From: Max Zaker < maxzaker@gmail. com>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 6: 16 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@chulavistaca. gov>
Cc: Laura Black < [email protected]>; Tiffany Allen < TAllen@chulavistaca. gov> Subject: SUNBOW II Development
Good afternoon:
The attached are some of the Planning Commissioners' comments at the public hearing on 7/ 28/ 201 when SUNBOW II development and application to rezone the property was heard. Kindly include these in public comments when this item goes before the City Council tomorrow.
Thank you
Max Zaker
Chula Vista Planning Commissioner Chair
619) 952- 1479
Warning:
External
Email
Written Communications
Item 6.3 - Zaker
1 Chula Vista Planning Commissioners Comments
This statement represents some of the comments by the Chula Vista Planning Commissioners during the deliberation for SUNBOW II development on 7/28/2021, which ultimately resulted in a 6-0 No vote.
• The proposed rezoning of the project site from industrial to residential would eliminate approximately 2,800 jobs and 700,000 square feet of leasable industrial space (as forecasted by the Sunbow General Development Plan for Sunbow II, Phase 3). Yet, this job loss was glaringly omitted by the HR&A Study entitled ““Market and Financial Analysis of Industrial Use” that was commissioned by the Applicant.
• The applicant was given permits to the residential portion of the project without ever doing the proper grading and prep work for the commercial/industrial portion. This has caused the developer to push this project to future planning commissions and future city councils and ask for residential units "saying it doesn't pencil out.". The applicant consistently asks for residential without any proper analysis of commercial, industrial and mixed uses for the land. Only a meager evaluation that the Planning Commission found to be incomplete and inconclusive. \
• The proposed rezoning of 54.7 acres within the project site lies in the middle of the largest, contiguous parcel of vacant industrial land in East Chula Vista. If the rezoning of this industrial land is approved, what is to prevent the City from rezoning the remainder of this industrial land from industrial to residential for future housing projects in response to the State- required Regional Housing Needs Assessment (aka RHNA)?
• Chula Vista needs this project to be built in it's initially approved configuration to ensure that economic opportunities happen for the city.
Unfortunately, if this is changed to residential it will cost taxpayers lots of money, just to reward a developer that has been acting in bad faith.
Written Communications
Item 6.3 - Zaker
2 • The city should also look at the number of times this project has failed at council and commission, and maintain strength against a developer who is acting in bad faith
• The finding by City staff in their EIR companion document entitled ““Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations” that, in fact, the “Environmentally Superior Alternative” would be a reduced housing development of 360 residential units. This housing project was pursued, it would allow for the reintroduction of an eight acre site for a commercial use project that was first proposed by the Applicant in January 2020 when the City Council considered approving the Community Benefit Agreement.
• With regard to affordable housing, of the 718 units proposed to be included in the project site, NONE will be counted toward the City’s affordable housing goals because the Applicant will simply convert 67 of the existing 132 units that comprise the Villa Serena Senior Project from moderate to low-income (to earn the Applicant certain credits). Thus, instead of a net gain of 72 additional affordable housing units, which would have been otherwise required, the actual net gain is ZERO towards addressing the City’s need for affordable housing.
• The deliberate failure of the Applicant (and its hired consultants) to submit its environmental documents for review by the County of San Diego.
Thus, no official comment was received by the County of San Diego, Environmental Services Department, regarding the EIR as it pertains to the Otay Landfill. Consequently, the EIR fails to properly address the historic levels of methane gas migration within the landfill area that will be proximate to the proposed project as well as the repeated violations by the landfill operator cited by the County.
• The dubious contention by the Applicant that it cannot find viable industrial-related developers for the project site when Otay Mesa (located less than five miles away) is experiencing commercial and industrial Written Communications
Item 6.3 - Zaker
3 development at a massive scale. There is a strong demand for light industrial development within close proximity to San Diego/Tijuana Border.
• The applicant was not interested in the option of a mixed use (Residential/Commercial/Retail) project. Instead, presented a plan for 100% rental housing, with no homeownership opportunities.
• The $11M in-lieu of fee offered by the applicant to the city posed concerns for many reasons, most significantly, city staff was not able to provide any specifics as to how those funds would be earmarked and allocated. We were told funds will be used towards future commercial development in the University (Millenia) project.
• The rezoning of this designated industrial/commerce land to residential (ONLY rental housing) is NOT in the best interest of our city. It will not provide any long-term jobs or create any sustainable economic benefits to our city.
Written Communications
Item 6.3 - Zaker