v . 0 03 P a g e | 1
March 22, 2022
ITEM TITLE
Planning Commission Appeal: Design Review Permit and Variance Permit for Three Industrial Shell Buildings on a vacant 11.6 -acre Site in the Otay Ranch Village 3 Business Park, known as Heritage Industrial Center
Report Number: 22-0097
Location: North and northwest of Heritage Road at the intersection of Heritage Road and Santa Maya (Lots 814, 815 and 816 of Map 16160)
Department: Development Services
Environmental Notice: The Project was adequately covered in previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR 13-01”) (Sch No. 2013071077) prepared for the Otay Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area (“SPA”) Plan Amendment and certified by the City Council on December 2, 2014.
Recommended Action
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal by Salvador Abrica and affirming the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review Permit DR21 -0007 to construct three industrial shell buildings totaling 201,200 square feet on an existing, vacant 11.6-acre site within the Otay Ranch Village 3 Business Park, and Variance Permit VAR21-0001 to allow an increase in height for a portion of a proposed retaining wall.
SUMMARY
On April 26, 2021, Rockefeller Group (“Applicant”), submitted an application for a Design Review (“DR”) to construct three-industrial shell buildings totaling 201,200 square feet on an existing, previously graded, vacant 11.6-acre site, consisting of three parcels, within the Otay Ranch Village 3 Business Park (see Locator Map, Attachment 1), known as Heritage Industrial Center (the “Project”). On October 27, 2021, an application for a Variance was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Rockefeller Group (“Applicant”) to allow an increase in wall height for the Heritage Industrial Center.
On February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission considered and approved the Project by a vote of 5-0-0 with two Commissioners absent. A total of two speakers submitted speaker slips at the Planning Commission P a g e | 2
hearing. One was the applicant for the project and the other was the Master developer, HomeFed, who both spoke in support of the proposed project. Additionally, there were two letters submitted to the Planning Commission that were noted under the public testimony portion of the hearing. A letter was submitted by the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), dated February 9, 20 22, and a letter was submitted by Local 542 Teamsters, dated February 8, 2022. The staff report and associated attachments to the staff report from the Planning Commission hearing are provided as Attachment 4 to this report.
On February 23 , 202 2, Salvador Abrica (the “ Appellant”) filed an appeal (Attachment 3) of the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council. The Appellant cites “Factual Error,” and “Findings Not Supported” as the basis of the appeal. The appeal specifically states:
1. Findings Not Supported : The project should go through California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review but was wrongly exempted due to inaccurate information. a. The decision-maker’s findings to approve the project are not supported by the information provided to it, given the inadequacy of using a 7-year old Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”); and
b. Warehouse was not an analyzed use in the original FEIR.
2. Factual Error : The eviden ce (the FEIR) relied upon by the decision -maker was inaccurate in realistically assessing the Heritage Industrial Center’s environmental impacts:
a. The project is likely to be an Amazon Last Mile Delivery Station; and b. The project may not create good jobs.
This item now presents the Project for City Council consideration and action. While this is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s February 9, 2022 vote , and the City Council should take into full consideration the deliberations and decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the authority to consider the Project, in its entirety , and make a de novo determination based upon appropriate findings. Staff has reviewed and ultimately recommended approval of the Project due to several factors, including that the proposed Project is a use allowed within the zone, it is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses and zoning, it is in compliance with current Development Standards, it has met the findings required for a Design Review, and it would not result in a conflict with applicable plans, policies, or programs relating to the City’s General plan or the Municipal Code. More specifically, the proposed use complies with the General Plan policy of providing adequate commercial and industrial uses for the City of Chula Vista through the attraction of industries and businesses that contribute to the diversification and stabilization of the local economy. As such, it is s taff’s recommendation that the appeal be denied , and the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with CEQA and determined that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment . The Project was adequately covered in the previously certified FEIR 13-01 (SCH No. 2013071077) for the Otay Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive SPA Plan Amendment and certified by the City Council on December 2, 2014. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required.
P a g e | 3
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On February 9, 2 022, the Planning Commission voted 5 -0-0 to approve the project. The draft Planning Commission meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 2.
DISCUSSION
The 11.6-acre project site is located north and northwest of Heritage Road at the intersection of Heritage Road and Santa Maya (Lots 814, 815 and 816 of Map 16160), within the Otay Ranch Village 3 Business Park (Attachment 1 – Location Map). To the north of the site is the County of San Diego Otay Landfill. To the south are existing single-family residential dwellings. To the west is the Republic Services Operations Center, and to the east is the Escaya Self Storage facility.
The proposed project includes three industrial shell buildings for future uses, an outdoor seating area for employees, and landscape improvements. The three industrial shell buildings are comprised of : Building A with 104,900 square feet and 132 parking spaces; Building B with 55,700 square feet and 92 parking spaces; and Building C with 40,600 square feet and 63 parking spaces.
Each proposed building is situated on an individual parcel, with the main pedestrian entry on the southern building façades providing access from the parking lot. Loading areas are located at the rear of the buildings, hidden from the public right of way along Heritage Road. The project site has two driveway entrances, one proposed on the west side from Heritage Road and one existing on the east side at the signalized intersection of Santa Maya and Heritage Road . The project site is separated from Heritage Road by two open space lots that wrap around the three industrial parcels creating an open space, landscaped buffer from the public right of way.
The Appellant filed an appeal on February 22, 2022 and has stated several causes of action in their appeal.
Findings Not Supported
The Appellant states that the “project was wrongly exempted [from CEQA Review] due to inaccurate information.” Specifically, the App ellant claims the Planning Commission should not have approved the project because the FEIR was 7 -years old, and because the FEIR did not contemplate warehouse usage for the site.
In Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College District, (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, the California Supreme Court resolved both of these issues. In the Friends case, the Court specifically mentions that an approving agency may rely on an old EIR if the EIR still holds some “informational relevance” to the analysis the agency conducts when evaluating a new project. The Court went further and held that the decision to rely upon an old EIR for a new development project is a factual question, not a legal one. Therefore, as long as the decision -making agency can show through “substantial evidence” that the original EIR holds some informational relevance to the evaluat ion of the new project, the agency may rely upon the old EIR document’s environmental analysis for the new project.
In the case at hand, staff has determined EIR-13-01, prepared for the Otay Ranch University Villages Project Comprehensive Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment and certified by City Council on December 2, 2014, adequately addressed the environmental impacts of future industrial developments at this location, in such P a g e | 4
a way as to not legally require further analysis. Not only does the FEIR indicate the land use as Industrial in Figure 4 -4 (page 4 -13), but the Planned Community District Regulations also identify the three lots as Industrial with warehouse as a permitted use (Table 8, page 52). Additionally, the Project site has a General Plan designation of Limited Industrial (I-L), and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan also designates the site for Limited Industrial uses. Pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.44.020.C., storage and warehousing are identified and permitted uses by right in the I-L zone.
At the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission was asked to make a determination based on the land use compatibility of the Project to the surrounding uses. Accordingly, staff analyzed the intended use of industrial buildings and determined the use was adequately analyzed in the previous FEIR. The Planning Commission’s decision was predicated on the factual decision and analysis conducted by staff.
Factual Error
The Appellant also states that “this project is likely to be an Amazon Last Mile Delivery Station.” The Appellant relies on this assumption to support the claim the Planning Commission relied on factual error in approving the Project. The Appellant’s statement is also the basis of their argument that this Project will not provide high paying good jobs. The Appellant’s claim is speculative in nature and not supported by public testimony provided by the Project Applicant . At the February 9, 2022 Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant informed the Planning Commission that they have not been in discussions with Amazon regarding any of the three buildings planned for the Project site and that the project is being constructed on a speculative basis (no committed tenants). Therefore, the action taken by the Planning Commission was not based on conjecture, speculation, or factual error. Rather, it was made on the merits of the Project design, the environmental analysis of the Sectional Planning Area, and the compatibility with the surrou nding neighborhood.
Analysis and Bases for Staff’s Recommendation
This appeal presents to the City Council not only the ability to take into full consideration the deliberations and decision of the Planning Commission, but also to exercise the City Council’s full authority to consider the Project, in its entirety, and make a de novo determination based upon appropriate findings.
Design Review
As described in Staff’s Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 4), the proposed three-industrial shell buildings totaling 201,200 square feet on an existing, previously graded, vacant 11.6-acre site consisting of three parcels, is a permitted use within the Otay Ranch Village 3 Business Park . Staff ‘s analysis of the proposal found it complies with the policies, guidelines, and design standards for the Otay Ranch Village 3 and a Portion of Village 4 Planned Community District Regulations, the Village 3 Business Park Design Guidelines and the Otay Ranch Village 3 Landscape Master Plan. In addition, the size, location, and condition of the three, vacant parcels provide a desirable location for the Project’s needs.
The proposed Project would also be consistent with the vision of the Otay Ranch Village 3 Business Park in having a diverse base of industries for the residents of Chula Vista. The proposed project is a permitted use within the Business Park District and meets the PC District Regulations’ requirements in terms of site layout, setbacks, building height, circulation, parking, access, and landscape. Industria l uses within Village 3 are intended to provide for a high -quality working environment and to achieve a harmonious mixture of land P a g e | 5
uses. Further, the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable design standards for building, facade and roof articulation; materials and colors; landscaping; and trash enclosures & recycling.
Variance
A wall height variance is requested for approximately 130 lineal feet of retaining wall at Lot 814. The maximum allowable wall height according to the Village 3 Business Pa rk Design Guidelines is 8.5 feet. The variance requests to exceed the allowable height by 1.5 feet for a maximum exposed height of 10 feet to provide a maintenance access bench at the bottom of wall / top of open space area as required by the City.
As a part of the rough grading that has been performed on the project site, there is a seven -foot berm that divides Lot 814 and Lot 815. This berm is proposed to be modified as a part of the proposed development.
Lot 814 will require fill material to raise the s ite above the existing open space slope elevation and provide a smooth transition to the ultimate condition of adjacent Lot 815. A minimum of a 2.5 -foot-wide flat maintenance path is required in front of the proposed retaining wall along the Heritage front age. Providing this maintenance path increases the total exposed height of the proposed retaining wall to 10 feet. This is greater than the 8.5-foot maximum height permitted within the Business Park Design Guidelines. Therefore, a wall height Variance is requested for an approximately 130 lineal feet of retaining wall located at Lot 814 with a maximum exposed height of 10 feet.
The existing open space (Lot D) fronting Lot 814 has a minimum width of forty (40) feet and a maximum width of eighty (80) feet with a maximum thirty (30) foot vertical rise from back of sidewalk to the project site. This open space slope (Lot D) provides visual relief and screening of the proposed private onsite improvements from passing pedestrians and vehicles due to the sight l ine from the right -of way to the property.
Conclusion
In conclusion, staff has determined that (1) The project does not require further CEQA review as the intended use was adequately analyzed in the previous FEIR ; (2) the Project design is consistent with City design standards; and (3) the Project meets the findings for issuance of a Variance.
Therefore, staff recommends the City Council deny the Appellant’s appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review Permit DR21 -0007 and Variance VAR21-0001 to construct three industrial shell buildings totaling 201,200 square feet, located on an existing, previously graded, vacant 11.6- acre site consisting of three parcels, within the Otay Ranch Village 3 Business Park , referred to as Heritage Industrial Center.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found no property holdings within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Consequently, this item does not present a disqualifying real property -related financial conflict of interest under C alifornia Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18705.2(a)(11), for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §87100, et seq.).
P a g e | 6
Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
There is no current year fiscal impact to the General Fund as a result of this action. The appeal fee of $250 was paid by the Appellant . The cost of the appeal to City Council, and processing costs associated with the Project are borne by the Applicant.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact to the General Fund as a result of this action. All processing costs are borne by the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Locator Map
2. Draft Planning Commission Minutes
3. Appeal, dated February 23, 2022
4. Planning Commission Report
a. Project Plans
b. Heritage Industrial Center Noise Study
c. Department of Toxic Substances Control Letter
d. Retaining Wall Exhibit
e. Site Color Board
5. DR21-0007 Planning Commission Resolution
6. VAR21-0001 Planning Commission Resolution
Staff Contacts: Genevieve Hernandez, Senior Planner, Development Services D. Todd Philips, Planning Manager, Development Services Tiffany Allen, Director of Development Services