc: Commissioners Cannon Casillas Fuller Grasser Shipe Tugenberg George Krempl Mayor Cox Council Members Unocal Land D~-'~op~' '~t Company A Un~l Comp 1201 West 5th Street, R~. ~ox 7B~ Los An0ele~ Ca]~ornia ~51 Telephone (213) 977-5362 UNOCAL Ml~eel~Blggl January 12, 1988 Mr. George-Krempl Director of Planning city of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO SCENARIO 4 OF THE EASTERN TERRITORIES STUDY CONCERNING UNOCAL PROPERTIES, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 'BONITA MIGUEL' Dear Mr. Krempl, Scenario 4 of the Eastern Territories Study, reviewed by city Council on December 17, 1987, will if adopted have a significant impact on Bonita Miguel which may in turn compromise the goals of the General Plan. Scenario 4 establishes a horizon year limit of 768 dwelling units, as compared to 2,004 and 2,875 dwelling units for Scenarios 1 and 3 respectively. A comparison of the density factor which produces the unit count is likewise startling. Scenario 4 is based upon a target density of 1.5 units per acre while Scenario 1 was based upon 3.8 units per acre and Scenario 3 was calculated at 5.5 units per acre. This significant reduction is not encouraging, and Unocal's ability or even willingness to particiRate in the development process is now in question. A density of 1.5 units per acre will not allow us to make a commitment concerning participation in the dedication for or development of Route 125. Based upon this new density, the feasibility of development of our land becomes a primary concern. This proposed density would not make it feasible or economically possible to commit funds for the improvements to develop a quality neighborhood as desired by the City. The cost of improvements, both on-site and off-site is significant, and this reduced density removes any incentive to develop the property. Unocal shares the city of Chula Vista's goal of establishing a sound foundation for development of high quality communities in the Eastern Territories. We would suggest that this goal can be achieved through efforts to balance the increased population and the needed public improvements so as to maximize the quality of life. Mr. George Krempl" Jandary 12, 1988 page 2 This can be established by allowing threshold capacities to establish the growth rate and necessity for improvements to be required of a developer. In dealing with growth we also propose that the General Plan reflect a distinction between current development requirement impacts versus the requirements of projects in long term for which commitment may be premature. Unocal desires to develop their property in the very near term and is willing to contribute their equitable share toward needed public amenities and improvements, such as parks and Highway 125; but this is not possible on the basis of 1.5 units per acre. Route 125 represents a significant cost in terms of construction and land requirements. In order to facilitate construction of-~his route development of a nature more intensive than allowed by Scenario 4 will have to be allowed. We would propose that the southerly portion of Bonita Miguel property which comprises approximately 525 acres be designated as Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 units per acre) with a target density of 4.5 units per acre. Based upon this target density, up to 2,362 dwelling units could be developed. This proposed target density of 4.5 represents the mid point between the opportunities outlined in Scenario's 1 and 3. Establishing the designation of Low Density Residential (0-3 units per acre) with a target density of 1.5 units per acre for the 512 acres owned by Unocal adjacent to Sweetwater Reservoir is acceptable. As you will recall a Concept Plan for this site was recently provided to you and I trust that it will be included in subsequent Scenario 4 reports to the city Council. In closing, I am hopeful that the realistic costs and limitations faced by land developers in todays market can be appreciated, and as a result a reasonable density opportunity established for the southerly portion of the Unocal property. In return neighborhoods of the quality and character necessary to the achievement of Chula Vista's vision of the future can be provided. Sincerely, MAB:jo cc: Mayor, Greg R. Cox Council Members David L. Malcolm Gayle McCandliss Leonard Moore Tim Nader 5959e 262-300 LADERA ASSOCIATES INC. Lond ~onne~ · C~l.E~,nee~ * Surveyors May 13, 1988 Mayor Gregory R. Cox FILl COPY City of Chula Vista 276 'Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 SUBJECT: COMMENTS CONCERNING THE EASTERN TERRITORIES. STUDY AS IT RELATES TO UNOCAL PROPERTIES~ COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS "BONITA MIGUEL" Honorable Mayor Cox: Unocal Investment, owner of 2,535+ acres of land adjacent to the Sweetwater Reservoir (map attac~ed) commonly known as Bonita Miguel, is pleased to be participating with the City of Chula Vista in its Eastern Territories Study. However, adoption of Scenario IV as modified February 9 by City Council combined with the implementing policies now under consideration will have a significant negative impact on the Unocal property. The Unocal property is dominated by Mother Miguel mountain, a significant land form that should be respected and retained in as natural a state as feasible. ' UnOcal Invostment desires to implement this goal but has thus far been unable to achieve a comfort level with the proposed land use or policies that have been discussed at the City Council General Plan Workshop sessions. The creation of a quaIity'environment is the goal of the City and it is also the goal of Unocal. There is however, a cost involved in the creation of a quality community that is becoming even higher as the desirability of Chula Vista and San Diego County increases. Unocal has owned Bonita Miguel since 1966 and would like to proceed with development that is sensitive to the site and complementary to the community. However, there are several General Plan issues under discussion that are currently a deterrent for development of this property. State Highway Route 125 is currently receiving considerable attention because of development of the inland areas of Chula Vista and other portions of the County. Because of a number of physical and engineerin~ constraints, the preferred alignment of future 125 through this sector follows Proctor Valley Road on the west side of the Unocal property. Due to the existing aquaduct the alignment of Route 125, has been shifted to the 66R0 Co'avo~Court. SonDiecjo. CA92111 Teler)hone (619)792-52,R5 ~ Gregory R. Cox Mayor of Chula Vista 262-300 LADERA ASSOCIATES INC. May 13, 1988 Lo~ ~onnes. Ci~lE~mn~Bo~rve',,ors Page 2 Unocal property requiring 30 acres of the most developable land from Bonita Miguel. In addition to this 30 acres, Unocal has previously been advised that they will be expected to grade the right-of-way. Construction of fQur (4) travel lanes across the frontage will be accomplished by the Benefit Assessment District. Based upon Willdan's study, "State Route 125 Corridor Interim Alignment and Financing Alternatives Study", May 1987 and conversations with GregG Surber of Rick Engineering; the cost of grading the Unocal portion of 125 is estimated at $3,750,000.00. This figure does not include a calculation for the value of the 30 acres. In addition to this significant financial burden, it should be pointed out that the current proposed policy on density transfer does not include a credit for land dedicated for a freeway. Staff has recommended to City Councii that "land dedication for a freeway corridor miqht be a future credit consideration against the Eastern Area Development Impact Fee." Unocal would suggest that this approach is inappropriate and inequitable, that there should be a definitive policy concerning a "full density transfer credit for dedication of a freeway corridor." .. The loss of development potential is more impacting then the payment of the traffic fees. Other concerns that Unocal has include: * Development constraints based upon slope criteria are a significant concern to Unocal. Of the 2,535+ acres comprising Bonita Miquel approximately 525+ acres have a slope gradient less than .25%. Curr~nt proposals severely restrict, if not eliminate any potential for development of areas with a slope greater than 25%. Additionally, there is no proposal for a credit or density transfer that is meaningful. Staff has proposed that a credit of one (1) dwelling unit per 10 acres be given for Open Space preservation. In the case of the Unocal property, the development opportunity is severely restricted and any incentive to preserve or enhance Mother Miguel as a permanent significant feature tends to be lost. There simply must be another approach to the issue of hillside development or density transfer that is more equitable, and offers more incenkive and flexibility than the policies thus far proposed. The Buie Corporation density transfer proposal submitted to and accepted for study by the City Council on April 26, is an approach that has merit and Unocal is in full 66,D3 Convoy Court. ,<',,a~'. O,c~3, CA 9'.'111 Teleph~. %(~ (619) 292-52~5 ~ Gregory R. Cox Mayor o[ Chula Vista 262-300 LADERA ASSOCIATES INC. May 13, 1988 Lond~onnes. CMl[nginees. Su~eyo~s Page 3 support of this solution. In addition, Unocal would suggest that a density transfer 'credit of two (2) units per acre be given to developers who are willing to dedicate open space which has so~e cbmmunity wide or regional significance such as Mother Miguel mountain. * The .land uso designation currently proposed for the southerly portion of the Unocal property is Low Density Residential with a density designation of 0-3 units per acre which would yield only 1,575 units at the maximum density of 3 units per acre. The target density for this ~range is two (2) units per acre. Based upon the target density, the development opportunity ranges from 768 units as defined by Scenario IV to 1,050 units depending upon the wording of the policies that are adopted in the General Plan text. Indeed the opportunity could well be over thin 1,050 unit cap which is related to application of the target density of 2 units per acre multiplied by the 525 acres of land with slopes less than 25%. Unocal has targeted' 2,400 dwelling units as a reasonable development opportunity for this site. This target number is equal to 0.95 of a unit per acre, which can easily be accomplished with sensitivity to environmental and topographic constraints and be visually complementary and appealing as well. Developing a portion Of the property at a density higher than two (2) units per acre, would result in an appropriate mix of residential opportunities and insure preservation of significant land forms. There are many concerns that relate to identifying the development potential that can not be satisfied unless a project is submitted for review. Our emphasis is to minimize these concerns and gain an appreciation for what can be accomplished on this site. Unocal requests the following changes to the proposed land use: * The land use designation for Unocal property should be increased to Low Medium Density (3-6 du/ac) and to Medium Density (6-11 du/ac) adjacent to Route 125. This density adjacent to Route 125 will allow a creative interface with this transportation corridor. The intensity of land use will normally increase adjacent to a land use that creates unusual or unique impacts. This concept has already surfaced in the Eastern Territories with a 3-6 unit per acre designation proposed for the property adjacent to the Otay Sewer Treatment Plant at the southeast corner of 66~ Cc,n,x~ Courl Son O,cg<~ CA 97111 '~elelJ',onc (619) ~ Gregory R. Cox Mayor of Chula Vista 262-300 LADERA ASSOCIATES INC. May 13, 1988 Lond ~anne~ · Ci~l [nginee~ · Survey~s Page 4 Bonita Miguel. Also the Eastlake development has been identified for a 3-6 unit per acre density opportunity adjacent to the 125 corridor. *'The "Agriculture and Reserve" land use designation on the northerly portion of the property should be changed to a Low Density (0-3 units/~cre) designation in an effort to reflect the legitimate opportunity which exists. Much of this land comprising the foothill portion of Mother Miguel is well under 25% slope.- Additionally, there are valleys and plateaus that could be developed in a sensitive manner .with a clustered design and ~resent no visual threat to the balance of the community. Likewise, estate development would represent a pattern consistent with the nearby Bonita area. In summary, Unocal Investment has considerable concerns relating to the thrust of the above noted aspects of the current General Plan proposals. Bonita Miquel is situated in a very strategic location along future Route 125 and will play a significant role in completing this transportation corridor. The presence of Mother Miguel on the property along with its proximity to Sweetwater Reservoir presents a genuine opportunity for the City of Chula Vista to assist in the creation of a quality environment. However, unless there is an increased level of sensitivity to the needs that this .property has it is doubtful that the wishes and dreams of many, including Unocal, can be realized. Sincerely, LADERA ASSOCIATES, INC. Way e~2oftus Chief Planner WL:pcD Enclosure(l) Map of Bonita Miguel cc: Council Members / ~Leonard Moore .Gayle McCandliss David Malcolm ,Tim Nader ~George Krempl, Director x/Michael Biggi, Unocal Land & Development