1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DENYING A FOURTH ADDENDUM (IS22-0002)
TO THE FINAL SECOND TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (FEIR 02 -04); AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA22 -0001); THE OTAY
RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDPA22-0001); THE
OTAY RANCH FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA PLAN AND OTHER ASSOCIATED
REGULATORY DOCUMENTS (SPA22-0001); A ZONE CHANGE
(ZC22-0001); A TENTATIVE MAP (TM22 -0002); AND A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS the areas of land, that is the subject matter of this resolution and for the purpose of general description is located east of State Route 125 (“SR -125”), south of Olympic Parkway, west of Eastlake Parkway, and north of Birch Road (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS on March 24, 2022, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by General Growth Properties (GGP)-Otay Ranch L.P. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brookfield Property Partners, L.P.) (“Applicant” o r “Developer”) requesting approval of amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA22-0001), the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDPA22 -0001), and the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (“SPA”) Plan (SPA22-0001), a Zone Change (ZC22-0001), a Tentative Map (TM22-0002), and a Development Agreement, to reflect the change in zoning from commercial to mixed-use residential to allow up to 840 residential units on the subject property (“Project”); and
WHEREAS the Planning Commiss ion consider ed the certification under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) of the Fourth Addendum to FEIR 02 -04 (IS22-0002) to determine whether the Project was substantially covered in the previously adopted Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial SPA Plan (FEIR 02-04; SCH #1989010154; adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2003-131 on April 1, 2003); and
WHEREAS the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a hearing before the Planning Commission, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS after review and consideration of the Staff Report and related materials for the Project, the hearing on the Project was held at the time and place as advertised in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and the Planning Commission voted 7-0, to recommend to the City Council approval of the subject Project land use entitlements and amendments, and certification of the Fourth Addendum to FEIR 02-04 (IS22-0002); and
2 WHEREAS the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on the Project held on September 25, 2024, and the Minutes and Resolution resulting therefrom are incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and
WHEREAS the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing before the City Council on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS after review and consideration of the Staff Report and related materials for the Project, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, to hear public testimony with regard to the same, and the proceedings and any documents submitted to the City Council as the decision-makers shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council , after hearing public testimony and staff’s presentation and after reviewing all the subject documents, does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:
I. GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Plan, as proposed to be amended with the Project, is not internally consistent with the objective and polices for the Freeway Commercial Focus Area. Objective – Land Use and Transportation (LUT) 99 of the City of Chula Vista General Plan states the Freeway Commercial Focus Area shall “create a retail commercial center that supports the East Planning Area/Otay Ranch population by providing regional goods and services that a re not accommodated in the residential Village Cores or Town Centers.”
The Otay Ranch Town Center shopping mall, which is part of the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Section Planning Area (FC -1 District), currently has 960,000 square feet of entitled commercial space, with 669,700 square feet already built and 290,300 square feet unbuilt. The proposed amendment to the General Plan seeks to reduce the commercial use allocation for the Otay Ranch Town Center property by 144,000 square feet, resulting in 816,000 square feet total of built and/or available commercial uses, leaving 146,300 square feet of commercial uses unbuilt. Removal of this regional serving commercial square footage will not be replaced in future unbuilt Sectional Planning Areas within Otay Ranch. The proposed reduction of commercial uses also reduces the potential jobs from the City of Chula Vista.
Consequently, t he Project propose d a loss of 144,000 square feet of regional serving commercial space within Otay Ranch Town Center. The proposed General Plan amendment ultimately proposes removing this commercial use space, enabling instead construction of a minimum of 435 residential units in phases per the proposed Development Agreement.
3 The overall Project, by reducing regional -serving commercial space in favor of residential units, diverges from the original vision and policies intended to establish Otay Ranch Town Center, as part of the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Section Planning Area (FC -1 District), as a significant commercial hub for the region.
II. DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
In light of the findings above, the proposed Project’s General Plan amendments, specifically the change in land use designation from commercial to mixed -use residential within Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial SPA Plan are hereby denied.
III. OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Otay Ranch G eneral Development Plan ("GDP"), as proposed to be amended with the Project, is not internally consistent with the Freeway Commercial South Policies found in the Otay Ranch GDP.
The Freeway Commercial South policies in the GDP states the subject area shall include, “regional uses which require an automobile orientation near regional transportation systems.
Expected uses include thoroughfare commercial, visitor commercial and regionally oriented retail commercial.”
The Project’s proposed change in land use designation from commercial to mixed -use residential would shift the focus from regionally oriented retail and visitor services to residential development.
IV. DENIAL OF OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
In light of the findings above, the Otay Ranch GDP amendments proposed with the Project are hereby denied.
V. OTAY RANCH FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
FINDINGS AND RELATED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
A. The proposed Sectional Planning Area plan, as amended, is not in conformity with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, as amended, any adopted specific plans, and the Chula Vista General Plan, as amended, and its several elements.
Consistent to the findings made above in Sections I and III, t he Project’s proposed SPA Plan amendment is inconsistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the Freeway Commercial South policies, and the Chula Vista General Plan. The Project Site was originally envisioned for regionally oriented commercial uses that serve automobile- dependent visitors and align with the area’s role as a regional hub. The proposed amendment would shift the focus of the Freeway Commercial regional shopping center by removing entitled commercial use space and allowing up to 840 residential units.
4 VI. DENIAL OF OTAY RANCH FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA PLAN AMENDMENTS
In light of the findings above, the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan amendments proposed with the Project are hereby denied.
VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 Cal Code Regs) section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency denies or disapproves.
VIII. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Government Code Section 66020(a) and failure to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, set aside, void or annual imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing fees or service fees in connection with the project; and it does not apply to any fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to this, nor does it revive challeng es to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has previously expired.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
Laura C. Black, AICP Marco A. Verdugo
Director of Development Services City Attorney
DENIED AND DISAPPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12th day of November 2024, by the following vote, to – wit;
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________
John McCann, Mayor
5 ATTEST:
_______________________
Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Kerry Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista , California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ______ was duly denied, and disapproved, by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista at a regular meeting of the City held on the 12th day of November 2024.
Executed this _____ day of _____ 2024.