A standing room only crowd attended a Chula Vista city council meeting on June 4, with residents lined up to voice their concerns about a proposed apartment development off Bonita Glen Drive.
The 170-unit housing development – run by the Silvergate development firm – was previously set back after it was rejected by the Planning Commission in a 3-1 vote on March 13.
In order for action to be taken, however, a minimum of four votes were needed by the group, which had three members missing on that evening.
Silvergate appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, alleging that the public provided inaccurate information about the safety effects the new complex would have on Bonita Glen Drive, Peppertree Road and other roadways in the area.
Silvergate paid for an independent contractor to conduct a traffic impact analysis on the site, and it was found that the addition of the seven-building complex would not result in an unsafe impact.
Residents had previously expressed concern on how the complex would affect road safety and traffic during public outreach meetings in 2018 on Sept. 5 and Oct. 17.
Silvergate responded to the concerns with a proposal to install a new sidewalk and street lights along the front of Bonita Glen Drive, as well as to acquire a cul-de-sac at the end of Vista Drive, which would be maintained as private road.
Additionally, Silvergate would pay $5.9 million in development impact fees, build nine low-impact housing units, and generate annual tax revenue to go toward schools, police and fire department staffing and the city budget.
Residents on both sides of the issue lined up to speak during the public hearing, with those in support – some of whom disclosed they had been contacted by Silvergate — touting that, among other things, the project helps alleviate a need for housing, cleans up the area, improves safety and bring jobs.
Those in opposition argued that the complex would further clog an unsafe road with more traffic, would have a negative environmental impact and was too large for the area. Some argued that the price-tag for the non-low income units – proposed rent is from $1,700 to $2,500 – is not mid-end as the developer claims.
“This is ridiculous,” said Joanne Springer, at the council podium. “I don’t live there. I’ve driven those roads. Literally, what can you be thinking? How can you possibly think this isn’t going to make that area outrageously dangerous.”
Mayor Mary Casillas-Salas reminded an at-times-restless crowd that the council was there to rule on whether the independent findings were accurate, and that there was no reason to believe that they weren’t – despite the public’s claims to the contrary.
The council ultimately voted 4-1 to accept the appeal and grant a building permit to Silvergate, following nearly five hours of public comments and deliberation. The lone vote against the appeal was councilmember Jill Galvez, who agreed that it needed to be safer.
Silvergate Managing Partner Ian Gill – who said on the podium that he was used to facing public scorn – said he was pleased with the council’s final decision.
“I think it was definitely appropriate, and I was pleased that after considering all the facts they chose to approve the project,” Gill said. “I think the idea of exploring a way to deal with the obvious concerns that were expressed by the neighbors in terms of trying to find a traffic common solution, working with the county is a win-win situation.”
Some members of the public had already began to file out before the final vote was cast, when it became clear that the majority of the council was going to vote in favor of the project.
Norma Cazares, who lives in the surrounding area and spoke in opposition to the project, said the council’s decision was “unfortunate.”
“We did our own analysis. We did our own research. We contacted the same entities that the developer used to make their decisions and we found different answers,” Cazares said.
“But, unfortunately, they were deemed more credible than the community.”
