Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC AGENDA PACKET 2012/03/14 AGENDA MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 276 Fourth Avenue Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Chula Vista, CA CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Planning Commission: Spethman_ Liuag_Moctezuma_ Vinson_ Felber_ Calvo Anaya MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE: OPENING STATEMENT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 11, 2012 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Opportunity for members ofthe publictospeal<tothe PlanningCommission on anysubject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction, but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. CONSENT ITEMS: The Chair may entertain requests by staff to continue an agenda item. The Chair may also entertain a recommendation by a Commissioner to approve certain non-controversial agenda items as Consent items. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an agenda item listed as a Public Hearing may not be acted upon by the Commission as a Consent Item. Public Hearing items shall be heard by the Commission as a Public Hearing. Planning Commission - 2 - March 14, 2012 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Public Hearing: Consideration of: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 10-09); 2. Amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM 10-29) 3. Amendments to the Villages 2, 3 and a Portion of Village 4 Sectional Planning Area Plan (PCM 10-30) including the Planned Community District Regulations and Village Design Plan to reflect the increase of 197 residential units within Village 2. The project also includes a Supplemental Public facilities Finance Plan; and 4. Tentative Map (PCS 11-01) for neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A located south of Olympic Parkway and west of La Media Road. Project Manager: Stan Donn, Senior Planner 2. Public Hearing: PCZ 12-02; Consideration to rezone a total of 21 lots located on the west side of Second Avenue, between I and 1 Streets, from Single-Family Residential (R1-7) to Single-Family Residential (R1- 15) Project Manager: Steve Power, Principal Planner 3. Public Hearing: PCC 09-06; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to install, use, and maintain an unmanned Wireless Communications Facility (WTFi consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas mounted on a 45-ft high antenna structure designed to resemble a palm tree (Monopalm) and associated equipment located within the existing church parking lot at 1265 Nolan Avenue. Applicant: Verizon Wireless Project Manager: Caroline Young, Associate Planner Planning Commission - 3 - March 14, 2012 Materials provided to the Planning Commission related to any item on this agenda are available for public review in the Development Services Department located at 276 Fourth Avenue during normal business hours. OTHER BUSINESS: o DIRECTOR'S REPORT: m COMMISSION COMMENTS: Adjournment: To a Regular Planning Commission on March 28, 2012. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advancefor meetings. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 585-5738. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 276 Fourth Avenue January 11, 2012 Chula Vista, California CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL / MOTION TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Spethman, Calvo, Anaya, Moctezuma, Vinson, Felber, Liuag PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Spethman 6:10:09 PM ORAL COMMUNICATION: No public input CONSENT ITEMS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Public Nearing: PCZ 11-OS; Consideration of a Rezone to change the zone from Single- Family Residential (Rl) Zone to a One and Two-Family Residential (R2) Zone. The site is located to the rear of the Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market at the corner of Third Avenue and J Street. Applicant: Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market. Background: Caroline Young reported that the applicant would like to add an additional parking lot at the rear of the Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market to provide parking beyond that required by the Urban Core Specific Plan. The subject parcels are surrounded by single-family homes and are landlocked. Since the R-1 zone does not allow parking lots, the applicant is proposing a zone change on two parcels to R-2, which allows a parking lot through the issuance of a CUP. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCZ 11-O1 recommending that the City Council approve the zone change from R1 to R2 zone based on the findings and subject to Conditions of Approval. Commission Comments: Cmr. Spethman expressed some concern with the project being located next to single-family residences and asked if the project had gone through the Design Review Board where issues such as noise and lighting attenuation, hours of operation, delivery schedule and such are addressed. Ms. Young responded that the building size is below the threshold requiring DRB approval, therefore, the project was approved by the Zoning Administrator. However, early in the process Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - January il, 2012 they applied for a Design Review Permit. At the time, the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) reviewed the project and held a couple of neighborhood meetings where the residents expressed overwhelming support for the project; in particular for security reasons, having awell-lit parking lot with fencing, which would deter transients from congregating there. Public Hearing Opened: 6:26:19 PM Mark Bergman representing Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market stated he was available to answer questions. MSC (Felber/Moctezuma) (7-O) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC2 11-01 recommending that the City Council approve the zone change from Ri to R2 zone based on the findings and subject to Conditions of Approval. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Public Hearing: GPA 12-01; Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista recommending to the City of Chula Vista City Council to amend certain sections of the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element and Environmental Element regarding Healthy Communities. Background: Diem Do reported that Chula Vista was one of nine cities receiving a Healthy Community Planning Grant from SANDAG and was one of four cities awarded the highest amount of $75,000. The purpose of the grant is to promote public health principles at the local level through the establishment of policies and goals promoting access to healthy food and opportunities for physical activity. To achieve this, staff is proposing amendments to the Land Use and Transportation Element and the Environmental Element of the General Plan. Ms. Do presented health statistics for the South County region citing findings from a study conducted by the County of San Diego Health & Human Services Agency Public Health Services. In response, the City prepared to do two things; 1.) integrate Healthy Communities language into the General Plan, and 2.) implement a new program called Cilantro to Stores, which kicked off in December 2011. Marilyn Ponseggi summarized the language proposed in the amendments to the General Plan. Commission Comments: 6:44:30 PM Cmr. Felber asked what considerations were given in picking the stores, particularly liquor stores, to participate in the Cilantro program and what has been their success. Ms. Do stated that the vast majority of neighborhoods in the west side of Chula Vista only have access in close proximity to convenient and liquor stores. After some consideration was given, it was determined that the benefits to the community of providing access to fresh produce out- weighed the fact that they also sell liquor. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - January 11, 2012 Cmr. Felber expressed reservation with the legality of establishing policy that's not enforceable such as objective in LUT 34a which deals with restricting the concentrations of unhealthy food providers within certain underserved neighborhoods. Marilyn Ponseggi stated that what's being proposed is a General Plan Amendment that would provide the policy to move forward with formulating future zoning. Attorney Shirey added that when the time comes, the nuts and bolts of the implementation language of such a policy would be thoroughly looked at, ensuring that it will be enforceable. Mr. Halbert added that the policy is asking the City Council if they even want us to look at and evaluate the potential for limiting unhealthy food providers. Cmr. Felber requested further elaboration on LUT 34c.4 with respect to creating incentives to encourage restaurants to use locally grown produce. Ms. Diem stated that the benefits to buying local-grown produce are numerous, i.e. maximizing nutritional value by consuming produce that's in season; shorter transportation distances; supporting our local agriculture helps boost our local economy. The incentive aspect is another one of those implementation questions that hasn't yet been fully explored, but an example might be to market a business that uses local-grown produce. Cmr. Felber also requested further clarification on how Objective E6.a.1. regarding smoke-free space at all workplace and multi-unit housing would be enforced. Ms. Do stated that they were thinking along the lines of where the City might be providing funding to a large multi-family affordable housing project; consideration could 6e given to designating some units as non-smoking units. 7:00:54 PM Cmr. Calvo pointed out that LUT 8 that was in the staff report was not included in the Resolution; secondly, she also recommended changing the language in LUT 23. to read, "....address the maximum walking distance to access daily retail needs Af~FB-OR transit.", thereby offering a couple options. COMMISSION COMMENT5:7:09:15 PM Cmr. Moctezuma expressed enthusiastic support to include language in the General Plan addressing objectives aiming at raising awareness and promoting a strong, healthy community, similar to the Quality of Life goals contained in the Growth Management Ordinance. Cmr. Vinson stated he doesn't believe the proposal warrants an amendment to the General Plan, and from a philosophical standpoint, in his opinion, the $75,000 could have been better spent. Cmr. Liuag echoed Cmr. Moctezuma's sentiments and stated that this is more directional and not implementation. The only recommendation he would make would be to remove the negative statistics from the resolution, which is the permanent public record, and more appropriate for the staff report as informational. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - January 11, 2012 Cmr. Anaya stated he grew up in a neighborhood where access to afull-service supermarkets was not available and all they had were corner liquor/convenience stores. He believes this endeavor is a step in the right direction and applauds the Cilantro program as a means by which to raise the awareness and offer more choices, where there previously were none. Cmr. Felber stated that some of his concerns are placated by the choice of words i.e. encourage, educate, promote; instead of mandate, require, which he couldn't have supported . Policy-makers need to be mindful to not limit free enterprise and people's ability to operate their businesses the way they want. Cmr. Liuag stated he shares Cmr. Felber's sentiments, however, he believes that sometimes we need a strong policies to get us in the right direction, and it's important to have choices, but sometimes only bad choices are afforded because of bad policies. Public Hearing Opened and Closed. 7:21:12 PM MSC (Luiag/Moctezumai (5-2-0-0) that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council with the following changes to the resolutions to have the language be consistent with each other; o Remove the negative stats taken from the health study conducted by the County Health Dept. o Add LUT 8 to City Council Resolution o Change LUT 23.1.a. in the Planning Commission resolution to read "...access to daily retain needs OR nearest transit stops:' e Remove the sentence under 7.16 that reads "There is a growing awareness of the need for Health Communities." The Planning Commission also made a recommendation that staff add a recital to the City Council Resolution using language with a more positive approach to promoting healthier eating choices. Motion carried with Cmrs. Spethman and Vinson voting against the motion. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Consideration of amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM 11-05); 2. Consideration of amendments to the Village 2 Sectional Planning Area Plan (PCM 11-06) including Planned Community District Regulations, and Design Plan to reflect the redistribution of 113 units/lots within Village 2. The project also includes addenda to the existing EIR and Public Facilities Finance Plan; 3. Consideration of a Tentative Map (PCS i1-02) for neighborhood R-4B; 4. Consideration of a Tentative Map (PCS 11-03) for neighborhoods R-20, R- 23, R-24, R-25a, R-25b, and R-27; 5. Consideration of a Tentative Map (PCS 11-04) for neighborhood R-6; and 6. Consideration of a Tentative Map (PCS 11-OS) for neighborhoods R-8 and R-9b. Cmr. Calvo recused herself from the dais and deliberation on this item due to a potential conflict of interest related to her employment/client relation. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - January 11, 2012 Background: Stan Donn presented an overview of the proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP and Village 2 SPA Plan and associated regulatory documents in order to reallocate 113 previously approved residential units/lots in Otay Ranch Village 2 of Montecito. Mr. Donn reported that neighborhoods R-6, 8a, and 9b of Village 2 North were graded and had partial utilities installed in 2006. Due to the significant economic downturn, the build-out of these parcels was not completed. Based on current market conditions, the product-types originally anticipated are no long economically viable. In order to realign these neighborhoods with current marketplace conditions, the applicant is proposing detached homes on lots that are smaller in size and slightly higher in density than originally proposed. Steven Haase of Baldwin and Sons presented an overview of his proposal. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 1105/06, PCS 11-02, 11-03, 11-04, 11-OS recommending that the City Council: m consider the Addendum to to FEIR 02-02 o approve a resolution to amend the Otay Ranch GDP and the Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA Plan for the reallocation of the 113 units within Village 2, o approve an ordinance to amend the private usable open space requirements for small lots detached single family units in the RM 1 zone; and o approve four resolutions for each of the Tentative Maps associated with the unit reallocation and subject to the conditions that are contained within the resolutions and ordinance. Public Hearing Opened and Closed. 8:20:40 PM MSC (Felber/Moctezuma)(6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission adopt PCM 1105/06, PCS 11-02, 11- 03, 11-04, 11-OS recommending that the City Council: a consider the Addendum to to FEIR 02-02 o approve a resolution to amend the Otay Ranch GDP and the Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA Plan for the reallocation of the 113 units within Village 2, approve an ordinance to amend the private usable open space requirements for small lots detached single family units in the RM 1 zone; and approve four resolutions for each of the Tentative Maps associated with the unit reallocation and subject to the conditions that are contained within the resolutions and ordinance. Motion carried with Cmr. Calvo abstaining. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Gary Halbert gave an update on AB 26, the State legislation that dissolved all Redevelopment Agencies effective February 1, 2012 and replaces them with Successor Agencies. Mr. Halbert further indicated that with the elimination of the CVRC, the Planning Commission would now be considering those projects that are within redevelopment project areas. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - January 11, 2012 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chair Spethman asked for clarification on the protocol for the amount of time allowed to an applicant to address the Commission. Staff reaffirmed that as a courtesy, the applicant is allowed to address the Commission or make a short presentation on his project, however, it's within the Chair's purview to limit the time to a duration that's deemed reasonable. Submitted by: Diana Vargas, Secretary to the Planning Commission CHULA VISTA r=®-~: rc s y~`f C ~ r PLANNING _ ~t ~ u j i~: zteffi~ ~ Meetimmg IDate: 3/i4/12 )(TEM'I'I')<'3.E: Public Hearing: 1) Consideration of Mitigated Negative Declazation (IS 10-009); 2) Consideration of amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM 10-29); 3) Consideration of amendments to the Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Village Four Sectional Planning Area Plan (PCM 10-30), including the Planned Community District Regulafions; and Village Design Plan to reflect the increase of 197 residential units within Village 2. The project also includes a Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan; and 4) Consideration of a Tentative Map (PCS-11-O1) for neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A, located south of Olympic Parkway and west of La Media Road. SU~1V~'T'g'ED B~': Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director »R®~uc~a®N Otay Ranch New Homes, LLC ("Applicant," "Owner" or "Developer") is proposing to add 197 residential units/lots within the Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Village Four Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan ("Village 2 SPA Plan"). The proposed 197-unit increase requires amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the Village 2 SPA Plan, the associated Planned Community (PC) District Regulations, and the Village 2 Design Plan. In addition, a Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) must be approved, and a Mitigated Negative Declazation (IS 10-009) must be considered. The project also includes one new Tentative Map for neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A. On November 22, 2010, the Applicant filed applications to process all of the subject items. B?,CY~GR®>~ Otay Ranch GDP Tn October of 1993, the City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the City of Chula Vista Otay Ranch GDP and the County Otay Subregional Plan (SRP) respectively. The GDP/SRP governs the 23,000+ acre Otay Ranch Properties. The Otay Ranch GDP is based upon, and directly implements, the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The Otay Ranch GDP includes plans for urban villages, a resort community, the Eastern Urban Center, industrial azeas, rural estate planning azeas, and a university. [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-O1 Page 2, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 Since its adoption in 1993, the GDP was amended. in 1998, in 2005 (as part of City Council's adopton of the City of Chula Vista's Comprehensive General Plan Update), in May 2006 to address Village 2-specific planning issues, and most recently in February 2012. Village 2 SPA Plan The Village 2 SPA Plan and Tentative Map _(PCS 06-OS) were approved by the Chula Vista City Council on May 23, 2006. The Village 2 SPA Plan authorized up to 2,786 dwelling units in a variety of urban and semi-urban residential products. While the greatest residential densities and mixture of uses comprise the village core, the Village 2 SPA Plan also created a series of residential neighborhoods organized around private recreation facilities. Residents within these neighborhoods will be within walking distance of multiple public parks, private recreational facilities, and a variety of commercial uses. Minor Substantial Conformance Review (SCR) requests were approved on February'15, 2007 and December 13, 2007, which authorized unit transfers between several neighborhoods. These minor SCRs did not require GDP or SPA Amendments and are reflected in the proposed Village 2 Land Use Summary Table. In February, 2012, an Amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP and Village 2 SPA Plan was processed by another property owner and approved by the Chula Vista City Council to transfer 113 lots/units among 10 neighborhoods resulting in a decrease from seven neighborhoods and an increase in three neighborhoods, resulting in a net zero increase. Since the approval of the Village 2 SPA Plan and Tentative Map in 2006, market conditions have changed for single-family residential development. Due to structural shifts in the economy affecting the real estate sector and mortgage mazkets, demand has increased for "small lot" detached homes with lot sizes approximately 3,000 squaze feet and decreased for traditional single family lazger homes with lot. sizes approximately 5,000 square feet (as previously approved). As a result, the Applicant is requesting amendments to the Village 2 SPA Plan and approval of one associated Tentative Map, to allow for construction of alternate housing products that aze consistent with today's mazketplace conditions and homebuyer preference. IENVIIB®191~1VTAL It~VdD+ W The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS 10-009, in accordance with CEQA. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Development Services Director has determined that the project could result in significant impacts on the environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Development Services Duector has prepared a Mitigated.Negative Declaration, IS 10-009 and associated Mitigation and Reporting Program. [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-01 Page 3, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 REC®1Vtli'1~NI9A'~%®IV That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council: 1. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 10-009); 2. Approve a resolution for amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP, and the Village 2 SPA Plan and supporting regulatory documents in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein; 3. Approve an Ordinance for amendments to the PC District Regulations and Land Use District Map, subject to the conditions contained therein; and, 4. Approve a resolution for Tentative Map (PCS 11-O1) in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ~®AI8ID3/C®lOBIVd7CS5i®N RISC®1N?DA'Tg®1>I: N/A 191<SCTJSSF®N 1. Location, Existing Site Characteristics, and Ownership The Village 2 SPA Plan azea is located south of Olympic Pazlway, east of the future Heritage Road extension and west of La Media Road (see Attachment #1, Locator Map). Portions of the Village are partially graded, and other azeas are developed or currently under development. Neighborhoods within the Village with projects in progress (independent from the proposed project) include R-5, R-1Q R-12, R-13, R-14, and R-30. These neighborhoods are being developed with a variety of product types, including detached and attached residential units, and alley loaded single family homes. Other portions of the site are currently vacant and generally comprised of rolling terrain devoid of natural vegetation due to historic farming activities. Village 2 includes approximately 77S acres under multiple ownerslvps (See Attachment 9, Exhibit A). Proposed amendments to the Village 2 SPA Plan represent properties owned by Otay Ranch New Homes, LLC. The four neighborhoods (R.-7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29) subject to the proposed GDP and SPA amendments comprise approximately 27:6 acres. The area of the Tentative Map (PCS 11-01) comprises approximately 12.0 acres. Although the proposed SPA amendments are only for a portion of Village 2, some planning issues, particularly.-context, community structure and infrastructure, must be evaluated in the context of the overall planning azea. This report describes the SPA Plan component(s) and an evaluation of each of the applicable SPA Plan component associated with the proposed Project. 2. Project Description The project proposes adding 197 residential units within four neighborhoods of the Village 2 SPA Plan as listed in the table below. [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-O1 Page 4, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 Neighborhood Existing # Units Pro osed #Units #ITnits Increase Product T e R-7A 44 82 38 Single-Family R-9A S6 67 11 Single-Family R-28 46 13S 89 Muni-Family . R-29 89 148 S9 Multi-Family Totat 23S 432 197 This proposed density increase is described in greater detail in the "Proposed Amendments" section below. R-7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29 are among a number of neighborhoods located in Village 2 North that were graded and had partial utilities installed in 2006/2007. Due to a significant economic downturn, the build out of these pazcels was not completed. Based on current market conditions, the product types originally anticipated for these neighborhoods aze no longer economically viable. The Applicant is proposing detached single-family homes on lots that are smaller in size (R-7A and R-9A neighborhoods) and higher density within the multi-family (R-28 and R-29 neighborhoods) than those originally proposed to realign these neighborhoods with current mazketplace conditions. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The following is a brief summary of the proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP and Village 2 SPA Plan. The unit increases aze depicted on Page 2 of the proposed GDP and SPA Plan amendments booldet entitled "Village 2 General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendments" (See Attachment 9). Otay Ranch GDP: Amend applicable text, tables, and exhibits to reflect changes in single-family and multi- family housing distributions and implement the proposed housing products in R-7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29. Amend the R=7A and R-9A neighborhoods from the Residential Low-Medium Village ("LMV") land use designation to the Residential Medium ("M") land use designation. Village 2 SPA Plan: a. Amend applicable text, tables, and exhibits to reflect changes in single-family and multi-family housing distributions and implement the proposed housing products in R- 7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29 b. Rezone R-7A neighborhood from SF3 zone to RMl (multi-family) c. Rezone R-9A neighborhood from SF4 to RMl d. Amend R-7 neighborhood designation to R-7A e. Rezone R-28 neighborhood from RMl to RM2 [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-O1 Page 5, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 ANAI,YSgS 1. ®tay ;(8anch GDP The Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP provide the vision and direction for the planning of the Village 2 SPA Plan. T'he proposed project includes a GDP amendment to increase the total number of units authorized within Village 2 from 2,786 to 2,983 and reclassify the R-7A and R-9A neighborhoods from the "LMV" GDP land use designation to the "M" GDP , land use designation. T'he Otay Ranch GDP envisioned Village 2 as an "Urban Village. " According to the Otay Ranch GDP, Urban Villages are "adjacent to existing urban development and are planned for transit oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village cores. " Key goals and objectives within the Otay Ranch GDP include: - Goal: Develop comprehensive, well integrated and balanced land uses which are compatible with the surroundings. Objective: Provide awell-integrated land t~se pattern which promotes both housing and employment opportznities, while enhancing the unique environmental and visual qualities of the Otay Ranch. Objective: Provide a wide range of residental housing opportunities, from rural and estate homes to high-density multi family projects. Provide a balanced and diverse residential land zrse pattern for the Otay Valley Parcel which prornotes a blend of multi family and single family hoztsing styles and densities, integrated and corpatible with other land zrses in the area. Objective: Provide development patterns cornplernentary to the adopted plans and existing development of the adjacent communities. The Village 2 SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan supports these Otay Ranch GDP goals and objectives by providing a range of housing and employment opportunities. The plan adheres to the Otay Ranch GDP specific directives for Village 2 that creates a village core (composed of commercial, community purpose facilities, elementary school, high school, neighborhood parks, town squaze, and residential land uses) and residential neighborhoods that offer a variety of housing styles and densities. The proposed unit increase furthers the Otay Ranch GDP policy objectives for "Urban Villages" to have "higher densities and mixed zrses in the village cores" and to "provide a wide range of residential housing opportunities...which prornotes a blend of multi family and single family housing styles and densities, integrated and compatible with other land uses in the area. " The proposed small lot single-family (four-unit) detached product provides a housing type that. was not previously provided within the Village 2 SPA, and is consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP Objectives listed above, and integrate the land use pattern further discussed below. [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-O1 Page 6, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 2. ®tay french Vi;llaee 2 SPA Plan Aartendvaent R-7A and R-9A are currently approved with densities of of 4.7 du/ac (R-7A) and 7.9 du/ac (R- 9A). The proposed increase of 38 units within R-7A changes the development pattern from traditional linear single family lotting to a more- compact four-unit auto court pattern. Additionally, the proposed increase of 11 units lots in R-9A provides additional alley-loaded homes. Both the alley-loaded and auto-court patterns of development enhance pedestrian acfivity and neighborhood aesthetics by removing gazages and driveways from street view. As proposed, the densities of 8.7 du/ac (R-7A) and 9.4 du/ac (R-9A) would comply with GDP policies promoting more dense neighborhoods as development nears Village Core azeas. R-7A and R-9A aze within wallcing distance of the Village Core, including the elementary school site. The product type at these higher densities also achieves the GDP policy for providing a range of housing types. The proposed addition of 148 units within Neighborhoods R-28 and R-29 increases the `density in the Village Core, which enhances the viability of the future planned commercial component of the Village 2 Land Plan. As currently approved, the densities of 8.9 du/ac (R-28) and 15.1 du/ac (R-29) are at the lower end of desired densities in a Village Core area. The proposed project would increase the density in R-28 to 26.0 du/ac and R-29 to 25.1 du/ac, consistent with Otay Ranch GDP transit-oriented village policies. This compact design and increase in density necessitates the evaluation of urban design criteria, circulation, public facilities, water conservation, air quality and other components of the Village 2 SPA Plan to ensure that these 191 units are integrated into the surrounding residential, mixed- use and public-quasi public uses. This evaluation is further described below. Land Use: The proposed organization of land uses within the Village 2 SPA Plan area meets the objectives of integration and compatibility of land uses within villages and with adjacent communities. Adjacent land uses include existing and planned residential surrounding the Village 2 SPA Amendment project area. A 1.2-acre private recreation facility is within easy walking distance of residents and provides a recreational focal point for the R-7A and R-9A neighborhoods. The land uses within Village 2 transition from the village core mixed use and higher density residential uses to lower density residential uses along the village perimeters, especially adjacent to the open space preserve azeas along Wolf Canyon (see Exhibit 9 of SPA -Village 2 SPA Plan Tab, Attachment 9). The 49 additional small lot products within the R-7A and R-9A neighborhoods provide the required 750 squaze feet of private open space per lot. Due to proximity to the 1.2 acres of the private recreational facility (CPF-1) and other common open space facilities within walking distance to these neighborhoods, no additional common open space wase required. The proposed 197 unit increase. would necessitate an additional 0.9 acres of land designated Community Public Facilities (CPF). The Applicant proposes to record a deed restriction on 0.9 acres of the Village 7, R-3 neighborhood. This site is located adjacent to the Village 2 core, within Village 7. In addition to the deed restriction, the Applicant will enter into an Agreement with the City to provide the required CPF obligation to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-01 Page 7, Item Meeting Date: 3/14112 However, the increase would not result in any significant land use, planning, or zoning impacts. Though the addition of 197 units would increase the density of the four neighborhoods, such an increase would support Smart Crrowth Principles, as it provides compact development oriented to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit, and would further m;n;m;~.e urban sprawl development patterns. The proposed project increases the density within the Village Core by adding 148 units in R-28 and R-29, and increases the density of neighborhoods adjacent to the Village Core by adding 49 units in R-7A and R-9A. The proposed changes would also provide more land use diversity, increase pedestrian orientation and make commercial uses within Village 2 more viable. The proposed unit increase requires amendments to the Village 2 Design Plan and PC District Regulations, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Water Conservation Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan and Affordable Housing Plan as fuuther described below. Village 2 PC Disd•ict Regulations Amendments The PC District Regulations function as the zoning regulations for Village 2. The proposed project includes minor revisions to the PC District Regulations, including revisions to the Village of Montecito Zoning District Map to reflect the zoning modifications in Neighborhoods R-7A, R-9A (SF4 to RMl) and R-28 (RMl to RM2) as described on page 4 of this report. Village 2 Design Plan The Village 2 Design Plan sets forth design pazameters that pertain to site planning, landscape azchitecture, azchitecture and signage for all developments within Village 2. The Design Plan contains illustrations and guidelines to implement the design concepts presented therein. The predominant design theme for Village 2 is Santa Bazbaza/Spanish architecture. The Design Plan consists of various single and multi-family conceptual lotting and spatial orientation illustrations. The proposed project introduces four-unit detached single-family homes clustered around a central auto court. These detached single-family products complement the existing small lot developments served by alleys within Village 2, as they provide individual private yazds and various architectural styles including high-quality craftsmanship and materials. The proposed clustered single-family detached lotting allows for individual lot ownership at a price range that is more affordable for a wider market of buyers and provides options for single- family housing types. Village 2 SPA Plan - Sz~pplemerztal Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) The Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment Supplemental PFFP (Supplemental PFFP) has been prepared as a supplemental document to the Villages Two, Three and Portion of Village Four PFFP (Village 2 PFFP) dated February 28, 2006 for the Village 2 SPA Plan. The Supplemental PFFP analyzes the proposed 197-unit/lot increase, any potential impacts on public facilities, and services, and identifies the facilities, phasing and timing triggers for the provision of facilifies and services to serve the project, consistent with the City's Quality of Life Threshold Standazds. [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS I1-Ol Page 8, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 The PFFP describes in detail the cost, financing mechanism and timing for construction of necessary public facilities. The public facilities needed to serve the proposed project will be guaranteed by placing conditions of approval on the Tentative Map, requiring payment of fees at the building permit stage, and/or continuing participation in the approved Community Facilities Districts to finance or maintain certain public facilities. The Supplemental PFFP included an analysis of transportation, drainage, water, sewer, fire, schools, libraries, parks, air quality and fiscal impacts of the project, as described below: Transportation In conjunction with the proposed Village 2 SPA Amendment project, aproject-specific Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Fehr and Peers (2011) to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the 197 unit increase. The traffic analysis for the proposed project analyzed the changes in trip distribution, traffic volumes, LOS levels, regional systems, cumulative projects and traffic related impacts upon the circulation system and roadways. As indicated in the Traffic Impact Study, the proposed project would result in an increase of 1,674 daily trips. The Traffic Impact Study concludes the addition of 197 new units would result in no new significant impacts; however, it would contribute to a cumulative impact at the all-way stop controlled intersection of Santa Victoria Road/Santa Venetia Street. Signalization of this intersection would fully mitigate this impact. The applicant will construct the signal at this intersection. The timing for installation of required public improvements and financing mechanisms are discussed in the Village 2 PFFP and the Supplemental PFFP (see SPA Plan -PFFP Tab, Attachment 9). Street improvements required to serve the project aze identified in the Village 2 PFFP and the Village 2 SPA Amendment Supplemental PFFP. The .197 unit increase would make the overall Village 2 design more supportive of transit by increasing densities in areas close to transit stops. The Applicant will be responsible for funding its fair share of the Village 2 transit stop on State Street. Drainage The project area is located in the southwestern portion of the San Diego Basin. The San Diego Basin has been divided into 11 hydrographic units and 54 hydrographic subunits, which are based primarily on surface water drainage basins (RWQCB 1975). The proposed SPA Plan area is located within the Otay Hydrographic Subunit of the Otay Hydrographic Unit. Surface water in the Otay Hydrographic Subunit downstream from Otay Lakes is ephemeral (temporary) and generally found in man-made ponds. According to the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR, the RWQCB rates the surface water in the subunit as having beneficial uses for agriculture, non-contact recreational sport, wildlife, rare and endangered species, and potential beneficial uses for industry. The natural drainage basin for the SPA Plan vicinity is a combination of three sub basins that drain directly into Poggi Canyon to the north, Wolf Canyon to the south of Village Two, and [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-O1 Page 9, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 from the Otay Valley Road watershed, which drains into unnamed tributaries of the Otay River. Drainage from the northern portion of the Village Two area of the SPA Plan converges into Poggi Canyon, while the southern portion of the Village Two and the northern portion of Village Four property drain to Wolf Canyon Creek. The project will be conditioned to provide for the conveyance of storm water flows in accordance with City standards, policies and requirements. The Developer will design, install and maintain on-site erosion protection. All permanent or temporary erosion control will be designed to City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Further, the project shall comply with all federal, state and local storm water runoff and discharge regulations. A project-level water quality technical report was completed for the proposed project. The water quality technical report outlines three options for achieving the water quality treatment and hydromodificationregvirements of the City of Chula Vista. These three options are: Option 1 -Water Quality Treatment and Hydromodificafion will be achieved within Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A with pavers in courtyards/driveways underlain with adequate bioretention storage for water quality and hydromodification. Option 2 -Water Quality Treatment and Hydromodification will be achieved by upsizing the approved regional stormfilter to account for re-entitled areas (R-7A and R-9A) owned by the project applicant, and by constructing a regional underground detention vault for hydromodification. Option 3 -Water Quality Treatment and Hydromodification will be achieved by upsizing the approved regional Stormfilter to account for all re-entitled areas (R-7A and R-9A) within Village Two, and by constructing a regional underground detention vault for hydromodification. The proposed project would continue to comply with all applicable rules and regulations, including compliance with NPDES permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for design, treatment and monitoring for stone water quality would be implemented with respect to municipal and construction permits. Compliance with all applicable rules and regulations .governing water quality as well as implementation of all mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the measures outlined in the water quality technical report (Hunsalcer and Associates 2011a,b) would ensure no additional impacts to water quality. Water Otay Water District (OWD) will provide water service for the Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA Amendment project. OWD has facilities in the vicinity of the project that can provide water service. Aproject-specific analysis has been conducted to evaluate the project's potential water impacts. The water analysis for the proposed project analyzes changes in unit demand factor and total average demand between existing (approved) and proposed conditions. OWD uses a factor of 500 gpd/unit to estimate water demands for single-family developments with densities between 3.0 and 8.0 DU/AC. For densities greater than 8.0 DU/AC, a factor of [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-01 Page 10, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 300 gpd/unit is used. Under existing land use conditions, R-7A and R-9A are within the 3.0 to 8.0 DU/AC category and R-28 and R-29 aze greater than 8.0 DU/AC. The proposed unit increase will increase the densities of neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A to above 8.0 DU/AC; however, to be conservative, the supplemental water analysis (Wilson Engineers, 2011) analyzes these neighborhoods at the higher water usage factor. As indicated in the water analysis, the proposed unit increase will have the net effect of increasing average project water demands by approximately 10,500 gpd. The fire flow is 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm), for a duration of 2 hours, which meets the City's requirements. OWD provided a letter indicating that it has the ability to serve this additional demand without any facility upgrades. The water system recommendations from the May 2006 Subarea Master Plan for Village 2 are unchanged as a result of the proposed project. Recycled water infrastructure is identified within the OWD Capital Improvement Program to serve Village 2, including certain infrastructure already in place within Olympic Parkway. Recycled water facilities for the Project will be constructed based on the approved Subazea Water Master Plan (SAMP). Sewer The City of Chula Vista uses a factor of 265 gpd/unit to project sewer demands for single family detached residential units and 199 gpd/unit for multi-family units. As presented in the sewer analysis (Wilson Engineering, 2011), the proposed unit increase will have the net effect of increasing average flows of 42,400 gpd (160.1 EDUs) to the Poggi Basin. Onsite Sewer: Within the Poggi Canyon Basin, sewer is conveyed to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor at Heritage Road and Santa Venetia Street. The backbone sewer lines serving these areas have already been installed. Although the proposed unit increase within the Poggi Basin is relatively small, the impacts on the onsite sewer system were analyzed. As shown in the sewer analysis, all sewer lines will flow at a depth to diameter (d/D) of less than 0.50 or less with the proposed unit increase. This flow rate of less than 0.50 meets the City's standards as stipulated in the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. Offsite Sewer/Poggi Carryon Interceptor: The available capacity in the Poggi Canyon Interceptor was evaluated with the additional 160.1 EDUs that aze proposed to be added to the Poggi Basin. Data on the Poggi Canyon Interceptor was obtained from the April 2009 Poggi Canyon Basin Gravity Sewer Development Impact Fee Update prepared by PMC (PMC study), Data from this report includes existing permitted EDUs in the basin as well as committed EDUs based on previous project approvals. The sewer analysis summarizes the impact that the proposed unit increase has on permitted and committed remaiui.ng capacity. Only the two reaches already identified for future replacement aze shown as being over capacity in the PMC study. The proposed unit transfer does not require additional reaches of the l?oggi Canyon Interceptor to be upgraded in the future. [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-01 Page I1, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 Fire Development of the proposed Project is not anficipated to change the need for fire service in the area. The existing Fire Station No. 7, located at 1640 Santa Venetia within the Village 2, would be the primary station to serve the project. Schools Based on Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) Student Generation Factors, it is anticipated the proposed 197-unit increase would result in 64 additional elementary school students. An elementary school has been planned within the Village 2 core to serve the build-out population of approximately 875 students. The central location provides students living in the project azea the option of walldng to school. A School Mitigation Agreement was completed between CVESD and Otay Project L.P. in November 2005. The CVESD plans elementary schools to accommodate between 750 and 1,000 students; therefore, the addition of 64 students would not result in inadequate Village 2 school facility. To this end, the CVESD has provided a letter stating it can accommodate the new students generated by the proposed project. The CVESD will detemvne where students will be housed on an interim basis should the construction of the Village 2 school not be completed by the time the Project becomes occupied. It is anticipated that approximately 17 middle school students generated by the Village 2 SPA Amendment project. Middle school students will be served by existing Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) middle school facilities; including Rancho del Rey Middle School, and Eastlake Middle School, until. a 7-12 grade school is constructed in Otay Ranch Village Eleven. It is anticipated that approximately 42 high school students will be generated from the Village 2 SPA Amendment project. Village 2 is within the attendance boundary of Olympian High School, located to the east in Village Seven. The project site is within the boundaries of established Communities Facilities Districts (CFDs) for both the CVESD (CVESD CFD 17) and the SUHSD (SUHSD CFD 17). As such, the Applicant will mitigate impacts on secondary and elementary school facilities through participation in established CVESD and SUHSD CFDs. Pazks Three public parks are planned within Village 2. P-1 is a 1.4-acre town square pazk in the western portion of the Village. P-2 is a 7.1-acre neighborhood park in the center of the village, adjacent to the elementary school. P-3 is a 6.9-acre park in the eastern portion of the Village. The neighborhoods subject to this SPA Plan Amendment are within walldng distance of each of these three public pazks. An approximately 44-acre community pazk (P-4) site is located in the northern portion of Village Four, adjacent to Village Two. In addition, the village is served by Heritage Park, located in Village 1 approximately '/2 mile north of Village 2; the Veterans Community Center pazk, located in Sunbow approximately 1 '/2 miles west of Village 2; and the Chula Vista Community pazk between SR-125 and Eastlake Parkway, south of Otay Lakes [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-O1 Page 12, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 Road, approximately 2 miles northeast of the project. When the Village 2 SPA Plan and Tentative Map was approved in May 2006, all pazk, open space and trail requirements were deemed complete and satisfied. As part of the first "A" map for the Village, the Applicant provided an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for the abovementioned parks (P-1, P-2, -3 and the P-4 Community Pazk in Village 4) and received "credit" against future pazk obligations. The project generates a demand for an additional 1.68 acres of pazk land. This obligation will be met through the dedication of parkland, payment of park fees, or a combination of existing credits, land dedication and fees. The project applicant must comply with the City Municipal Code, Chapter 17.10, Parklands and Public Facilities, relative to park land acquisition and development. Fiscal The Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) component of the PFFP analyzed the fiscal impact that time project would haue on City operation and maintenance budgets, based on anticipated revenues and expenditures. The FIA for the approved 2006 Village 2 SPA Plan determined (in 2004 dollazs) the Project would be fiscally negative for the first nine years then would be positive a8er that time. At build out (estimated 13 years) the Project would be positive in the amount. of approximately $355,000. Due to different economic conditions between the original SPA Plan approval in 2006 and today, the applicant was required to conduct a supplemental FIA for the proposed 197-unit increase. The FIA analyzed two scenarios utilizing current expenditure and revenue factors for the City. The first scenario analyzed the overall approved SPA Plan; and the second scenario analyzed the proposed 197-unit increase in relation to scenario 1 to detemmiue the fiscal impact to the City. The supplemental FIA detemmined that revenues generated by both the approved SPA Plan and proposed project exceed expenses. Both the approved SPA Plan and the proposed project, however, result in a negative fiscal impact to the City for the first five yeazs. At the new build out (yeaz ten), both scenarios result in a projected net positive fiscal impact to the City. However, the currently approved SPA Plan would be positive in the amount of $523,000, and the proposed project will have a lesser net positive fiscal impact in amount of $452,000. Village 2 SPA Plan -Water Conservation Plan The City's Growth Management Ordinance requires the prepazation of a Water Conservation Plan (WCP) for all major projects in accordance with the City's Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. The water conservation measures incorporated into the proposed project as required by the City's WCP Guidelines include hot water pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves, water- efficient dishwashers, dual flush toilets as well aswater-efficient landscaping and the use of evapotranspiration controllers. The Project WCP demonstrates the value of incorporating water conservation measures in buildings and imgation .systems for residential development. The implementation of these measures will contribute to preserving a valuable natural resource. The Project is also subject to the City's Model Landscape Ordinance, which is a condition of approval for the Tentative Map. [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-O1 Page 13, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/I2 Village 2 SPA Plan -Air Quality Improvement Plan An Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) was prepared for the Village 2 SPA Plan and composite TM project area in accordance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance and the Growth Management Program. Subsequent to the adoption of the Village 2 SPA Plan, the City updated the municipal code relative to energy efficiency. As such, the proposed project is now required to comply with the Green Building and Energy Efficiency Ordinances, CVMC 15.12 and 15.26.030 respectively, which require implementation of sustainable design features and improving building energy conservation 15% above 2008 State Energy Code requirements. Impacts of the proposed 197-unit increase to air quality are addressed in the Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment Air Ouality Technical Report (Dude1~ 2011).The Air Quality Report evaluated the potential for adverse impacts to the ambient air quality due to operational emissions resulting from the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in any significant long-term (operational) impacts to air quality, as new mobile and stationary sources following the completion of construction activities would remain well below the significance thresholds. Construction-related activities would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the local air- shed caused by soil disturbance, fugitive dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks hauling construction materials. The Air Quality Report analysis concludes that the daily construction emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Affordable Housing Plan The Chula Vista General Plan Housing Element contains objectives, policies, and action programs to accomplish affordable housing objectives. Key among these is the affordable housing policy which requires that residential development with fifty or more dwelling units provide a minimum of 10% of the total dwelling units for low and moderate income households; one-half of these units (5% of the total project) being designated to low income, and the other half (5%) to moderate income households. Due to ownership fragmentation within Village 2, a Village-wide Affordable Housing Agreement was prepared and signed by all property owners, stating that each would be responsible for the provision of affordable housing units for their developments. Otay Ranch New Homes has an existing Village 2 obligation which requires the provision of 27 affordable housing units, including 13 for low income. The 197-unit proposed increase results in the requirement for an additiona120 affordable units, including 10 for low income. Construction of 23 affordable low income units are to be commenced at the 50% building permit issuance for all units owned by Otay Ranch New homes. 3. '1'emmtaflave Subalavisnomm 1Vlatp (PCS 11-O1) A Tentative Subdivision Map is required for a division of land resulting in four or more lots or condominium units, pursuant to Section 2 of the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. The [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-O1 Page 14, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 proposed Tentative Map has been designed to comply with the lot design criteria of the Subdivision Manual. The proposed Tentative Map would be consistent with surrounding development and would complement the area with the desi~ for more compact single family lotting clusters in Village 2 North and is in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual, Zoning Ordinance and other associated regulatory documents. The new Tentative Map is. associated with the proposed 85 units in R-7A and R-9A and reflects the lotting design for the two neighborhoods. The analysis presented in the Supplemental PFFP discussion, which addresses transportation, drainage, water, sewer, fire, schools, air quality and parks on pages 7-12 of this staff report are also applicable to the proposed Tentative Map and, therefore, will not be repeated. 1. PCS 11-01: Proposes to subdivide approximately 12.0 acres into eighty-five (85) residenfial lots within the R-7A and R-9A Neighborhoods within Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A. Proiect Access: Access to the project area is provided from Santa Victoria Road, Santa Christina Road and Carpentaria Avenue. These streets will conform to the guidelines set forth in the Village 2 SPA Plan and to applicable City of Chula Vista street design guidelines. Subdivision Desien: The subdivision design consists of 85 residential lots. The lots will be single-family and range from 3,111 sf to 5,976 sf in size. The homeowners' association, required as part of the Tentative Subdivision Map, will be responsible for the maintenance of the private driveway, landscaping, and on-site facilities. Gradine: In conjunction with approval of the original Village 2 Tentative Map (CVT 06-OS) and in conformance with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP, grading guidelines were established in the Village 2 SPA Plan. These guidelines identify mesas, hilltops, and gently rolling topography as the best conditions for development, with steeply sloped hills and valleys serving as resources linking regional amenities and natural features. After the original Village 2 Tentative Map approval, a grading permit was issued for Village 2 North. The proposed tentative map implements a grading approach consistent with that established for the original Tentative Map (CVT 06-OS), and'substantially similaz to the grading pernut which was previously issued for the Village 2 North area. The site is currently in a graded pad condition. Changes to the existing grading plan include minor adjustments in pad heights, alignments to minimize the need for retaining walls or further on-site grading. The grading footprint will remain the same as the originally approved plan. Grading will conform to the City of Chula Vista grading ordinance. 1?IECJ(S>(®IV-1VI<A)«)Ft C®NE')C.JfCT'S: [PCM 10-29 & 30, PCS 11-O1 Page 15, Item Meeting Date: 3/14/12 Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this action. I'bSCAL IIN~AC'I' - The proposed project results in an increase of 197 units within Village 2. The applicant was required to conduct a separate Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA). The Supplemental FIA for the Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment estimates that at year 10, the annual fiscal impact to the City would be approximately $452,000 net positive. The processing costs for the GDP and SPA Plan amendments, Tentative Maps and all supporting documents were funded by a developer deposit account. Attachments: 1. Locator Map 2.. Planning Commission Resolution 3. Draft City Council GDP/SPA Plan Resolution 4. Draft City Council PC District Regulations Ordinance 5. Draft City Council TM Resolution 6. Mitigated Negative Declazation (IS-10-009) 7. Disclosure Statement 8. Tentative Map (PCS 11-01) 9. Village 2 GDP/SPA Plan Amendments booldet Prepared by: Stan Donn, Senior Planner, Development Services Deparrinent J:\Planning\StanD\Advance Planning Division\Otay Ranch Village 2UPB\Reports & Resos\PC\PC Agenda Statement 3-14- 12.doc A~'T'I'AC~-IlVIEN'T 1 Locator 1VIap ~e.~-- ~ 1 ~ ~ ' ~ ~ I , ' ~ ~ E d~ ~ ~ ~ dp~ ~ ~i, .,5-ir'~ N~,A~,~ETI 9 ~ 5 _ ~.-t~ R~ Otay Ranch > High School ~ ~ i STATE ST © BIRCH I `-p p ® i ~ >9-~' ® i rr i ur 8-ta' ~ ~ U TA~~AN A ~ ~ 1 ~a VlLL GE S PROJECT ~ ` g LO `CATION 4 pia vista \ ~o Ch ~~county of San pre8o ® °A e ® er~~ ~g~~ ® `-~I Landfill ~ ~-~A" ~ LOCATOR ~ ~ ~ 1FILLAGE 3 ~ ~ ~ NORTH ~ / ~ ATTACH1VlENT 2 Planning Commission Resolution RESOLUTION N0. PCM-10-29/30, PCS-11-O1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: 1) CONSIDER THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS 10- 009); 2) APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP), OTAY RANCH VILLAGES TWO, THREE AND A PORTION OF VILLAGE FOUR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, LAND USE DISTRICTS MAP AND ASSOCIATED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS; AND 3) APPROVE TENTATIVE MAP PCS-11-O1 FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO NEIGHBORHOODS R-7A AND R-9A LOCATED SOUTH OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY AND WEST OF LA MEDIA ROAD. WHEREAS, on November 22, 2010, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Depaztment by Otay Ranch New Homes, LLC ("Applicant, Owner, and Developer") requesting approval of amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP (PCM 10-29), Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Village Four SPA Plan (Village 2 SPA Plan), Planned Community District Regulations and associated regulatory documents (PCM 10-30), and a new Tentative Map involving approximately 12 acres of Village 2 located south of Olympic Parkway and west of La Media Road ("Project") and more specifically described below; and WHEREAS, an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS 11-01) requests approval of eighty-five (85) lots within Otay Ranch Village 2 Neighborhoods R- 7A and R-9A; and WHEREAS, the area of land that is flee subject of this Resolution are existing pazcels located in the northern (Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A) and central (Neighborhoods R-28 and R-29) portions of Otay Ranch Village 2 ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS 10-009, in accordance with CEQA. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Development Services Director has determined that the project could result in significant impacts on the environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS 10-009 and associated Mitigation and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 10-009) and associated Mitigation and Reporting Program has been Planning Commission Resolution PCM 10-29/30, PCS I 1-01 Page 2 prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing 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 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m, March 14, 2012, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the hearing was thereafter closed. NOW THEREFORE, THE CFiULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: I. SPA FINDINGS THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AMENDED, AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND ITS SEVERAL ELEMENTS. The current General Plan land use designation for Neighborhoods R-7 and R- 9 is Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 DU/AC), which represents an average density across all the Village 2 single family neighborhoods. The proposed project is consistent with this land use designation because the average density of the Village 2 single family neighborhoods does not increase above 6 DU/AC. The current Otay Ranch GDP land use designation for Neighborhoods R-7 and R-9 is Medium Residential (6-11 DU/AC). The proposed project results in a density of 8.7 DU/AC (R-7A) and 9.4 DU/AC (R-9) consistent with the GDP land use designation. Neighborhoods R-28 and R-29 are in the Village Core. The current General Plan land use designation for the Village 2 core area is Mixed Use Residential. The proposed project is consistent with this land use designation. The current Otay Ranch GDP land use designation for the Village 2 core area is Medium- High Density (11 to 18 DU/AC). The proposed increase of 148 units in R-28 and R-29 increases the density on the individual neighborhoods to 26.0 du/ac and 25.1 du/ac respectively. However, the average residential density within the Village 2 Core area is increased to 13.4 DU/AC, consistent with the GDP land use designation. Planning Commission Resolution PCM 10-29/30, PCS 11-01 Page 3 THE SPA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS. The requested amendments to the Village 2 SPA Plan rely on a combination of the previously prepared and approved Villages Two, Three and Portion of Village Four Public Facilities Financing Plan (Village 2 PFFP) and the newly prepared Village 2 SPA Amendment Supplemental PFFP (Supplemental PFFP) to outline infrastructure required to serve the previously approved 2,786 unit project and the 197 proposed units, along with the timing of installation and the financing mechanisms to promote the sequential development of the project. The requested increase of 197 units will not adversely affect the timeframes outlined in the Village 2 PFFP; rather, the Supplemental PFFP has identified new triggers for providing specified public facilities to serve the additional units. Development of the 197 units will occur in an orderly, sequential manner outlined in both the Village 2 PFFP and Supplemental PFFP, as part of the overall development of Otay Ranch Village 2. THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 SPA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USES, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The proposed modifications to land use and development standazd provisions within the Project Site have been fully analyzed and will not adversely affect the circulation system and overall land uses as previously envisioned in the Otay Ranch GDP and Village 2 SPA Plan. The increase of 197 units involving 27.6 acres would occur within the existing boundaries of Village 2. The existing infrastructure (sewer, water, public services and facilities) has been determined to be adequate to serve the proposed 197-unit increase, as described in the Supplemental PFFP. Additionally, a Water Quality Technical Report, Traffic Impact Study, Noise Impact Report, Air Quality and Global Climate Change Evaluation, Sewer Service Tecluiical Memo and Water Service Technical Memo have been prepared, reviewed and approved by the City. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-10-009) has been prepared and the Development Services Director has determined that the proposed amendments will not result in any new, unmitigated impacts; and thus, the requested amendments to the SPA will not adversely affect the adjacent land uses, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality of the surrounding uses. II. TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, AS CONDITIONED HEREIN, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ELEMENTS OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66473.5, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: Planning Commission Resolution PCM 10-29/30, PCS 11-01 Page 4 1. Land Use and Transportation PCS-11-O1: The current General Plan land use designation for Neighborhoods R- 7and R-9 is Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 DU/AC), which represents an average density across all the Village 2 single family neighborhoods. The proposed project is consistent with this land use designation because the average density of the Village 2 single family neighborhoods does not increase above 6 DU/AC. The current Otay Ranch GDP land use designation for Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A is Medium Residential (6-11 DU/AC). The proposed project results in a density of 8.7 DU/AC (R-7A) and 9.4 DU/AC (R-9), consistent with the GDP land use designation. The existing implementing zone in the Village 2 Planned Community District Regulations is RMl Multi-Family Residential. The proposed increase of 38 units within R-7A changes the development pattern from traditional linear single family lotting to a more compact four-unit auto court pattern. Additionally, the proposed increase of I 1 units/lots in R-9A implements analley-loaded product. Both the alley-loaded and auto-court patterns of development enhance pedestrian activity by removing garages and driveways from street view. Single-family lots will range from 3,111 sq. ft. to 5,976 sq. ft. in size. The proposed project furthers the policy objective for "Urban Villages" to have "higher densities arad mixed uses in the village cores" and to "provide a wide range of residential housing opportunitles...which pr•orraotes a blend of nsulti- fanaily and single family Ivoarsing styles and densities, integrated and compatible with other land uses in the area. " The proposed project would support Smazt Growth Principles, as it provides compact development oriented to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit, and would further minimize urban sprawl development patterns. The proposed changes would also provide more land use diversity, increase pedestrian orientation and make commercial uses in Village 2 more viable. All off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision already exist or will be constructed or funded by the Applicant in accordance with the Supplemental PFFP and Conditions of Approval. The on-site public streets are designed in accordance with the City design standards and/or requirements and provides for vehicular and pedestrian connections. 2. Economic Development The proposed project results in an increase 49 new single-family small lot homes in a more compact format within walking distance of the village core. The four- unit compact court homes and alley-loaded homes support economic policies regarding the pursuit and provision of a wider range of housing options and Planning Commission Resolution PCM 10-29/30, PCS I 1-01 Page 5 pricing for potential home-buyers in the current housing market. By adding 49 units, increased patronage to the nearby commercial and public/quasi-public uses can be anticipated to conriibute to greater economic development within Village 2 and the City. The Project allows the development of detached small lot single-family homes on sepazate, fee-simple lots. The four-unit cluster design, around a central auto court, provides a housing type specifically designed to align with today's marketplace and economic conditions. The Project provides homebuyers the opportunity to purchase detached, single-family homes with greater affordability, reduced maintenance/utility costs, and less dependency on the automobile, a guiding principal of the Otay Ranch GDP. The proposed homes also provide further variation in housing opportunities available to Chula Vista residents, consistent with General Plan Objective ED 2. The proposed project also fosters economic development benefits at the community level by providing for increased housing densities within the same development footprint. These increased densities allow for infrastructure and municipal services to be provided at reduced cost per capita (more people served by the same municipal services). Additionally, with increased housing (and population) within the same development footprint, increased densities improve the viability of community serving commercial and public/quasi- public uses as well as alternative transportation modes. As a result, the proposed project may serve as a catalyst for small and mid-sized industries and businesses and community serving and neighborhood uses, consistent with General Plan Objectives ED 3 and ED 9. 3. Public Facilities and Services The Project has been conditioned to ensure that all necessary public facilities and services will be available to serve the Project concurrent with the demand for those services. A Supplemental PFFP has been prepared to analyze the additional demand generated by 197 new units, including the 49 new single family units, for public services and facilities, and the phasing needs created by the Project. A project-level water quality technical report was completed for the proposed project. The water quality technical report outlines tluee options for achieving the water quality treatment and hydromodification requirements of the City of Chula Vista. One of the three options would be implemented and approved by the City Engineer. The proposed project would continue to comply with all applicable rules and regulations including compliance with NPDES permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for design, treatment and monitoring for storm ,water quality would be implemented as delineated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration with respect to municipal and construction permits. Compliance with all applicable rules and regulations Planning Commission Resolution PCM 10-29/30, PCS 11-01 Page 6 governing water quality as well as implementation of all mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the water quality technical report would ensure no additional impacts to water quality. Project-specific analyses have been conducted relative to the project's potential sewer and water impacts. The proposed project would increase average projected water demands by 10,500 gallons per day (gpd) which represents less than a 1% increase village-wide. As such, the water system recommendations from the May 2006 Subarea Master Plan for Village 2 remain unchanged as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project adds 197 units (inclusive of the subject 49 units associated with this Tentative Map) to the Poggi Basin, which results in an increase of approximately 42,400 gpd (160.1 EDU) to the Poggi Basin. Adding 160.1 EDU will not exceed the units foreseen in the 2009 Poggi DIF Update. The Applicant is required to monitor two reaches of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor which have already been identified for future replacement as required by the Supplemental PFFP. However, the proposed project would not require additional reaches of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor to be upgraded in the future. Upon approval of the proposed project, the Development Impact Fee for the Poggi Basin would be updated to reflect the additional units. 4. Environmental Element The proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. A Water Quality Technical Report, Traffic Impact Study, Noise Impact Report, Air Quality and Global Climate Change Evaluation, Sewer Service Technical Memo and Water Service Technical Memo have been prepared, reviewed and approved by the City. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-10- 009) has been prepared for the project in order to address the proposed addition of 197 units (inclusive of the subject 49 units associated with this Tentative Map) to the Village 2 SPA Plan. No additional, unmitigable significant impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the FEIR, or substantial increases in any identified significant impacts are anticipated. Therefore, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-10-009) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program ensure all environmental impacts will be mitigated to a level less than significant. 5. Growth Management The proposed project would result in 197 additional dwelling units (inclusive of the subject 49 units associated with this Tentative Map) in Village 2. A Supplemental PFFP has been prepared which analyzes any potential impacts on public facilities and services, and identifies the facilities, phasing and timing triggers for the provision of facilities and services to serve the project, consistent with the City's Quality of Life Threshold Standards. A project-specific traffic study, the Village 2 SPA Anserrdnaent Traffic bnpact Study, analyzes the impact of 197 additional units (inclusive of the subject 49 Planning Commission Resolution PCM 10-29/30, PCS 11-01 Page 7 units associated with this Tentative Map) in Village 2. The traffic study concludes the surrounding street segments and intersections as planned or built, including Olympic Parkway and Santa Victoria Road, will continue to operate/serve at an acceptable Level of Service in compliance with the City s traffic threshold standard with the proposed project traffic; however, the project would contribute to a cumulative impact at the all-way stop controlled intersection of Santa Victoria Road/Santa Venetia Street. Signalization of this intersection would fully mitigate this impact. The Project site is within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD). Based on Student Generation Factors from CVESD, the proposed 197-unit increase would result in roughly 64 additional elementary school students. An elementary school is planned within the Village 2 core to serve the build-out population. It was anticipated the entire Village 2.project would generate approximately 875 students. CVESD sizes elementary schools to accommodate between 750 and 1,000 students; therefore, the addition of 64 students would not result in inadequate school facilities. Further, the District has provided a letter stating it can accommodate the new students generated by the proposed project. The CVESD will determine which elementary school students generated by the project will attend on an interim basis. The Project is also within the attendance area of Olympian High School, within the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD). It is anticipated that approximately 17 middle school and 42 high school students are generated by the Village 2 SPA Amendment project. The project site is within the boundaries of established Communities Facilities Districts for both CVESD (CVESD CPD 17) and SUHSD (SUHSD CFD 17). As such, the Applicant will mitigate impacts on secondary and elementary school facilities through participation in CVESD and SUHSD CFDs. 6. Open Space and Conservation The proposed single project meets the minimum open space requirement per the Village 2 SPA Plan and Planned Community District Regulations. The project generates a demand for an additional 1.68 acres of park land. This obligation will be met through the Applicant's existing park "credits," the dedication of parkland, payment park fees, or a combination of park credits, land dedication and fees. As part of the Villages 2 SPA Plan, 101.5 acres of open space was required to be provided to meet Otay Ranch GDP threshold. The Village 2 SPA Plan provided approximately 386.1 acres of on-site open space. The proposed project would increase the population by 632 residents, increasing the open space demand by 7.56 acres. When added to the total from the existing Villages 2 SPA Plan demand, this totals 109.06 acres of open space. The 386.1 acres provided by the Plamiing Commission Resolution PCM 10-29/30, PCS I 1-01 Page 8 Villages 2 Site Utilization Plan exceeds the Otay Ranch GDP open space requirement. In addition, the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan requires conveyance of 1.188 acres of preserve land for every acre of non-connnon development area. Therefore, the project generates a requirement to convey 32.8 acres of Preserve land to the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager (27.6 acres of development x 1.188 = 32.8 acres). The Applicant has an existing conveyance "credit" of over 200-acres which were previously dedicated to the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager which will be used to satisfy this obligation. The proposed landform grading conforms to the City's grading Ordinance and retains regional and natural open space features. The development of the site is consistent with the goals and policies of the Conservation Element. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA reeonmlends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resohtions and Ordinance approving the Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OP THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT a copy of this Resolution and the draft City Council Resolutions and Ordinance be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CI-IULA VISTA, CALIFORI~TIA, this 14`x' day of March, 2012, by the following vote, to- wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Michael Spetlunau, Chairperson ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary Presented by: Approved as to form by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Glen R. Googins Assistant City Manager/ City Attorney Development Services Director AT'TAC~-IlVIENT 3 Draft City Council CaI~P/SPA Plan Resolution DRA~TRESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-10-009); APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH GDP, OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO SPA PLAN, AND ASSOCIATED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO ADD 197 UNITS AMONG FOUR NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN VILLAGE 2. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land that is the subject of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached to and incorporated into this Resolution, and commonly Irnown as Village 2 SPA Amendment ("Project"), and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 27.6 acres of the approximate 775 acres located south of Olympic Parkway and west of La Media Road ("Project Site"); and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Deparhnent on November 22, 2010 by Otay Ranch New Homes, LLC ("Applicant, Owner, and Developer") requesting approval of amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Village Four SPA Plan ("Village 2 SPA Plan) and Otay Ranch Village Two Planned Community District Regulations and associated regulatory documents affecting 27.6 acres ("Project"); and C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including: 1) a General Development Plan, SPA Plan and associated Design Guidelines, PFFP, WCP, AQIP and Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 2006-156 on May 23, 2006, and amended City Council Resolution No. 2012-009 on January 24, 2012; 2) Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Districts Map approved by City Council Ordinance No. 3036 on June 6, 2006, and amended by City Council Ordinance No. 3225 on February 14, 2012; and 3) Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 06-OS) approved by City Council Resolution 2006-157 on May 23, 2006; Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 11-02) approved by City Council Resolution 2012-10; Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 11-03) approved by City Council Resolution 2012-11; Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT I1-04) approved by City Council Resolution 2012-12; and Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 11- Resolution No. Page 2 OS) approved by City Council Resolution 2012-13 on January 24, 2012; and D. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS 10-009, in accordance with CEQA. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Development Services Director has determined that the project could result in significant impacts on the environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleazly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declazation, IS 10-009 and associated Mitigation and Reporting Program; and E. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of the 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 boundary of the Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on March 14, 2012 and voted x-x-x-x to forward a recommendation to the City Council on the Project; and, WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on the Project held on February 22, 2012 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, aze incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and, F. City Council Record of Application WI IEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the heazing on the Project application and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes 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 Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the heazing; and WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on April 3, 2012 in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, at 4:00 p.m. to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to heaz public testimony with regard to the same. Resolution No. Page 3 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it finds, determines, and resolves as follows: II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council finds that on the basis of the whole record before it, including the initial study and any comments received, the Project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and The City Council has exercised their independent review and judgment and concurs with the Planning Commission, and Development Services Director that Mitigated Negative Declazation (IS-10-009), in the form presented, has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-10-009). III. GDP/SPA FIlVDINGS/APPROVAL A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The current General Plan land use designation for Neighborhoods R-7 and R-9 is Low Medium Residential Density (3-6 DU/AC), which represents an average density across all the Village 2 single family neighborhoods. The proposed project is consistent with this land use designation because the average density of the Village 2 single family neighborhoods does not increase above 6 DU/AC. The cun•ent Otay Ranch GDP land use designation for Neighborhoods R-7 and R-9 is Medium Residential (6-11 DU/AC). The proposed project results in a density of 8.7 DU/AC (R-7A) and 9.4 DU/AC (R-9), consistent with the GDP land use designation. The GDP land use designation is only Medium Residential for R-7 and R-9 Neighborhoods. However, when averaged with the entire Village 2 single family neighborhoods, the overall density does not increase above 6 DU/AC, consistent with the General Plan Low Medium Residential land use designation and density range. The existing implementing zone in the Village 2 Planned Community District Regulations is RM-1 Multi-Family Residential. The proposed increase of 38 units within Resolution No. Page 4 R-7A changes the development pattern from traditional linear single family lotting to a more compact four-unit auto court pattern. Additionally, the proposed increase of 11 units/lots in R-9A implements analley-loaded product. Both the alley-loaded and auto- court patterns of development enhance pedestrian activity and neighborhood aesthetics by removing garages and driveways from street view. Lots range from 3,111 sq. ft. to 5,976 sq. ft. in size. Neighborhoods R-28 and R-29 aze within the Village Core. The current General Plan land use designation for the Village 2 core area is Mixed Use Residential. The proposed project is consistent with this land use designation. The current Otay Ranch GDP land use designation for the Village 2 core azea is Medium- High Density (11 to 18 DU/AC). The proposed increase of 148 units in R-28 and R-29 increases the density in the Village Core and increases the average residential density within the Village 2 Core area to 13.4 DU/AC, consistent with the GDP land use designation. This density increase supports the viability of the future planned commercial component of the Village 2 Land Use Plan. As currently approved, the densities of 8.9 DU/AC (R-28) and 15.1 DU/AC (R-29) aze at the lower end of desired densities in a village core area. The proposed changes result in densities of 26.9 DU/AC (R-28) and 25.1 DU/AC (R-29), appropriate with the village core and consistent with the transit- oriented densities encouraged in the Otay Ranch GDP. The proposed unit increase would not result in any significant land use, planning, or zoning impacts. The Village 2 SPA Plan would be amended to maintain consistency with the new density configuration within the northern and central portions of the Village. Though the addition of 197 units would increase the density of the four neighborhoods, such an increase furthers the policy objective for "Urban Villages" to have "higher densities mcd mixed uses icc the village cores" and to "provide a wide range of residential housing oppor•tunities...which promotes a blend of medti fancily and single family hozrsing styles and densities, integrated and compatible with other laced crses in tlae ar•en." The proposed unit increase would support Smart Growth Principles, as it provides compact development oriented to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit, and would further minimize urban sprawl development patterns. The proposed changes would also provide more land use diversity, increase pedestrian orientation and make commercial uses in Village 2 more viable. All off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision already exist or will be constructed or funded by the Applicant in accordance with the Supplemental PFFP and Conditions of Approval. The on-site public streets are designed in accordance with the City design standards and/or requirements and provides for vehicular and pedestrian connections. B. THE SPA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY Resolution No. Page 5 SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS. The requested amendments to the Village 2 SPA Plan rely on a combination of the approved Village Two, Three and Portion of Village Fottz• Public Facilities Finance Plan (Village 2 PFFP) and the newly prepazed Village 2 SPA Amendment Supplemental PFFP (Supplemental PFFP) to outline infrastructure required to serve the entire, previously approved 2,786 unit project and the 197 additional units proposed as part of the Village 2 SPA Amendment, along with the timing of installation azid the financing mechanisms to promote the sequential development of the project. The requested increase of 197 units will not affect the timeframes outlined in the Supplemental PFFP. Development of the 197 units will occur in an orderly, sequential manner as part of the overall development of Village 2. C. THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 SPA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The proposed modifications to land use and development standazd provisions within the Project Site have been fully analyzed and will not adversely affect the circulation system and overall land use as previously envisioned in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Village 2 SPA Plan. The increase of 197 units involving 27.6 acres would occur internally within the boundaries of the approximate 775 acre Village 2 site. The existing infrastructure (sewer, water, public services and facilities) has been determined to be adequate to serve the proposed 197 additional units transfer, as described in the Supplemental PFFP. Additionally, a Water Quality Technical Report, Traffic Impact Study, Noise Impact Study, Air Quality and Global Climate Change Report, Water Service Technical Memo and Sewer Service Technical Memo have been prepared, reviewed and approved. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and the Development Services Director has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendments have been addressed and the requested amendments to the SPA will not adversely affect the adjacent land uses, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality of the surrounding uses. IV. APPROVAL OF GDP/SPA AMENDMRNTS Based on the findings above, the City Council approves the amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP and Village 2 SPA Plan shown in Exhibits B and C, and Attachment 6 subject to the conditions set forth below: 1. The Project shall comply with all mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-10-009), to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Resolution No. Page 6 2. All the terms, covenants and conditions contained within the "Exhibit B" of the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a portion of Four SPA Plan Resolution 2006-156 shall continue to be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. 3. Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit for the Project, the Applicant shall record a deed restriction on 0.9 acres within the Village 7, R-3 neighborhood for Community Purpose Facility uses. In addition, the Applicant will enter into an Agreement with the City for the final resolution of the Village 2 0.9 acre CPF obligation with regard to siting and development provisions, including and not limited to obtaining the necessary entitlements, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 4. Developer shall provide the required affordable housing within Neighborhoods R-28 and/or R-29 to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 5. Prior to approval of building permits for each phase of the Project, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the air quality control measures outlined in the Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA Plan Air Quality Technical Report pertaining to the design, construction and operational phases of the project have been incorporated in the project design. 6. Prior to the 30°i day after the Ordinance becomes effective, the Applicant shall prepaze a clean copy of the SPA Plan document by deleting all strike out/ underlines and shading. Where the document contains both an existing and proposed exhibit, the previous existing exhibit shall be removed and substituted. In addition, the strike-out underlined text, document format, maps and statistical changes within the Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA, PC District Regulations, and Village Design Guidelines, for the Village 2 SPA Amendment project shall be incorporated into the final document and approved by the Director of Development Services for printing. 7. Prior to the 30°i day after the Ordinance becomes effective, the Applicant shall submit to the Development Services Department 10 copies and a CD of the approved amendment to the Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA Plan, and PC District Regulations. V. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to the their teams, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued tinder the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigate or compel Resolution No. Page 7 their compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights aze gained by Applicant or successor in interest by the City approval of this Resolution. VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon enforceability of each and every term provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions aze determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the city so determines in its sole discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be revoked and no further in force or in effect ab initio. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Glen R. Googins Assistant City Manager/Director of City Attorney Development Services \ ~ O ® 4 ~~T~`~~, ~ ' Otay Ranch ~ ~ ~ Nigh School ~ ~ ~ ~ s i STATE ST ®z® BI C ~~y.4m ° mG[[IItIPi[IIIIIIn O ~ 61ID q d ~ ~ d R .iV ~ ~ ~ VlLL,4 E Q - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ula ~~sta ~GitY my of San DieB° Cou a Otay ® ar0®.~®.o-E°serm~ Landfill ® a e.®~.~~ _~no~ 11/ LL,4GE 3 I / ~ EXHIBIT A Otay Ranch GDP/SRP o Part II Legend RESICiENF1Al PUBLFC & OPEN SPACE ~ Low Density Rosiasntial (LI w.:~ OPan Spaco 75-toot Average Low h4eC)um Donsay Rasitlentiel ILh4) Opon Spaco Preserve Butfef Along Artortats Low Medium Village Density ~ Frans7t Route Rc•,Idontull (Lh4V) Park {P) ~ ~ r• f h4edrvm bansity Resktential (M) Scnool ! FS l,4odium Hgh Density RssrdemFal (MH) COMMERCIAL Mlxed Use (h4U) Opea7 Space _ Create Siope 4 INDUSTRIAL And Wndscapc " Industrul(p Sconla Condor-CreaM ,~'a Stnpe and Wndsdpe: , . _ - UUttze Wndfarm Goading VILLAGE 2 M1A `~i LM Carelder Adjacent VILLAGE 2 Transit Rtgnt-of= m BeseeveiuiUxStop 7n Sunbow and {IUE$T. ~ wr ' Vittage Co"te~ WMfill Uses E w~ r Opmn Spate . U - ,..x, ~ nt~g u eto EUC uav s;, Preserxe as Open Spare ~ ~L focus Lower f?enstty Along Woti Canyon Edge HDRTH Exhihit 41 Village Two Land Use Map _ _ _ _ _x_h i i Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, I996 Amended November 10, 1998 Page 121 Amended October 23, 2001 Arner>!Cted December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006 rev. Jan. 19. 20I2 MQNTLC(TO R QTAY RANCH 13USINFSS PARK SGCTIONAI. PLANNING A2[;A PLAN Oiav Ranch Villa~cs 9'ivn,'1'hrcw^ and a Portion of (=pur 11. [JCeclnpmcnt CanecPi h e- r yy~ ,t ir,4 4 \ z~ `t ~ t S(C 4 ~i ~ 4 - ` * C ~ 4 1 F ' h ~ ~ r~ 1` v ~ ~ v4 r . rf ~3 ~ ,•1 d 4~ 8~h t rr ~ f 4 h 5 4t ~ 4. .:.rn. V ~ ~ ti ~ F.9 _ r. . '4 ~ ~ e 41., ' ~ [L4^ t rl } ~ t. `C r1 « _ _ i ' yr: .8 _ N l~" ~t c~ Ltn a ~ ~ o` } Y ~ . ~ ` r t 4 5'' , Z. ~ ~ ~ , W ~ ~a ~ ~~a G~a~o~a ~:Y k C 49 6 v 0 V y ~ 4~ e : '~~~r,,. S e ~ £ R ~ S~v ° ~~eFy7 r ~~~e tS CU a~n $ c.. Y k 8 ~ z ®@ Exhibit IOa u•.; I ku~?i7.lol ~ I'_ M(1NT[CITO OTAI' RANCI l RUSINGSS PARR SFCTIONAf.. PL:1\'NRr'G ]\RF:A PLAN 2nN9ug 4ANO USe SUMMARY WHNARY UNV Uni[ Negiyweaod Yypv A<rw.A [Itlr iarTet Ofnury NelyltOrhwd T>F+ AarsaOa OUr Tmye<DrtnCy land Vu Need Uw qNA Y I)1 L) lA MJ:1 MI L1 10 RsO 1 2aa is 20 NJ.2 HJ ~ I.a I: '_lr.Ek a€ ' ~v. .Fi ' sG~ M.L1 I t^J al 3p RbA ~ SP ii 4 bi SrrDmvlMU b.p 60 R.IS ~ T.1 )1 91 ColmweW I I W!M Y ILp 6} SR GI Gfmi I IIV nq [2 •J 10.a s$ u 11-14 ISB 01 ]l 4+dv=ir1a1 7I &:D 19l 1f 99 Ih9.l I ltd) 715 R41 21E 61 24 R9.2 IM19 bi R.27 Y IlY tg 21 Ite9J Ib`D .`P.i aul uqa N )a i] wdRmW P)J nau ss ..b v zx ro>:=-md:vW ~.:rt~-~r`~e~~,c,,:d., ..~efrry:-a ti'c ~,f,.a;ame..:,f M_I h x79 l4 ee.mnm N 14 enw and FT Fs.-=v+9R.fp++m..e¢_rh+L _~~.ra:=-a mxzzeY COT V'A fel ]•3mu mFL^ Fv } #id 1449 iia-bid <.t4.h NWd~FUnO1 ' Pub• PS MI 14x MP R7 Pd P H RE Mi Ixk 116 IOQ ' LTP. rt„ x t : c°:: P.x i F ~ it nsn M: xs :~s u e I ~ >r Pa I P as 11,56 Mn k7 b} ICS Rd pF M 21 }1 IbJ P~a P. f~ bn1 p.I Vi Mr 24 51 21:1 PJR f i IA Cv McO'A'N:~+++f lYrur R.11 YJ Sf 116 ItY 0.a(: Y j{I fy sl51,~(a: finl h.t) K 114 })9 Ill SrblualPds I 4P.O Ibtl HI 10.1 11: UA f4u Mr ]6 is7 21:1 RdE Mi _25 ID9 R.1] MS IIS 1.9 167 CPW I~ R4O Mi SE )1 RS CVS~i CN U il.)> N.! S4 EI 0.1 GPfd CN 09 R-2@, ,.P1( $9 ~ea 2y'h. ~av±.) CYF.3 4Ff IY .HA3 ` ~ NF P~ B+L~ [,Fx~:' CPf-1 I CFL I IS nap. Mr Im. zm m cei.} I <Pi I np 5•+XOaI Nmn Famaj U6.21 n>>i LF'+1L24P IS.4t)A SuS[wIGPF 4d I ( _ al.,. sl I slh:l ( Ixl p+-5p=ve 9S 1617 M1fX1q OS ]N E1 Gaslcn I 214 Irt.. ('Wr~.a:n I~ aw6 De.x4::rrc . I I 111 SW[xlONer )Ip.1 ( i~ i urssJ' 1 I PIP.i ls?d2 ap7 i Exhibit I Ob Mantetito Site Utilization Plan (Table) u-~, ( }u a-N)I 5•!o ATTACHMENT 4 Draft City Council ®rdinance DRA~TORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICTS MAP FOR NEIGHBORHOODS R-7A AND R-9A. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Ordinance is diagrammatically represented in "Exhibit A" attached to and incorporated into this Ordinance, and commonly known as Village 2 SPA Amendment ("Project"), and for the general purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 27.6 acres located south of Olympic Parkway and west of La Media Road within the Otay Ranch Village 2 Planned Community ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on November 22, 2010 by Otay Ranch New Homes, LLC ("Applicant, Owner, and Developer''), requesting approval of amendments to the Otay Ranch Village 2 Planned Community District (PC) Regulations and Land Use Districts Map; and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of vaz•ious entitlements and agreements, including: 1) a General Development Plan, SPA Plan and associated Design Guidelines, PFFP, WCP, AQIP and Comprehensive Affordable Housing Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 2006-156 on May 23, 2006, and amended City Council Resolution No. 2012-009 on January 24, 2012; 2) Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Districts Map approved by City Council Ordinance No. 3036 on June 6, 2006, and amended by City Council Ordinance No. 3225 on February 14, 2012; and 3) Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 06-OS) approved by City Council Resolution 2006-157 on May 23, 2006; Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 11-02) approved by City Council Resolution 2012-10; Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 11-03) approved by City Council Resolution 2012-11; Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 11-04) approved by City Council Resolution 2012-12; and Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 11-OS) approved by City Council Resolution 2012-13 on January 24, 2012; and Ordinance No. Page 2 D. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of the 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 boundary of the Project, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on March 14, 2012, and voted x-x-x-x to forward a recommendation to the City Council on the Project; and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public heazing on this project held on Mazch 14, 2012, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, aze hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and E. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project application and notices of the heazing, 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 Project at least ten (10) days prior to the heazing; and, WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on Apri13, 2012, in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, City of Chula V ista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, at 4:00 p.m. to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance WHEREAS, at the same City Council heazing at which this Ordinance was introduced for first reading on April 3, 2012 the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved Resolution , by which it approved amendments to the Otay Ranch Village 2 GDP, SPA Plan, Design Guidelines, the Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan, the Air Quality Improvement Plan and the Water Conservation Plan, and Tentative Map; and G. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS 10-009, in accordance with CEQA. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Development Services Director has determined that the project could result in significant impacts on the environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS 10-009 and associated Mitigation and Reporting Program; and Ordinance No. Page 3 NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: A. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch Village 2 Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The residential nature of the proposed use would be consistent with the adopted residential designations for this project site and compatible with the surrounding residential and village-related land uses of the Otay Ranch area. B. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The City Council approves the amendments to the Otay Ranch Village 2 Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map as represented in Exhibit B and Attachment 6. III. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Gary Halbert, AICP, PE Glen R. Googins Assistant City Manager/Director of City Attorney Development Services ~ ~ ~ ~ O g ~ ~ I ~~p e~, iqq \~5 ~~0-,~`9v~) RDA ' RPM r Ota Ranch ~ ~ ~ High School ® ~ b sr d STATE ST ® 81 CH p-0-®"~ ~ ~rimrtimimn ~ ~C ~ ~ d R N ~r ® ~ ChU~a ~~sta ® ~ a c~auntY of gan piego e e Otay ® ogg~®m0®®.®.v ~ Landfill o ~-mom"° ® vim'®'®"°°© ~ ®.e-©- @®~~ ~V LLAGE 3 1 / / EXHIBIT A ~'illa;;~e of ~4ontecito a C?rn~ Retch 13usincws F~Ark C?t,t~ kUrtdt P1rrTAtu~<i C:omnturtir. Uistsict [2e~ 4tations 2r~antg Dutrsct aA~1ap CPF C~ „t aRMtARM2 `ti. Otmvnansh ~j RMi tsian scnow t a RM2 OS1 CPF RM2 P MU SF3 SF4 PAU C > RM1 RM2 -Q-G`fsF ~ ~ OS1 RM2 , ; RM2 RMt z .SF4 ~ t. 4~, SF3 RM1 MU \ P RM2 GP,F SF4 ~1, RY RMi - _ GSi ~__a RM1 SF4 SF3 ' NrYh. d~LSCSd?5:' SF4 OS2 BP2 OSi SF3 SF4 - OS1 ' CPF SF3''. P ^el,.. ~ BPZ ' SF2 OS2 LEGEND f~~~ g+;. ~n~ BP2 CPF OS~ ~ °qr-Faxa%'~: n f t3.e~ x ~ BPi 9F1 `~:~Fmi w fr. .~n~ ~ 7 063-j (gaeS(r,~;o J/~ RSii Yrs1}1~rYt 8P1' ! RhR~ hv'r far.'aS BPi C4+ BP2 eF:'W Cr'F /ta-a:m yfr:~c !=y'^"Y OS1 BP2 swJ ,ts,.,rrr~. BP2 nr~ E.~.~--rsM r~r, tarrra=f:r yr lam I}an, A'ier rtTy ft icrex-gcsul}b~.en wa r<, CWn a ilia U`afgGS k, x~M Usti 3T A:^.g ~ Lva llxn rpr!v h^ ase+ Exhibit 1 Village of Montecito and Qtay Ranch Business Park Zoning District Map 10/31/23 ~ (la:cti- A'f'TAC~IlVTENT 5 Draft City Council T1VI Resolution DRAFTRESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WITHIN OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 - CHULA VISTA TRACT 11-01 I. RECITALS 1. Project Site WHEREAS, the pazcel, that is the subject matter of this resolution, is represented in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description, is located in the northern portion of Otay Ranch Village 2 Neighborhoods R- 7and R-9, Chula Vista ("Property"); and 2. Project; Applications for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on November 22, 2010, a duly verified application for a Tentative Subdivision Map (Chula Vista Tract (CVT) 11-01) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Otay Ranch New Homes ('`Applicant") to subdivide a 12.0-acre site within Otay Ranch Village 2, Neighborhoods R-7 and R-9, into eighty-five (85) single-family lots; and 3. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial Study, IS 10-009, in accordance with CEQA. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Development Services Director has determined that the project could result insignificant impacts on the environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleazly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS 10-009 and associated Mitigation and Reporting Program; and 4. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, on March 14, 2012, the Director of Development Services set a hearing before the Planning Commission for the consideration of and recommendation on Tentative Subdivision Map. Notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by both publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and City Council Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, a hearing at the time and place as advertised, namely Mazch 14, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, was held before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Tentative Subdivision Map CVT 11-01; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after considering all evidence and testimony presented recommended by a vote of x-x-x-x that the City of Chula Vista City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map CVT 11-01 within Otay Ranch Village 2 Neighborhoods R-7 and R-9; and 5. City Council Record on Application WHEREAS, a heazing time and place was set by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by both publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, on Apri13, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held the duly noticed public heazing to consider said Project: said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: II. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following: 1. Land Use and Transportation The current General Plan land use designation for Neighborhoods R-7 and R-9 is Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 DU/AC), which represents an average density across all the Village 2 single family neighborhoods. The proposed project is consistent with this land use designation because the average density of the Village 2 single family neighborhoods does not increase above 6 DU/AC. The current Otay Ranch GDP land use designation for Neighborhoods R-7 and R-9 is Medium Residential (6-11 DU/AC). The proposed project results in a density of 8.7 DU/AC (R-7A) and 9.4 DU/AC (R-9), consistent with the GDP land use designation. City Council Resolution No. Page 3 The GDP land use designation is only Medium Residential for R-7 and R-9 Neighborhoods. I-Iowever, when averaged with the entire Village 2 single family neighborhoods, the overall density does not increase above 6 DU/AC, consistent with the General Plan Low Medium Residential land use designation and density range. The existing implementing zone in the Village 2 Planned Community District Regulations is RM1 Multi-Family Residential. The proposed increase of 38 units within R-7A changes the development pattern from traditional linear single family lotting to a more compact four-unit auto court pattern. Additionally, the proposed increase of 11 units/lots in R-9A implements an alley-loaded product. Both the alley- loaded and auto-court patterns of development enhance pedestrian activity by removing garages and driveways from street view. Single-family lots will range from 3,111 sq. ft. to 5,976 sq. ft. in size. The proposed project furthers the policy objective for "Urban Villages" to have "higher densities arzd mixed uses in the village cores' and to ` provide a tivide range of residential Izousing opporturaities...which prmnotes a blend of nudti family mrd single family housing styles and densities, integrated mzd compatible tia~ith other land zrses in the area. " The proposed project would support Smart Growth Principles, as it provides compact development oriented to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit, and would further minimize urban sprawl development patterns. The proposed changes would also provide more land use diversity, increase pedestrian orientation and make commercial uses in Village 2 more viable. All off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision already exist or will be constructed or funded by the Applicant in accordance with the Supplemental PFFP and Conditions of Approval. The on-site public streets are designed in accordance with the City design standards and/or requirements and provides for vehicular and pedestrian connections. 2. Economic Development The proposed project results in an increase 49 new single-family small lot homes in a more compact format within walking distance of the village core. The four-unit compact court homes and alley-loaded homes support economic policies regarding the pursuit and provision of a wider range of housing options and pricing for potential home-buyers in the current housing market. By adding 49 units, increased patronage to the nearby commercial and public/quasi-public uses can be anticipated to contribute to greater economic development within Village 2 and the City. The Project allows the development of detached small lot single-family homes on separate, fee-simple lots. The four-unit cluster design, around a central auto court, provides a housing type specifically designed to align with today's marketplace and economic conditions. The Project provides homebuyers the opportunity to purchase detached, single-family homes with greater affordability, reduced maintenance/utility costs, and less dependency on the automobile, a guiding principal of the Otay Ranch City Council Resolution No. Page 4 GDP. The proposed homes also provide further variation in housing opportunities available to Chula Vista residents, consistent with General Plan Objective ED 2. The proposed project also fosters economic development benefits at the community level by providing for increased housing densities within the same development footprint. These increased densities allow for infrastructure and municipal services to be provided at reduced cost per capita (more people served by the same municipal services). Additionally, with increased housing (and population) within the same development footprint, increased densities improve the viability of community serving commercial and public/quasi public uses as well as alternative transportation modes. As a result, the proposed project may serve as a catalyst for small and mid- sized industries and businesses and community serving and neighborhood uses, consistent with General Plan Objectives ED 3 and ED 9. 3. Public Facilities and Services The Project has been conditioned to ensure that all necessary public facilities and services will be available to serve the Project concurrent with the demand for those services. A Supplemental PFFP has been prepared to analyze the additional demand generated by 197 new units, including the 49 new single family units, for public services and facilities, and the phasing needs created by the Project. A project-level water quality technical report was completed for the proposed project. The water quality technical report outlines three options for achieving the water quality treatment and hydromodification requirements of the City of Chula Vista. One of the three options would be implemented and approved by the City Engineer. The proposed project would continue to comply with all applicable rules and regulations including compliance with NPDES permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for design, treatment and monitoring for storm water quality would be implemented as delineated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration with respect to municipal and construction permits. Compliance with all applicable rules and regulations governing water quality as well as implementation of all mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declazation and the water quality technical report would ensure no additional impacts to water quality. Project-specific analyses have been conducted relative to the project's potential sewer and water impacts. The proposed project would increase average projected water demands by 10,500 gallons per day (gpd) which represents less than a 1% increase village-wide. As such, the water system recommendations from the May ?006 Subazea Master Plan for Village 2 remain unchanged as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project adds 197 units (inclusive of the subject 49 units associated with this Tentative Map) to the Poggi Basin, which results in an increase of approximately City Council Resolution No. Page 5 42,400 gpd (160.1 EDU) to the Poggi Basin. Adding 160.1 EDU will not exceed the units foreseen in the 2009 Poggi DIF Update. The Applicant is required to monitor two reaches of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor which have already been identified for future replacement as required by the Supplemental PFFP. However, the proposed project would not require additional reaches of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor to be upgraded in the future. Upon approval of the proposed project, the Development Impact Fee for the Poggi Basin would be updated to reflect the additional units. 4. Environmental Element The proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. A Water Quality Technical Report, Traffic Impact Study, Noise Impact Report, Air Quality and Global Climate Change Evaluation, Sewer Service Technical Memo and Water Service Technical Memo have been prepared, reviewed and approved by the City. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-10-009) has been prepared for the project in order to address the proposed addition of 197 units (inclusive of the subject 49 units associated with this Tentative Map) to the Village 2 SPA Plan. No additional, unmitigable significant impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the FEIR, or substantial increases in any identified significant impacts are anticipated. Therefore, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-10-009) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program ensure all environmental impacts will be mitigated to a level less than significant. 5. Growth Management The proposed project would result in 197 additional dwelling units (inclusive of the subject 49 units associated with this Tentative Map) in Village 2. A Supplemental PFFP has been prepared which analyzes any potential impacts on public facilities and services, and identifies the facilities, phasing and timing triggers for the provision of facilities and services to serve the project, consistent with the City's Quality of Life Threshold Standards. A project-specific traffic study, the Village 2 SPA Amendment Traffic Impact Stardy, analyzes the impact of 197 additional units (inclusive of the subject 49 units associated with this Tentative Map) in Village 2. The traffic shdy concludes the surrounding street segments and intersections as planned or built, including Olympic Parkway and Santa Victoria Road, will continue to operate/serve at an acceptable Level of Service in compliance with the City's traffic threshold standazd with the proposed project traffic; however, the project would contribute to a cumulative impact at the all-way stop controlled intersection of Santa Victoria Road/Santa Venetia Street. Signalization of this intersection would fully mitigate this impact. The Project site is within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD). Based on Student Generation Factors from CVESD, the proposed 197-unit increase would result in roughly 64 additional elementary school students. An elementary school is planned within the Village 2 core to serve the build-out population. It was anticipated the entire Village 2 project would generate City Council Resolution No. Page 6 approximately 875 students. CVESD sizes elementary schools to accommodate between 750 and 1,000 students; therefore, the addition of 64 students would not result in inadequate school facilities. Further, the District has provided a letter stating it can accommodate the new students generated by the proposed project. The CVESD will determine which elementary school students generated by the project will attend on an interim basis. The Project is also within the attendance area of Olympian High School, within the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD). It is anticipated that approximately 17 middle school and 42 high school students are generated by the Village 2 SPA Amendment project. The project site is within the boundaries of established Communities Facilities Districts for both CVESD (CVESD CFD 17) and SUHSD (SUHSD CFD 17). As such, the Applicant will mitigate impacts on secondary and elementary school facilities through participation in CVESD and SUHSD CFDs. 6. Onen Space and Conservation The proposed project meets the minimum open space requirement per the Village 2 SPA Plan and Planned Community District Regulations. The project generates a demand for an additional 1.68 acres of park land. This obligation will be met through the Applicant's existing pazk "credits," the dedication of parkland, payment park fees, or a combination of park credits, land dedication and fees. As part of the Villages 2 SPA Plan, 101.5 acres of open space was required to be provided to meet Otay Ranch GDP tlueshold. The Village 2 SPA Plan provided approximately 386.1 acres of on-site open space. The proposed project would increase the population by 632 residents, increasing the open space demand by 7.56 acres. When added to the total from the existing Villages 2 SPA Plan demand, this totals 109.06 acres of open space. The 386.1 acres provided by the Villages 2 Site Utilization Plan exceeds the Otay Ranch GDP open space requirement. In addition, the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan requires conveyance of 1.188 acres of preserve land for every acre of non-common development area. Therefore, the project generates a requirement to convey 32.8 acres of Preserve land to the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager (27.6 acres of development x 1.188 = 32.8 acres). The Applicant has an existing conveyance "credit" of over 200-acres which were previously dedicated to the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager which will be used to satisfy this obligation. The proposed landform grading conforms to the City's grading Ordinance and retains regional and natural open space features. The development of the site is consistent with the goals and policies of the Conservation Element. City Council Resolution No. Page 7 B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the configuration, orientation, and topography of the site allow for the optimum siting of lots for natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities. The development of the site will be subject to site plan and architectural review to ensure the maximum utilization of natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities. C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. D. The site is physically suited for residential development, because it is generally level and is located adjacent to existing residential developments. The Project conforms to all standards established by the City for a residential development. E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed development. III. 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 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 similaz to this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has previously expired. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the general and special conditions set forth below. IV. TENTATIVE MAP GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Project Site is improved with Project The Applicant, or his/her successors in interest and assigns, shall improve the Project Site with the Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, known Chula Vista Tract 11-01. City Council Resolution No. Page 8 V. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The conditions herein imposed on the tentative map approval herein contained are approximately proportional both to nature and extent of impact created by the proposed development. Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully completed by the Applicant or successor-in-interest to the City's satisfaction prior to approval of the Final Map, unless otherwise specified: Planning Division: 1. Applicant shall develop and maintain the Project Site in accordance with the approved plans, which include site plans, floor plan, and elevation plan on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Title 19. 2. Prior to, or in conjunction with the issuance of the first building permit, pay all applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit account DQ- 1642. 3. All the terms, covenants and conditions contained within the "Exhibit B" of the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a portion of Four SPA Plan Resolution 2006-156 shall continue to be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. 4. Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit for the Project, the Applicant shall record a deed restriction on 0.9 acres within the Village 7, R-3 neighborhood for Community Purpose Facility uses. In addition, the Applicant will enter into an Agreement with the City for the final resolution of the Village 2 0.9 acre CPF obligation with regard to siting and development provisions, including and not limited to obtaining the necessary entitlements, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 5. Developer shall provide the required affordable housing within Neighborhoods R-28 and/or R-29 to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Land Development Division: 6. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. Por purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean "Applicant". 7. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained within the Tentative Map for Tract No. 06-OS shall continue to be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. City Council Resolution No. Page 9 8. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained within the Amendment to the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual Section 5-000 for the inclusion of the Standazd Conditions of Approval for Tentative Maps shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. 9. Developer shall provide one sewer lateral for each unit and all shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the City Engineer. 10. Prior to approval of any final map for the Project, Developer shall secure and construct or otherwise enter into an Infrastructure Improvement Agreement for offsite facilities as identified in the Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP). Developer shall submit security in a form approved by the City Attorney, for any required offsite improvements as shown on the approved Tentative Map or as required by the Supplemental PFFP. Any offsite permission or right of way that will be required to install such improvements shall be obtained prior to the approval of any final map, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. Prior to the approval of the first Final Map, Developer shall secure and construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Santa Victoria Road/Santa Venetia Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 12. Prior to the First Final Map developer shall bond for and demonstrate compliance with Mitigation Measure "UTIL-1" and all listed requirements under the Utilities and Service Systems section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the upsizing of sewer facilities within the Poggi Canyon Sewer. 13. Prior to the approval of any final map within the Project, Developer shall obtain approval of a Joint Use Agreement and Right of Way crossings for Santa Victoria and Santa Diana over the City of San Diego waterline to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 14. Prior to the issuance of the Final Map containing the 212°i aggregate unit within R7-A, R9-A, R-10, R-28 and R-29, Developer shall deliver the P-3 park site to the City in a graded condition with all-weather access and underground utilities stubbed to the property line pursuant to Village 2 Tentative Map (CVT 06-OS) Conditions 96 and 97, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 15. Developer shall ensure that the Homeowners Association (HOA) maintains all Water Quality Facilities for the Project. Prior to final map approval, the Developer shall obtain the approval from the City Engineer, of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's). Developer shall also demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that such maintenance is accounted for in the HOA annual budget. 16. Prior to approval of any building permit for the Project, Developer shall obtain approval, by the City of Chula Vista, of the `landscape documentation package' that demonstrates City Council Resolution No. Page 10 that the landscape associated with this Project complies with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance, Chapter 20.12 of the Municipal Code. The title sheet of the drawings shall contain a signed statement from the landscape architect as follows: "I am familiaz with and agree to comply with the requirements for landscape improvement plans as described in Chapter 20.12 of the Municipal Code. I have prepared this plan in compliance with those regulations. I certify that the plan implements the regulations to provide efficient landscape water use." 17. Developer shall ensure that sidewalks immediately adjacent to any low walls shall have a band of scoring to alert pedestrians to the proximity to the wall. The scoring shall be located along the base of the wall and may contain vine-planting pockets. The scoring pattern, the size of the band, and any of its features thereof, including vine-planting pockets, shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 18. Developer shall ensure that all existing and proposed perimeter theme walls and fences shall be part of the landscape and irrigation plans for the Project. The landscape and irrigation plans shall show design, height and materials for the walls/fences. 19. Developer shall ensure that prospective purchasers receive a copy of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Checklist. 20. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit for a unit within a neighborhood included in the Final Map and abutting open space, the Developer shall install slope Landscape and Irrigation in accordance with the approved L&I plans in all open space areas immediately adjacent to that neighborhood. The installation shall be coordinated with owners of adj acent neighborhoods when necessary. Fire Department: 21. The Building Permit plans shall demonstrate a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) fora 2-hour duration (at 20psi). The 1,500 gpm is for homes that are less than 3,600 square feet. For larger homes (3,601 they shall meet the fire flow requirements, based upon size and construction type, as stated within the adopted fire code. 22. The Applicant shall provide a water flow letter from the applicable water agency having jurisdiction, to the Chula Vista Fire Department, indicating that the fire flow is available to serve this project. 23. The Applicant shall install Fire Hydrants located not greater than 500 feet apart for single-family and 300 feet apart for multi-family properties. The minimum fire hydrant size shall be: 6" x 4" x 2"'/ x 2 prior to occupancy. 24. Prior to occupancy, the structure shall be addressed in accordance with the currently adopted code. 25. The Applicant shall comply with the adopted State of California Building Code changes that require all new one and two-family homes and townhouses built in the state starting January 1, 2011, to be equipped with life-saving fire sprinkler systems. City Council Resolution No. Page 11 B. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the Project Site as long as it relies on this approval: 26. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 27. The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval of this tentative map and (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated on the Project Site. The Property Owner and Applicant shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Tentative Subdivision Map where indicated below. The Property Owner's and Applicant's compliance with this provision shall be binding on any and all of the Property Owner's and Applicant's successors and assigns. 28. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. 29. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City of Chula Vista General Plan; the City's Growth Management Ordinance; Chula Vista Landscape Manual, Chula Design Plan; Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 1 and Phase 2; Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan; Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan; Otay Ranch Village Two Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and supporting documents including: Village Two Public Facilities Finance Plan and supplemental PFFP; Village Two Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; Village Two SPA Affordable Housing Plan and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan as amended from time to time, unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager. These plans may be subject to minor modifications by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager, however, any material modifications shall be subject to approval by the City Council. 30. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein granted; instihrte and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions; and/or seek damages for their violation. The applicant City Council Resolution No. Page 12 shall be notified 10 days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City. 31. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-10-009) and subsequent environmental review for the Project and any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. 32. The applicant shall comply with all applicable Village Two SPA conditions of approval, (PCM 10-30) as may be amended from time to time. VI. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines provided below, indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City's Development Services Department. Failure to return the signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate the Property Owner/Applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Applicant Date VII. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY SUBDIVISION MANUAL The City Cotuicil does hereby find that the Project is in conformance with the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, Section 18.12 and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. VIII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this resolution, the map approved hereunder, and any permits issued in reliance hereon shall be deemed to be automatically revolted and of no further force and effect ab initio. City Council Resolution No. Page 13 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chula Vista City Council does hereby approve Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-11-O1) subject to conditions listed above to subdivide 12.0- acres into eight-five (8S) lots within Otay Ranch Village 2 Neighborhoods R-7 and R-9. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Gazy Halbert, P.E., AICP Glen R. Googins Assistant City Manager/ City Attorney Development Services Director Exhibit "A" CVT 11-01 Ismt Ism .aa . - _exur aml mt_ ' ~-I E (n~ \ ` '(I ~ ~ ~ l 11 ~ i V~ .I ~i - 1 \ ~ IV)!. YI'1W G\'E Ai - - I r QI ~ u ~ - JC~.~~ ~ - I ~ i I n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~1 ~ j` p V ~ ~ ~I ~ N r ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~"I ~ F _.I _ ~ ~ 11 1 i ~ ~a v s I G[15T FO II L ( _ r \ ~ ~ s ~1 ~ Q7 ~7 'A y V~ 1 , ? = r; ~ rxi r 'rn aixlmv.. nvc ~ i - _ I ~ ( - ~ ~ -y s~ 1 1 ~ Y I ~ ,,J ~ 1 ~yJ _ I j I easr ~ oval nvL ~ j it i /0 - ~ e r - _ _ i ~ ii ( 6) I 1~ ~ ~ r„ ~ _ ~ I. I a ~3l I j ! :a ' _ i o f lI ~ ! r_. _ ' i .I q Vii" 1 I I O f r a <I~ I{ I" ~i S I va. ~o'u rvr ro'e. i ATTAC~IlVIENT 6 1Vlitigated Negative Declaration (IS-10-009) IVlitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Otay Ranch Village Two SPA Plan Amendment PROJECT LOCATION: Otay Ranch Village Two Neighborhoods R-7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 644-311-01, 13, 15, 16, and 19 644-310-10 PROJECT APPLICANT: Otay Ranch New Elomes, LLC 1392 East Palomar Street, Suite 202 Chula Vista, CA 91913 CASE NO.: 10-009 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: January 18, 2012 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: March 14, 2012 California Environmental Ouality Act Compliance: This document serves as the Mitigated Negative Declazation (MND) for the proposed Otay Ranch Village Two SPA Plan Amendment Project (proposed project) located within the City of Chula Vista (City). The City is the lead agency responsible for the review and approval of the proposed project. The City has made the determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As provided for by CEQA Section 21064.5, an MND may be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when an Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the Applicant before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur; and (2) there is no substantial evidence in liglu of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. This Final MND has been prepazed in conformance with Section 15070(a) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of the MND and the Initial Study Checldist/Environmental Evaluation is to determine any potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project and incorporate mitigation measures into the project design as necessary to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant effects of the project. A. Proiect Location The proposed project site is located within Otay Ranch Village Two in the City of Chula Vista, California (Figures 1 and 2). The site is located southwest of Otay Raitch Efigh School, south of Olympic Parltivay and west of La Media Road, in an area designated as Village Two in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). The project site consists of the R-7A, R-9A, R-28, and R-29 neighborhoods within Village Two (Figure 3). 1 B. Proiect Description The proposed project includes amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP and the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a portion of Four Sectional Planning Area Plan (Village Two SPA Plan). The proposed project also includes one tentative map. The Village Two neighborhoods subject to this proposal were graded in 2006. However, due to the ongoing negative housing market conditions and homebuyer financing challenges, the product types anticipated in the original Village Two approvals are no longer economically feasible. To jump start development in Village Two, the project applicant is proposing smaller, detached homes on small lots within neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A. The proposal also includes increasing densities within two neighborhoods (R-28 and R-29) to construct higher density multi- family neighborhoods within the village core. In some instances, densities are restored to approximately the same density originally approved as part of the Village Two Tentative Map (TM) and subsequently reallocated within Village Two through Substantial Conformance approvals. In other neighborhoods, higher densities are proposed to meet current and anticipated future market demand. The project applicant continues to implement the original vision for Otay Ranch Village Two through consistency with the "Santa Barbara" architectural theme and landscape theme. Otay Ranch Village Two is atransit-oriented village with higher densities planned within the linear village core located between La Media Road and Heritage Road. The applicant is proposing density increases within or adjacent to the Village Two core area consistent with GDP policies. This project includes the following components: 1. Amend the Otay Ranch GDP, the Village Two SPA Plan to authorize a total of 2,983 residential units (878 single-family and 2,105 multi-family units), resulting in a net increase of 197 residential units. 2. Amend the SPA Plan as follows: a. Increase the authorized units within R-7A from 44 to 82 single family units. . Rezone the R-7A neighborhood from SF-3 to RM-1. This amendment results in a net increase of 38 units. b. Increase the authorized units within R-9A from 56 to 67 single family units. Rezone the R-9A neighborhood from SF-4 to RM-l. This amendment results in a net increase of I 1 units. c. [ncrease the authorized units within neighborhood R-28 from 46 to 135 multi- family units, resulting in a net increase of 89 units. d. Increase the authorized units with neighborhood R-29 from 89 to 148 multi- family units, resulting in a net increase of 59 units. 3. Amend the Planned Community District Regulations as necessary to implement the multi-family detached product types within R-7A and R-9A. 2 4. One Tentative Map for neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A Tentative Map containing 83 residential lots (and an optional lotting scheme containing 85 lots) and associated infrastructure is also proposed. Table 1 below includes a summary of the proposed land use changes from what is currently approved for the project site. Table i Proposed Project Land Use Changes Neighhorhaod I Existing'Zaning Existing Units ' Proposed Proposed Units Change in Zoning Unit Count R-7A SF-3 44 RM-1 82 +38 R-9A SF-4 56 RM-1 67 +11 R-28 RM-2 46 RM-2 135 +89 R-29 RM-1 89 RM-1 148 +58 TOTAL 235 432 +197 Vrllcrge Tiro SPA Plan EIR (1006) The Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report, Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three, and a Portion of Village Four Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, hereafter referred to as the "SPA Plan EIR," contains a comprehensive disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the SPA Plan in the City of Clmla Vista. The Plan was developed to refine and implement the land use plans, goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP for the development of Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Village Four. The original proposed SPA Plan is comprised of the following land use components: 2,786 dwelling units (986 single-family and 1,800 multi-family units) on approximately 335.1 acres and three industrial areas on 87.9 acres within Village Two, a 176.5-acre business park wit(tin Village Three and a 44:2-acre community park site within a portion of Village Four. The remaining acres were approved for non-residential uses, including community purpose facilities (CPPs), schools, public parks, commercial uses, open space, two pedestrian bridges, and circulation right-of--way. Inco~ porntion by Reference The State CEQA Guidelines specifically provides For incorporation of relevant existing information by reference, as a means of reducing repetition in environmental documents for related projects, or where other existing information is recognized as valid and applicable to the subject project. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines state "the incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized" (CEQA Guidelines § 15150). The following is incorporated by reference: o City of Chula Vista. 2006. Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three, and a Portion of Village Four Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2003091012. May. The proposed project would amend the SPA Plan to authorize a total of 2,983 residential units, resulting in a net increase of 197 residential units. While this project-level environmental analysis 3 identifies impacts where the proposed project would differ from what was proposed for the project site under the 2006 SPA Plan, it also relies on the 2006 SPA Plan EIR's environmental analysis where appropriate. As such, the SPA Plan EIR is incorporated by reference into this document, and all applicable mitigation measures in the 2006 SPA Plan EIR will remain applicable to the proposed project. C. Com Fiance with Otay Ranch GDP Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A are designated as low medium village (LMV - 3.5) and neighborhoods R-28 and R-29 are designated as Village Core -Medium High (MH - 10.0) in the Otay Ranch GDP. The LMV - 3.5 designation allows for up to 3.5 development units per acre, while the MN - 10.0 allows for up to 10 units per acre. Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A are zoned as SF-3 and SF-4, respectively. Neighborhoods R-28 and R-29 are zoned as RM-2 and RM-1, respectively. The proposed project includes amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP and the SPA Plan. The applicant is proposing density increases within or adjacent to the Village Two core area consistent with GDP policies. Compliance with zoning and plans is discussed in the Initial Study. D. Public Comments On 7anuary 18, 2012, a Notice of Availability was circulated to property owners within a 500- foot radius of the proposed project site, as well as to other interested parties. The public review period ended on February 17, 2012. One comment letter was received from David Watson (Duane Morris, LLP) on February 13, 2012. The comment letter raised questions related to the project's required dedication of park]and. The Initial Study correctly states the threshold standazd for pazks/recreation and focuses appropriately on potential significant environmental effects rather than the sepazate issues concerning ownership of park credits raised by the comment. Nevertheless, the Initial Study has been revised to indicate that the project applicant must comply with the City Municipal Code, Chapter 17.10, Parklands and Public Facilities, relative to park land acquisition and development. This addition does not change any of the significance findings of the Initial Study, nor does it constitute any new information that had not been previously included in the analysis. No new environmental issues were raised. E. Identification of Enviromnental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City determined that the proposed project may have potential significant environmental impacts; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. This MND has been prepared in accordance with Section li070 of the CEQA Guidelines. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Sienificant Impacts Noise As stated in the Initial Study, future noise levels would range up to 67 dB CNEL at the homes facing Olympic Parkway. The interior noise levels in habitable rooms of these homes are expected to exceed the 45 dB CNEL noise criterion. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI- l would ensure that exterior noise levels remain below 65 dB CNEL. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would ensure that interior noise levels would not exceed the 45 dB CNEL criterion. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. 4 NOI-I A 5-foot high sound wall at the top of the slope along single family lots 34, 35, 37, and 38 in Neighborhood R-7A aze required to mitigate the traffic noise associated with Olympic Parktivay. With implementation of the sound wall the project will meet the City's 65 dB CNEL e:cterior noise level criterion. The sound wall may be constructed of any masonry material, or material such as tempered glass, with a surface density of at least three pounds per square foot. Tire sound wall should have no openings or cracks. NOI-2 To comply with the City and State's 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard, the homes on Lots 34-39 within Neighborhood R-7A will require a mechanical ventilation system or air conditioning system and possibly sound-rated windows. An interior noise analysis addressing first and second floor noise will be required for the homes on Lots 34-39 prior to issuance of building permits. Public Services The additional residential units associated wit(t fire proposed project would result in a proportional increase in fire number of emergency service calls to the fire and police departments annually. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, impacts to local fire protection services would be less than significant. Village Two owners have entered into a School Mitigation Agreement to mitigate impacts associated with Village Two development. The School Mitigation Agreement runs with the land, and the Village Two property is within the boundaries of school CFDs, therefore, the proposed project area is subject to the same requirements. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure PUB- 2, impacts to local school districts would be less titan significant. The applicant will be required to pay park development component and acquisition component Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure PUB- S, impacts to existing and approved parklands would be less than significant. PUB-I Prior to approval of each building permit, fire applicant shall pay Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) at the rate in effect at fire time of building permit issuance. PUB-2 Prior to approval of each building permit, the applicant shall pay all required school mitigation fees or enter into an agreement to help finance fire needed facilities and services for the Chula Vista Elementary School and the Sweetwater Union High School District. PUB-3 Prior to approval of fire final map, the applicant shall pay required park development fees and dedicate 1.67 acres of local parkland or pay park acquisition fees. Prior to approval of building permits, t(te applicant shall pay recreation development impact fees in accordance with the fees and phasing approved in the Public Facilities Financing Plan for fire SPA Plan. Recreation The increase in population associated with the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in physical deterioration of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational Facilities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would reduce recreation impacts to a less than significant level. 5 Traffic The project will be required to pay all applicable Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) to provide financing for circulation element road projects. Payment of the TDIF, as outlined in Mitigation Measure TRA-l, would mitigate cumulative impacts to below a level of significance. TRA-i Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the applicable TDIF. Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation measure UTIL-I would ensure that the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of any line in the existing wastewater conveyance system. Impacts to wastewater facilities from the proposed project would be considered less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure UTIL-1. UTIL-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit related to any project uses served by the Poggi Canyon Sewer, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the applicant shall: 1 J Bond for the improvement of the constrained reach at Brandywine Avenue (Reach P270) with the first final map for the project, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer; ?J Monitor sewer flows within the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and submit quarterly reports to the City upon the issuance of the first building permit within the Project; unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer; 3.) Obtain the approval For the improvement plan and any necessary environmental permits for Reach P270 prior to the first final "B" Map, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer; 4.) Commence construction of Reach P270 upon reaching a d/D of 0.75, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer; 5.) Complete construction of Reach P270 the sooner of one year after occupancy of the first unit severing to the Poggi Canyon System, or a d/D of 0.85, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer; 6.) Not seek building permits within the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin if any segment of the Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer achieves a d/D of 0.85, or the City Engineer has determined, at his sole discretion, that there is not enough San Diego METRO treatment capacity for the proposed project, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 6 G. Agreement to Implement Mitigation Measures By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declazation with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. Printed Name and Title of Applicant Date Signature of Applicant Date H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Stan Donn, Planning and Building Department Steve Power, Planning and Building Department Others: Brian Grover, Dudek Joe Monaco, Dudek 2. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the City's Initial Study, and any comments received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Development Services Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Date: Stan Donn, AICP Senior Planner 7 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 8 i ® ; a ~ o m ~ ~ R ~ ~ m ~ ~ u. ~ ~ ~ u- o E, rn lmpanal County ~ a - ~ San Ciago County C E~: }3 G l 1` ; It S ~ O E ~ U S ~ 4' X x ~ ~ ' ~ t1° ~ s' IE I F k' 1. ~r~ ~ a~a G,ti ~ F ~ IN 1 1 Y ` mUW cd .o ~ IYV{ v 3 a k ¢ u V h x o Y E ~ a ~ ~ .1~ 6 k e e ~ - z v F~,~.. a E a s ~ ~ ~rE Q t" ~ 3 C n ~ ~ V V F g. $ n N ~Y~ O) t u. ~ N ° c c fr U c 2 yy V V a d m 0 F ~ I' g s m 1 9~' U ~ ~ U ~ O E ~ ~ ~ c10 U ~ W_ cmo""' U U ~ ~~V~V ~ O ® O ~ INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK .dF' y~'yp"j~'~' ~ ~u k ~ x -'S-~g a r,y'~ y ~,i-"".~'*'. N ~~4tr:~~ ~=-;z:d .'_r. ~Ee , x'Yr u.,x ~ pr r J~ ~ ~ ~ T ? f C ~ ~ i r 6¢i N N 3` ..o ' ~ nY~ka 1 w..' ,,,-~A f/ ktyir~, N ~~~y_~'`7"l C~ `~f'i iC Ll~~4 ` ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ' ~,tfi r a F.S.. E~ y{ -w...~ Y~ R , ~;~.,..22~f-~`,~~.~~ 1 y Lim` Y y~` pE ~ r {14t La ~ 4 5' 1 ky E (5 ' J yAy .."i ~v ~ J ~i i?}4yttc~i~+~I5> (~~~f,,,,,y,,2f 4~~ ~~r~' ~ ar u~~3~ tF ~ F c ~ ~ ~ ~ t~w~) v~ e if l4 ~~~vi~$it " y`~r r ~ ~k'v. ~ ~ Y~"~~r' ~x M"yy.~ q~~~J4 4 1 k~; r~ M~€~'~' s r.. ~ 'raw. k x . Lo- Utz "4 n ~ s ~ ~ f' ~ a m 3 h r / v". `~w' \ 'S~~ "cam ~ 3 ~ ~k~' ~ ~ `N a £ .-fir ~ \A ~C~ it./~, ~T sx' ~s -v^` t-.~ ~ ~`~i'1~ ' ` ~ 7` ~°f l _ . /,`cam ~ v ~.5 y Y ~ Fr ~ F ~ \ti~ `l'N` n ~ c;.rxr m ¢ .d d 1 ~4 -~~Y~'~""-~ trfr. Q 4, ~~1~ ~..r .r k~ ~ .~p4 sy y"~ per,. r¢(9_J~/ K~ s 1~ fx ~ E~ F ~ ~k ~ ~`r''~' 3 FC (.r" y,s""A. 4y`v^~ t t.: m i~~+~._~' m"~& ~i r~ y,"~. ~l S r F6~i~.,-~.~~ xd se' ~xr~a~ £r: ~ fit r k~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~o- yt ti S F a`" c ~ ~""3xe,. ~ ,r L ~`"~'~~'j„yr ' J ~ i~. ~Yf ~ ~ Jy~SaF`4-c~ T`L rx"°y„` ..~.~.Tf.A.-''n ~a.~~-j , Y wit 'C ~ Y m xf -a-"91'S..j~. y , y '~1. i~ a } -{~'Ye a „t9""'~'t~ 's" ~ ~.'~'F~ ~ +S 1~ is``a "y+'~ ~ N ~ r r ~ x _ z , , a ~ r. v-.~ x~v ~'C ~ ...pct ~ ?~°'x `5`4 f c+. x + F i r Y 1`- I f p~ .ta 6 w ~r ~ P i ~ ~ "Ca^ I k x ~ ~ 4 ] .F~: I a E s ~ ' ~ ~ ~C ~ R~'Wr'~T'~ 5~;~~. y. ^k~~t 'W~ C'ui.q ~ ~~'~j~~~ n'~1 l ~ l` , 1 ~ ,v U x ~~'"~y t ~~tiyf~R ~ ~ ~~t-S~' y L3~ j ~~,i ~ f ~L1~' ~ y ~4 l~`~~`~ ~G,~ t~ * Je ~4~~,~'Lu(f4~~",,c*-w,a ~~¢s _,.Ifi j' ~~"~t~~~Y~.'Y~ ~].r!~~" ~ o ~ m .rl~ yy'~.e ~'w'v, ~?'may '"~y i T'~ F..f~-. ;+i x 'L w' d~. xeC 4 a5 ~.f,. ~4~L ~=K'•tl~.~7;.'~a*~d~.~~;1-z ~~S.y,;~~~~f~~.b-t."".i~C-I.~~S.:~"x.'r .1, r2...~.,. '"~v':. u. u _.:a.,. m INTENT[ONALLY LEFT BLANK M W K (n ~ i.+ ~ U LL d O ~ L 9 a oN O m U O `ry t= a m a ~ > rn ~ r n S O ' N a N ~ e Road Nettla a c m E c m a a 3 r c~ m S ~ c U C N T N Q _ N L O V Z K O " M N ' ~0 ® P y ®v 0 a~ ~ Q z INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATT~CHIVIEN`I' 7 ®wnership Disclosure Statement \lIi an or CHUTA VISTA Disclosure Statement~""~Y Pursuant to City Council Policy 101-O1, prior to any action on a matter that requires discretionary action by the City Council, Plamring Commission or other official legislative body of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownerships, financial interests, payments, and campaign contributions must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the project that is the subject of the application, project or contract (e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier). Lanes End, LLC 2. If any person' identified in section 1. above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with an investment of $2000 or more in the business (corporation partnership) entity. Jim Baldwin 3. If any person"' identified in section 1. above is anon-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person who is the director of the non-profit organization or the names of the trustee, beneficiary and trustor of the trust. 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors, whom you have authorized to represent you before the City in this matter. Ranie Hunter Jim Baldwin Rob Cameron 276 Fourth Avenue ~ Chula Vista ~ California ~ 91910 ( (619) 585-572? \~1// cmm ov CHUTA VISTA Disclosure Statement*'" Disclosure Statement -Page 2 5. Has any person' identified in 1., 2., 3., or 4., above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, had any financial dealings with an official""" of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract, project or application within the past 12 months? Yes_ No_X_ If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the officiaP' x may have in this contract. 6. Has any person'" anyone identified in l., 2., 3,, or 4., above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, made a campaign contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? No_X_ Yes_ If yes, which Council member? 7. Has any person" identified in 1., 2., 3., or 4., above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, provided more than $420 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official*" of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (This includes any payment that confers a personal benefit on the recipient, a rebate or discount in the price of anything of value, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes No_X_ If Yes, which official"` * and what was the nature of item provided? 7. Has any person" identified in 1., 2., 3., or 4., above, or otherwise associated with this contract, project or application, been a source of income of $500 or 276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista I California I 91910 I (619) SSS-5722 ~iV/ CIN OF CHUtA VISfA Disclosure Statement"" more to an official"' of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? Yes No X If Yes, identify the official** and the nature of the income provided? Date:_February 9. 2011_ Signature of Contractor/Applicant Ranie L. Hunter Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Metnber of a board, commission, or committee of the City, and City employees or staff members. This Disclosure Statement must be completed at the time the project application, or contract, is submitted to City staff for processing, and updated within one week prior to consideration by the legislative body. Last Updated: September S, 2009 276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista I California ( 91910 (619) 585-5722 ATTACI~MENT 8 Tentative Map (PC S 11-01) ATTACHMENT 9 Tillage 2 CrDP/SPA Amendments (Booklet) C H U L A VISTA - - P LA N N I N G ~ ~ COMMISSION ~ ~ ¦ o. ~ ' ¦ ' 1 AGENDA STATEMENT - - = Item No: Meeting Date: 3-14-12 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of a Rezone, PCZ-12-02, to rezone a total of 21 lots located on the west side of Second Avenue, between I and J Streets, from Single-Family Residential (RI-7) to Single-Family Residential (Rl-1~). SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manage~irector of Development Services INTRODUCTION On November 1, 2011, the City Council directed staff to initiate a rezone for the west side of Second Avenue between I and J Streets (600 block), in order to change the existing zoning from Rl-7 (single-family one lot per 7,000 square-feet) to Rl-1~ (single-family one lot per 1,000 square-feet). The Council directed staff to initiate this rezone in reaction to concerns raised by residents of this neighborhood that the established residential character of this area could be adversely affected by the subdivision of large lots into 7,000 square-foot parcels. BACI{GROUND At the October 20, 2009 Council meeting, residents from the neighborhood along Second Avenue south of I Street expressed concerns regarding an application to subdivide a large lot in the area. Under the present RI-7 Zoning that proposal split the existing 23,381square-foot lot into three lots, each buildable with asingle-family dwelling. Residents expressed general concerns on the effect of such infili development on the character of the neighborhood. Given that the RI-7 Zone applies to several other larger lots in the area (see Attaclmient 1), the potential for fiu•ther lot splits and infill development exists. On November 3, 2009, the City Council requested that staff survey property owners situated along this portion of Second Avenue, to gauge their interest in having their parcels dovnrzoned. On November 23, 2009 staff sent out a survey via certified mail to these property owners. Of the 21 surveys mailed out, staff received a total of 11 responses, with seven property owners in favor ofdown-zoning and four opposed. At the same time that the survey was out for consideration by Second Avenue property owners, neighbors were circulating a petition amongst these same property owners requesting that the City downzone their parcels. Taking into consideration both the survey sent out by staff, and the petition circulated by neighbors, a total of 12 out of the 21 property owners in the study area had indicated a willingness to have their properties down-zoned to Rl-l~. Item No: Meeting Date: 3-14-12 Pale 2 In 2011, concerned residents again surveyed property owners in the area. The City has received signatures in favor of the zoning change from a majority of effected property owners (14 out of 21 properties). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because the activity would result in a less intensive land use than allowed under existing zoning; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no enviromnental review is required. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCZ-12-02, reconunending that the City Council amend the Zoning Map established by Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.18.010 to rezone 21 single-family lots located in the 600 block and west side of Second Avenue, from an existing Single-Family Residential (Rl-7) Zone to aSingle-Family Residential (R1-15) Zone; based on the findings contained in the attached Plamiing Commission Resolution. DISCUSSION Site Characteristics: The area of the proposed rezone is comprised of 21 single-family residential parcels located on the west side of the 600 block of Second Avenue. The area is relatively flat, and parcels take vehicular access from Second Avenue. The area is a well established single-family residential neighborhood with four homes that have been designated as historically significant. Lot depths a~~e relatively large, with many lots averaging approximately 295 feet in depth. The 600 block of Del Mar Avenue, directly to the west of the area subject to the rezone request, is zoned RI-15. The lotting pattern, lot depth, and typical lot size along Del Mar Avenue, are very similar to that found along the western portion of the 600 block of Second Avenue. Rezoning the area in consideration appears to be a logical extension of the abutting RI-15 Zone. ANALYSIS Comparison of R1-15 to Rl-7 Zone The table provided below offers a comparison of the proposed Rl-IS Zone to the existing R1-7 Zone. As stated above, both are single-family residential zones. Item No: Meeting Date: 3-14-12 Paee 3 Setbacks in Feet Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Exterior One Side Both Side Classification Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Front Side Yard Yard Yards Rear R-1-15 15,000 85 25 10 10 20 20 R-1-7 7,000 60 15 10 10 13 20 As shown above, the primary difference between the two zoning classifications is that the RI-IS Zone requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square-feet, and the Rl-7 Zone has a 7,000 square- foot minimum lot size. Also different are the required setbacks, with the R1-15 Zone requiring a minimum front setback of 25 feet, and the Rl-7 Zone requiring a 15 foot front setback. It is important to note, however, that the City Building Line Map requires a 30-foot front yard setback along this portion of Second Avenue between I and J Streets. Pursuant to CVMC 19.04.040, setbacks designated by the City's Building Line Map supersede the setback requirements of the underlying zone. Thus, the front yard setback requirement would continue to be 30 feet. The side yard setback in the Rl-IS Zone is more restrictive with a requirement of 10 feet on each side (20 foot total), where the Rl-7 Zone requires side yards of 10 feet and 3 feet (total of 13 feet). Both zones require a 20 foot rear yard setback. The required lot width for the Rl-1 S Zone is 85 feet, and the RI-7 Zone requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet. Previously Conforming Structures Because the proposed action involves a change in the zoning requirements (more restrictive) for an established neighborhood, the rezone will result in many properties not being in compliance with some of the specific provisions of the R1-15 Zone. For example, because the side yard setback requirement for the R1-15 Zone totals 20 feet (10 feet on each side), many properties will maintain structures that were built to the less restrictive Rl-7 zoning classification of 13 feet (10 feet on one side, and 3 on the opposite side yard). Also, most of the parcels do not meet the minimum street frontage of 85 feet as required by the RI-15 Zone. These structures would be considered "Previously Conforming Structures" as defined by CVMC Section 19.64.020 and would not be affected by the rezone. In addition, pursuant to Section 19.64.120 of the Zoning Code, structures that encroach into setbacks may be expanded within the setback as long the setback intrusion is not increased (minimum setback maintained from property line does not decrease), and the encroaching portion of the structure is not increased in height. The change in zoning to R1-15, may limit the ability of property owners to add second story floor area within the expanded side yard setback area. Staff would have to examine such requests on a case by case basis to determine code compliance. Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 19.64.150, a previously conforming residential struchire that is damaged in a natural disaster or other calamity may be rebuilt in its present location and size. Item No: Meeting Date: 3-14-12 Pale 4 Rezone: The proposed zoning designation would be in compliance with the Residential Low Medium General Plan designation for the area. The existing Rl-IS Zone inunediately to the west of the site has the same General Plan designation. The rezone action is simply an expansion of the existing RI-l~ Zone to the west. Conformance with Chapter 19 80 (Controlled Residential Development) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code: Chapter 19.80 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that the following be analyzed when a property is rezoned: 19.80.070 Chula Vista Zoning Code Modification A. Rezoning of property designated for residential development under the City's zoning code shall be permitted only to the next highest residential density category in any two year period according to the following schedule: A Agricultural Zone RE. Residential )states Zones R-1 Single Family Residential R-2 One and Two-Family Residential Zone R-3 Apartment Residential Zone The subject properties are currently designated Rl-7. The above language addresses residentially zoned property that would be rezoned to a higher residential category. The proposed rezone would result in the area converting to a lower residential intensity. The proposed action is, therefore, in compliance with this provision. B. Any annexation of lands within the City's sphere of influence shall conform to the purposes, intent and requirements of this ordinance. This proposal does not involve the annexation of any lands. C. After property is annexed by the City. the pezoning approved for the subject property cannot be amended or changed in any way for a two year period. The provision shall apply only to prezones approved after the effective date of this ordinance. This proposal does not involve the annexation of any lands. D. Rezoning conunercial or industrial property to a residential zone shall be permitted only to the maxinuun residential density corresponding to the potential traffic generation that was applicable prior to the rezoning to residential. In addition, property which is Item No: Meeting Date: 3-14-1 Z Page 5 rezoned from residential to commercial or industrial may not be rezoned to a residential category of higher density than that which was applicable prior to the rezoning to commercial or industrial. The property is being rezoned firm one residential zone to another residential zone. The above provision addresses property that is being rezoned from commercial to residential; therefore, this provision is not applicable. DECISION-MAILER CONFLICTS: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of Plamling Conunissioners and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this action. CONCLUSION: The proposed rezone is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and associated documents. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Map established by CVMC Section 19.18.010 and rezone Z1 single family lots Located in the 600 block of Second Avenue; based on the Endings contained in the attached Plazming Conm~ission Resolution. FISCAL IMPACT The rezone is a City Council initiated action. The costs associated with processing the rezone will be paid out of the General Fund ON GOING FISCAL IMPACT None. The change in zoning does not require any on-going staff time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Locator Map 2. Plamling Commission Resolution, PCZ-12-02 3. Draft City Council Ordinance, PCZ-12-02 Prepared by: Stephen Power AICP -Principal Planner, Planning Division ~5` NP~S~~yY m ` P ZQ MJnrypy"st L ~c F ~ 5T PROTECT LOCATION s RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-12-02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.18.010 TO REZONE SAID PARCELS LOCATED IN THE 600 BLOCK ON THE WEST SIDE OF SECOND AVENUE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RI-7) ZONE TO R1-15 WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011 the Chula Vista City Council directed the Development Services Department to initiate a rezone of the west side of the 600 block of 2nd Avenue (Project Site"), to change the zoning from RI-7 to R1-15; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Department requests approval of an amendment to the adopted zoning map or maps established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code in order to rezone the Project Site from Rl-7 to R1-15 (Project); and WHEREAS, the Project Site, which is the subject matter of this Resolution, and is depicted in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, consists of 21 parcels located on the west side of the 600 block of 2"d Avenue; and WHEREAS, The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because the activity would result in a less intensive land use than allowed under existing zoning; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no enviromnental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing 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 10 days prior to the heazing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., March 14, 2012, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on March 14, 2012, as set forth in the record of its proceedings therein, as set forth in their recommending Resolution PCZ-12-O1, recommends that the City Council approve the Project, based on the finding that the proposed residential rezone for the Project from Rl-7 to R1-15 is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and is found to be a public necessity and good zoning practice. Attachment 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council amend the Zoning Map established by CVMC Section 19.18.010 to rezone 21 single family lots located in the 600 block and on the west side of Second Avenue from an existing Single-Family Residential (Rl-7) Zone to aSingle-Family (R1-15) Zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14°i day of March, 2012, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Michael Spethman, Chair ATTEST: Diazza Vargas, Secretary Presented by: Approved as to form by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Glen R. Googins Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.18.010 TO REZONE 21 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 600 BLOCK OF 2ND AVENUE, CHANGING THE ZONING OF SAID PARCELS FROM Rl-7 TO R1-15 I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the subject matter of this Ordinance is the Zoning Map established by Chapter 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and the azea of the Zoning Map to be used as the project area is identified as Exhibit "A," attached hereto; and B. Project; Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011 the Chula Vista City Council directed the Development Services Department to initiate a rezone of the west side of the 600 block of 2"~ Avenue (Project Site), to change the zoning from Rl-7 to R1-15; and C. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) WHEREAS, The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because the activity would result in a less intensive land use allowed under existing zoning; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required; and D. Planning Commission Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on March 14, 2012 and voted to reconunend that the City Council approve the rezone in accordance with the Findings listed below; and WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Plazming Conunission at their public hearing on this Project held on March 14, 2012, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and E. City Council Record on Applications Attaclunent 3 WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista on , 2012 on the Project to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same. II NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find and determine as follows: A. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA That the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. B. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL That the City Council has exercised their independent review and judgement and concurs with the Development Services Director's determination that the rezone is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. C. FINDINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONE AMENDMENTS That the City Council hereby finds that the Findings and determinations made by the Planning Commission are true and correct and the proposed residential rezone for the Project from Rl-7 to RI-1 S is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and is found to be a public necessity and good zoning practice. D. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP That the City Council does hereby approve the amendment to the Chula Vista Zoning Map, established by Section 19.18.010 of the CVMC. The rezone is depicted in Exhibit "B." III. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Glen R. Googins Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director City Attorney NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council amend the Zoning Map established by CVMC Section 19.18.010 to rezone 21 single family lots located in the 600 block and on the west side of Second Avenue from an existing Single-Family Residential (Rl-7) Zone to aSingle-Family (R1-15) Zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14~' day of March, 2012, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Michael Spethman, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vazgas, Secretary Presented by: Approved as to form by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Glen R. Googins Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-12-02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.18.010 TO REZONE SAID PARCELS LOCATED IN THE 600 BLOCK ON THE WEST SIDE OF SECOND AVENUE PROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Rl-7) ZONE TO R1-15 WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011 the Chula Vista City Council directed the Development Services Department to initiate a rezone of the west side of the 600 block of 2"~ Avenue (Project Site"), to change the zoning from Rl-7 to R1-15; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Department requests approval of an amendment to the adopted zoning map or maps established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code in order to rezone the Project Site from Rl-7 to R1-15 (Project); and WHEREAS, the Project Site, which is the subject matter of this Resolution, and is depicted in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, consists of 21 parcels located on the west side of the 600 block of 2"d Avenue; and WHEREAS, The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because the activity would result in a less intensive land use than allowed under existing zoning; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing 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 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., March 14, 2012, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Plamling Commission having received certain evidence on March 14, 201 Z, as set forth in the record of its proceedings therein, as set forth in their recommending Resolution PCZ-12-O1, recommends that the City Council approve the Project, based on the finding that the proposed residential rezone for the Project from Rl-7 to R1-15 is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and is found to be a public necessity and good zoning practice. Attaclunent 2 \ ~G S~ ~S fl NA~s~ n OO P~ o y, MURK L ~G r S~ ~ N01ECT N P W LOCATIaN ~ S CHULA VISTA d~ PLANNING - v,~ ~ a r COMMISSION ~ ~ ¦ ~ A• ® . ADEN®A STATEMENT ~-y - Item No: Meeting Date: 3-14-12 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of a Rezone, PCZ-12-02, to rezone a total of 21 lots located on the west side of Second Avenue, between I and 7 Streets, from Single-Family Residential (Rl-7) to Single-Family Residential (RI-15). SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manag ' ' ireetor of Development Services INTRODUCTION On November 1, 2011, the City Council directed staff to initiate a rezone for the west side of Second Avenue between I and J Streets (600 block), in order to change the existing zoning from Rl-7 (single-family one lot per 7,000 square-feet) to R1-15 (single-family one lot per 15,000 square-feet). The Council directed staff to initiate this rezone in reaction to concerns raised by residents of this neighborhood that the established residential character o'f this area could be adversely affected by the subdivision of large lots into 7,000 square-foot parcels. BACKGROUNll At the October 20, 2009 Council meeting, residents from the neighborhood along Second Avenue south of I Sireet expressed concerns regarding an application to subdivide a large lot in the area. Under the present R1-7 Zoning that proposal split the existing 23,381 square-foot lot into three lots. each buildable with asingle-family dwelling. Residents expressed general concerns on the effect of such infill development on the character of the neighborhood. Given that the R1-7 Zone applies to several other larger lots in the area (see Attaclunent 1), the potential for further lot splits and infill development exists. On November 3, 2009, the City Council requested that staff survey property owners situated along this portion of Second Avenue, to gauge their interest in having their parcels down-zoned. On November 23, 2009 staff sent out a survey via certified mail to these property owners. Of the 21 surveys mailed out, staff received a total of 11 responses, with seven property owners in favor ofdown-zoning and four opposed. At the same time that the survey was out for consideration by Second Avenue property owners, neighbors were circulating a petition amongst these same property owners requesting that the City downzone their parcels. Taking into consideration both the survey sent out by staff, and the petition circulated by neighbors, a total of 12 out of the 21 property owners in the study area had indicated a willingness to have their properties down-zoned to R1-15. ATTACI~IVIENT 9 Tillage 2 GIMP/SPA Amendments (Booklet) C H U L A VISTA i~~~x F y.m,~ µti~ki SWv ~ j LL PLANMNG COMMISSION ~ ; ' . - t- ~ ~ AGENDA STATEMENT - Item: Meeting Date:03/14/12 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCC-09-006 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to install, use, and maintain an unmanned Wireless Communications Facility (WTF) consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas mounted on a 45-ft high antenna structure designed to resemble a palm tree (monopalm) and associated equipment located within the existing church pazking lot at 1265 Nolan Avenue. Applicant: Verizon Wireless SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manager/Director of Development Services INTRODUCTION The Applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application that consists of an unmanned Wireless Telecommunications Facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas mounted on a 45-ft high antenna structure designed to resemble a palm tree and associated equipment. The site is located at 1265 Nolan Avenue (see Locator Map, Attaclunent 1). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303, new construction or conversion of small structures of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-09-006, approving an unmanned Wireless Telecommunications Facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas mounted on an azitenna structure designed to resemble a palm tree and associated equipment, based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolution. DISCUSSION Project Site Characteristics: The 0.97-acre project site is located at 1256 Nolan Avemie and is adjacent to residential homes. The Project is proposed within the parking lot of the existing church. The existing sunounding land uses are as follows: PCC-09-006 Page No. 2 General Plan Zonin Current Land Use Site: Residential Low Medium Single-Family Residential Church North: Residential Low Medium Single-Family Residential Single-Family Homes South: Residential Low Medium Single-Family Residential Single-Family Homes East: Residential Low Medium Single-Family Residential Single-Family Homes West: Residential Low Medium Single-Family Residential Single-Family Homes Project Description Verizon Wireless proposes to construct an unmanned Wireless Telecommunications Facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas mounted on a 45-ft high antenna structure designed to resemble a palm tree (monopalm). The monopalm, which is designed to support 12 panel antennas plus a future carrier, will be located within the pazking lot area of the existing church (see Attachment 4, Project Plans). The facility also includes a 512 square-foot equipment shelter located along the southeast corner of the property. The shelter will consist of a concrete block wall with a chain link lid and a steel access gate enclosing the equipment designed to screen the equipment from public view. Analysis In accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 19.89, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, wireless telecommunications facilities are allowed in any zone and are subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Facilities that exceed the height limit within the particulaz zone require approval of a CUP by the Planning Commission. The project site is zoned Single-Family Residential (Rl which has a maximum height limit of 28 feet. The 45-foot tall monopalm exceeds the maximum height limit by 17 feet. Staff and the applicant worked together in order to minimize the impact of the equipment enclosure and monopalm to the site and surrounding neighborhood. The enclosure will be built in the southeast corner of the property to minimize the impact to the existing parking lot of the church. According to the Noise Impact Analysis, the equipment enclosure as built will comply with the City of Chula Vista Noise Standards. The 45-ft high monopalm will be placed next to an existing 30-ft palm tree and other trees along Nolan Avenue. The proposed monopalm and associated equipment will be built to comply with the Wireless Ordinance's development criteria and all other City zoning and building regulations. Access to the site shall be kept at a minimum and conducted in a manner that does not negatively impact the residents. Design Criteria for Wireless Facilities The following provides an analysis of the Development Criteria in accordance with CVMC Section 19.89.060, the regulations for all wireless telecommunications facilities in terms of height, design, and co-location of wireless facilities. Height The proposed facility is designed to provide wireless telephone coverage for customers in the vicinity of Telegraph Canyon Road, L Street and smTOUnding neighborhood. Verizon Wireless PCC-09-006 Page No. 3 radio engineers have determined that in order to meet the goal, the proposed 45-foot tall monopalm and 12 antennas are necessary to provide uninterrupted coverage to their customers. Also, this taller facility with multiple antennas will reduce the need for additional cellular facilities in the area. Design The facility will use a total of 12 panel antennas mounted on a 45-foot high monopalm that will provide the necessary connections to operate the facility. This facility has been designed and located to meet the current and anticipated needs of the Verizon Wireless network in the area. The facility includes a monopalm that resembles a palm tree to partially conceal the antennas. This stealth design monopalm will be located within the pazking lot area of the existing church adjacent to an existing palm tree. This stealth design facility provides visual compatibility within the context of the existing parking lot landscaped design; therefore, the project design complies with the City's design standards for facility stealthing. According to Verizon Wireless engineers, this facility uses the smallest practical devices, and the most efficient technology available. Additionally, a 512 square-foot equipment building is proposed that will house equipment including radio cabinets, electrical connections, telephone connections and battery back up. The size is typical and is average for projects of this magnitude. Lastly, the shelter can accommodate areas for future growth for new equipment as services expand and grow. The Applicant will maintain the equipment in good working order and remove any graffiti from the structures. Co-location Verizon Wireless researched the area for other possible locations. Due to the tough topographical challenges in Chula Vista, Verizon carefully assessed coverage needs in this area along with suitable co-location opportunities. Cun•ently, Clearwire has antennas located on this site with antennas located within the church's steeple. Clearwire uses fewer antennas and smaller equipment enclosures in comparison to Verizon Wireless. Therefore, there wasn't enough sufficient space available within the steeple to place additional antennas in order for Verizon Wireless to effectively operate on the site. The subject site with the use of the monoplam was found to be the best option on the site. The additional height that the monopalm will provide is necessary to meet Verizon's coverage objectives to cover subscribers in all directions. Verizon Wireless has designed the monopalm to accommodate co-location in the event that another carrier needs to establish a wireless facility in the vicinity and at the height provided by the structure. DECISION-MAILER CONFLICTS: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Plamiing Commissioners and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is subject to this action. PCC-09-006 Page No. 4 CONCLUSION: The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and associated documents. Based on the preceding information in this report, the use is desirable to meet the needs of the residents in the surrounding areas. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit, PCC-09-006, a unmanned Wireless Telecommunications Facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas mounted on a 45-ft high antenna structure designed to resemble a palm tree and associated equipment, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Resolution. FISCAL IMPACT The application fees and processing costs aze paid for by the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-09-006 3. Disclosure Statement 4. Project Plans Prepazed by: Caroline Young, Associate Plaimer, Planning Division m~ ~~5 ~a S d s\ m \ Ep5\ ~X\O yea a Z R ~ a ~ ~e OokGt O O o ~ Z o~ o . N. 7 i ~ G NO G ~ O~e~do S\ ~'o ~ o~ q n PBOIECT LOCATION APO\pma\ g\ m pptKpc Palomar Elementary School Palomar Parl< ~ Qo\s\eV st CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Oran e Hills / VerIZOn WifeleSS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: g CONDITIONAL. USE PEL2IVSIT PROJECT 1265 Nolan Av Project Description: Proposal to install, use, and maintain an unmanned ADDRESS: wireless communications facility consisting of 12 antennas mounted on a 45 ft. high monopalm and associated equipment. SCALE: FILE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale PCC-09-006 Related cases: Is-09-004 L:\Gabe Files\locators\pcc09006.cdr 0223.12 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION PCC-09-006 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-09-006, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 1265 NOLAN AVENUE - VERIZON WIRELESS WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-09- 006) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on October 1, 2008 by Verizon Wireless (Applicant); and WHEREAS, Applicant requests permission to construct and operate an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility (WTF) supporting 3 sectors with 4 antennas each for a total of twelve (12) antennas mounted on a 45-ft high antenna structure designed to resemble a palm tree (monopalm) and an equipment building in a Single Family Residential (R-1) Zone; and WHEREAS, the area leased by Verizon Wireless, is the subject matter of this resolution, and for the purpose of general description is located at 1265 Nolan Avenue, Chula Vista CA 91910 (Project Site); and WHEREAS, Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303, new construction or conversion of small stntctures of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Department Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Conditional Use Permit, and notice of the 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 and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project Site at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., March 14, 2012, in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said heazing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on March 14, 2012, as set forth in the record of its proceedings therein, and having made certain findings, as set forth in their Resolution PCC-09-006 recommends approval of the Project, based on certain terms and conditions. Attachment 2 PCC-09-006 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit PCC-09-006 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in this Resohrtion. I. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and in the exercise of its independent judgment, as set forth in the record of its proceedings, hereby finds and determines that the project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303, new construction or conversion of small structures of the State CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, no envirornnental review is required. II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. Verizon's wireless telecommunication facility on the Project Site will provide expanded wireless communication services to the local Southwestern Chula Vista Castle Park and Orange Hills communities including commercial, residential and public facilities. The Project Site is desirable because it will improve the wireless communication as a public convenience by providing essential communication and improved service in the surrounding area of its location. It will not interfere with any existing activities of conveniences of the public, and will continue to aid in the general well being of the community by providing uninterrupted wireless service for the nearby communities. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The use will improve and continue to provide a choice in wireless communication reliability in the use's coverage area. In the event of an emergency or natural disaster, the use will be able to continue to function, which can help to enhance the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Chula Vista. According to the Noise Analysis dated December 12, 2011, the equipment enclosure, as built, shall comply with the City of Chula Vista Noise Standards. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Chula Vista Municipal Code for such use. The use requires the Applicant and Property Owner to fulfill conditions and to comply with all applicable regulations and standards specified in the City's Wireless Ordinance of the CVMC for such use. The use shall comply with the City's Wireless Ordinance PCC-09-006 Page 3 development criteria and all other City zoning and building regulations. The conditions of this permit are approximately in proportion to the nature and extent of the impact created by the use in that the conditions imposed are directly related to, and of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the use. The use complies with all regulations and conditions specified in the CVMC as established under Conditional Use Permit PCC-09- 006. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The integration of wireless facilities with existing uses helps to achieve General Plan Objective, Public Facilities and Services Element (PFS) 24.2, of reviewing new telecommunications facilities and request siting and design techniques that minimize community impacts. III. PRO.TIJCT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director, or designee, prior to issuance of building permits, unless otherwise specified: Planning Division 1. Applicant shall develop and maintain the Project Site in accordance with the approved plans, which include site plans and elevation plan on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Title 19. 2. Prior to, or in conjunction with the issuance of the first building permit, pay all applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit account DQ-1544. 3. The Applicant shall maintain the design of the metal door on the equipment enclosure by providing the appropriate acoustical seals around the door as noted in the Noise Study Analysis. 4. Prior to building permit approval, the Applicant shall provide a landscape plan for the review and approval of the City's Landscape Planner that demonstrates adequate screening of the monopalm. II. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the Project Site as long as it relies on this approval: 1. The Applicant shall construct and maintain the Project in accorda<ce with the approved plans for PCC-09-006, date stamped on December 12, 2011, which includes site plans, architectural elevations and floor plans on file in the Plamiing Division, the conditions contained herein, and Title 19. PCC-09-006 Page 4 2. The Project shall comply with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.68, Performance Standards and Noise Control. 3. The conditions of approval for this Conditional Use Permit shall be applied to the subject property until such time approval is revoked, and the existence of this approval with conditions shall be recorded with the title of the property. 4. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit shall not act to waive compliance with any sections of Title 19 of the Municipal Code, nor any other applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. The Applicant shall execute this Conditional Use Permit acknowledging that the subject telecommunications use is the only use that has been approved and is authorized on the subject site. Any minor modification/expansion of uses shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 6. The Applicant shall cooperate with telecommunications companies in co-locating additional antennas on the subject site provided said co-locators have received a Conditional Use Permit for such use at said site from the City. Applicant shall exercise good faith in co-locating with other communications companies and sharing the permitted site, provided such shared use does not give rise to a substantial technical level-or quality-of-service impairment of the permitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict or financial burden). In the event a dispute arises as to whether Applicant has exercised good faith in accommodating other users, the City may require a third party technical study at the expense of the Applicant. 7. Within 90 days of cessation of the business operations and use of the antennas, the Applicant shall submit a substitute user to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director and/or remove the Project and all associated equipment from the Project Site. If the facility is removed, then the Applicant shall restore the Project Site to its original condition. Any minor changes on the Conditional Use Permit shall require a modification to be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. 8. The Applicant/owner shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold hazmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionazy, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and Applicant/owner shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Conditional Use Permit where indicated below. Applicant's/owner's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this approval and this provision shall be binding on any and all of applicant's/owner's successors and assigns. PCC-09-006 Page 5 9. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit may result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties and/or the revocation or modification of this permit. 10. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire on March 14, 2022, ten (10) years from the date of this Planning Commission's approval. The Applicant may request an extension 30 days prior to the expiration date from this Conditional Use Permit approval. The Zoning Administrator shall review this Project for compliance with the conditions of approval and any applicable codes and regulation, and shall determine, in consultation with the Applicant, whether the Project shall be modified from its original approval, denied or extended. 11. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with CVMC Section 19.14.260. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this perniit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. IV. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020(d)(I) 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 Section 66020(a) and failure to timely follow this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void or annul 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 this 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 challenges to any fees for which the statute of limitations has previously expired. PCC-09-006 Page 6 V. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines provided below, indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City's Development Services Department. Failure to return the signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate the Property Owner/Applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Applicant Date IV. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. Failure to satisfy the conditions of this permit may also result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. V. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every teen, provision and condition herein stated; azid that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect. PCC-09-006 Page 7 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 14th day of Mazch, 2012, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Michael Spetlunan, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretazy Presented by: Approved as to form by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Glen R. Googins Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director City Attorney ~~~ri P l a n n i n g & B u i t d i n g D e p a r t m e n t ~,7[y pr Planning Div(sion ( Development Processing CHULA VISfA APPLIGATION APPENDIX B Disclosure Statement Pursuant io Council Policy 101-D1, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all ocher official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application orthe contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Verizon Wireless Chula Usta Bible eapgsi Church is:o5 saw eonwn.+.,.,wc. 1265 Nolan Avenuo Irvine CA 92718 Ghula Vista, CA 91911 2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list. the names of all individuals with a $2000 investment in the business (corporationlperinership) entity. Unknmvn - WA 3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is anon-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary ortmstor of the trust. Pastor Or. R.C. Wesel 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. Plancrom Inc. -I(enigan niehl & Shelly Kllboum 5. Has any person' associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official"" of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No x If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official" may have in this contract. 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? No x Yes _ If yes, which Council member? 276 Pou rlh Avenue ( Chula Vista ( Calilornia ~ 91910 ~ (679) 691.51(17 Attachment 3 wri P l a n n i n g & B u i l d i n g D e p a r t m e n t CrtY OF (Tanning Division ~ Development Processing CFiULA VISTA APPLICATION APPENDIX E Disclosure Statement- Page 2 7. Have you provided more than 334D {or an item of equivalent value) to an official" of the City of Chula Vista in the pasf hNP.IVP. {12) mOnIt1S? j-rh15 InCIU(fP.S t1P.ing a SOI1ff.P. Of IOCnn1P., mOnP.y In fP.11(P. A lagal detJt, gift, loan, P. tC.) Yes Nox If Yes, which official" and what was the nature of item provided? r Dale: March 1, 2012 ~ /~-°F'~'e^"-'-~"4 ' SigrSafure of ContractorlAppiicant Kerrigan Diehl, Plancom Inc, agent for Verizon Wireless print or type name of Contractor/Applicant ' Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or sia(f members. 276 Rninh .Avenue ~ Chulu Vista ~ Cnliiuuiia ~ tll',IID ~ (61`3)691-51 DI ._aC- o a Ftl o p : e-z~ - _~5ici5 f e c- < 3=].y~F_ P P Ego"._F'y"' O 5~ "'s" a7 e / ~ - k .P _ 049 D ~ca E!1'Ci+ t~G~~i ~ "e= de ~ xi2iS = c"c. aa~"v m m .ic=.. a aeTC$R q e.c;i G7 `e~B r N 's r EG3° ~ 9 5^ D :F~? ~ m e~ Z ~ i ~'3x n ~ -i S N s" ~ 'y 4 ~ Z A " ~ ~ ~ q j~ n e 6°o y G _~°F' 3 53 ~3 E' £,--~,2~ ~ a ~ G r a ~ . _ e ~F ~y ~E 3~~ SsrE $:"E o 9 ~ '9 D (71 r 1 n _ p.xC _ C : A: ^S` C:1 F~#` a n ~ Z N 39 nCs C~.'n, os. ~ y£~a~9jz 6'? :`20 'cS C[ hs 3~= ~ ~ 177 p ' ci~3 4 ~ a' ~'s 92z `'~a ~a ±'~+3 a y 8 £ CCPA = F n ~~f ~C' F¢~ -S 9 ~ Yi ~ \L/ c . 3 a" :C "e ,.sap a ?=1 r. 3 3 qcee = 4= ~ eP, a. c ' 2~ ~ C's ~zc: ~ _ _ F? is t°3 a^c3 _ f .G .t cx 3 o c 1 3- ~ £ >'i t j a $S~ 4L^ ~ Md {/~q~ V aGSG6~ ~ - - Vy0 . D ~C Es ~y ~ a~L~~s r F"c. - e F.. n 52 m 3e:.°xr: m 23>> r~., n ~a9'/ Cm's g^~ ' m a~, m ; x i 00 3" e ~ ~3-y t,~ ,sffiI s "a c rmn s' € m f'°' _ ~ o p~p~~9„ x _v 3'" i'~I f I i B ~~i ~ k :m ~ ~ ~z~ ~ - / , , A, , ~ a~ \ ' 1' E .r' 'a " ~ 'send - ~ ~ € ~ 3~ 'ice ~ \ \ " 4 ~ j ~ 993 ~¢5~ "..Y T / L D. ~ ~ _ n ~iC ? / 1(~AA`}~ SLR Il~~ 5~ E Y ~ \ i"1k rya."•~ i.2 - \r qq ~~S~a~ ~ / n~vi L8~4 CuA I"''~ i \ ~4'G_*-E~--, vie/ €3. €.7 i \ i ~ 1 \ \ c$ ~ / \ \ 9r ~e3jY3a ` Ed f~ \ ~ \ { si i { 4~~F\ 'L. i SVAS S'V3 3s3''~ ~ `Y F ~ ~a9~ ~c~.°9 x:a.. aea~g"~ E ~T~o= ' ',A 5 ~~2 ~s s_s_ .^.Gl ~l4$~; E3.. ~ " ~ E'a3 D o c v 3333VC - ~t m - E itMV ` m v 5° Z 4 z u ~'1'.~i jL~ ;O ;O ig rn.... r t: ~5 y -0 i~ 2 ri a Z D ~p I~~ ~ m 'i -~~f ~ v `11`,i` ~ ~ Y \ I 1 rn z ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . J~O ~ D _ ~ `i P~, n g t ~ ,C...~' O 3 yF aF nt A 1¢ P Yo \3~~Ym il5 J rn, 4 8 P4®88®R B4®®4®4©®©~ ®4® 8d®©OPP OP O P P O o 3~e~~3~ks~~a~~~~a~~~as~~~~'s~x~~~~k~~~rp~'s~ac~~~~@x:s ¢j ~G~ n a V n ~ ~ c' a :l c t . . C 'G~' ~ ~F C R ~ ti ~ ~ G ~o @ C y~ z~~ F 3- 9~ 1 ~ e ~ ~ 3 n F ' ~ a P s 8F.: s4 2 ~ . 8 ~ pq ~ n iis~ i Yg pY ~3a ~~'3k~ yin ?b.~s:6 "~°;x.`, c~6k ~ _~]2 ~~t~,~§~Yfk~ ~rli ~s ~°e 6`°°P,~€~~ ~ s ~ s~9s iF~~ ~s~ S~~o~3~Y^s~ 3aS s~~ ~ m 7~c ~ s qp~ ? a ~ py e~ [4 v ~ }}}¢A ~ fi3 ~ g~ 5~ S `3 9egg5 ~p ~ 5 3s ~ tl § s f k ~S k ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 S c° 2, kA ~a a.' o e £ F ~ p£c ~ ~ ~ Sr s e . 7 ~ s " a a to 3 3 ~F 2y m s F t ° 3 "s S' Ef ~ x ~ ~ si G£ II 3 I ~ 4 I 3~33:e II ~ _ ~ C a I ~ 1_• c I e~^I~I ~ n__ n s_ n ~ m ~ olI('X~ v _gD P i5S'S'171_jY;1~ ~,`O E€" a ii - T ~S +~i t ~3~ ~ ! Rai m ia, ~4 rn 8 .j~.' ao - a -i I - - YF.'~.~ ~ O P:Fd ~ 9~~ E•~a .___~s ~4v~ g: ~gSR F'~ .r - eg a~8 V-a~~ ~98~ e~ dy~2 ~ ~Yi iSb^yy~ ~Fa~ oil { L ~ i FF ~ eft v ~qyy ~ of 1~SY ~n ~5 E. ''3j n E 4 ~ie T' T a' ~a sk gsa z~ i z~`~ €i 4 ~x t KS L' rl~ ~ 'g 'i ~ ° 4 Fe 3 ` j. ~F Qq G'e °5 g lL!~ill s° m~rn -I~ WiW \ { m a Z n r ~,e_ 333?:. ~g m o O a a~H ~ C C F C E ~ F= ~ .:II~ Y ~ _ ~ ¢ o a o o ~ o n u Eyx n C' _.,_:1i I Q® 1 1" aS~ si§E~a. iii 3 aYo w~ 1 I ~ G ~ 'yi ~jSl:ii dEl N )1. o $ 4 I ~ ~ [ u K ~~~'-S?igS ~'a F a ~1~ n' F°~ ~ i ~ 1 j - as Y,;9 a 311 ~ - a ' - o- 1 1 , . R ' ' ~5• i;3 ~i t E: I~i ~ r I 3) 85.1^' 31 9S 3 1 °~go 1 1 I i 'y 1 e i jl it ° ( 1 V'a•8n 1- i i ' - o jxm nx m ~'is9 as c~ G fEi,r, lea • r _p x@;-~ 1 I 8 _s~ EE ~ ~ Fi ~ EE'{~Fy'av~ $5~ v'S.~ oY i]7~`3fi e:,t~ ~ i ~ ° • ~ 9~ • e_~ o act^'eha 1'' ~ 3?_ eydo °•i 7'! Ica" t I I i 5 ,(~3 p ixa Fx°- i~ a 3 i 'S a d^,s yc~m S I i ~ 4 ~ Al o aF=aa' 3 na ~ is SQO ~ 55. 4 1 1 7 is u ,i p<8 - ~ ] i~a ~.Av 3~ 9D " II i I S:F a ~ eY5 -x1 ` !1 a BY;+:- Q3~~3 III 1 1 Y Y ~ [ ° j:ac a ~y a; ' I_ I 5~ •9 fgvtlE~ ei a 'seg ~e@ E. i„E ~P~y^ I '.w\,,\.= 3§ § Y.c'kE 3p " yp•''. ,3 Ei3 a;.. ~/P~~=~ \ ~ dA r lsn9zs g'A px: E§ se P~ [H& v \.~\\~~~x'~le .6y g 9 sass" a a5 fax a6 F$~''Qv vx~ Y 1 14 ty 4 :C3 0 3 ~j R '1' "AR!\l~~\ .5 4 ~ gBjT o a' R L~ F§ €ai t` d 3S~r: o ..g Y~c 3 ids € a+ px. 1 ,5 3 °~r 1 i - ` I pa ~ ~ ~o I~ X5 aS ~ I I 1 S 11 '~`i ' i ;2 _ 1 I I J~ I ~1 ~ 1 f$~ i . 1 I ~ Y~j :ik 1 I ~ E ~ `z ~'1 n9 ~ ~ ? Ci.-I li i I ~i I L ri Aaa ~ {r-e.-t y -r'lb'°i ~3 I I Y v IG' 1 ..I~i I I S~jl ~e~ 9 ( Id,l I~ ~D ~I Y I'.t ~ss' ~ L ~ a~f~~~~~"GL)` ~ I c(--r: I ~ ALL ~(~i1 r~fn'Fl~r-1~~~ab..l v z : r i ~i ~ i _il_ ~ ` T S 'Y` ~ RI 5 1 Q ~ v 1 I`! i I x ID ~ R LLYI~.~y y ( l~q~x~Cy m~ ' ll\l~ 4 1 lu ~ 1~~~1 ~1~~1~i ~N 1~ ~ (:i ry / ~l I fr ~ I >-{{'~t~~44~nm ~ ~ ~ I I TT'1~', hl Zr `^i4~~ °N \ I is I - rn~4Wy-= A ~ / - V I I •g~ I / S~~ - ~i ~~6R5 ° I I I I aw I -'f I IL I IIJ C Y II R~II ct ~ F"c~~ II V I 4_] g.^I~I v Y~ ryry ti~f~~ \i I AG Y. A3 m Gw4 a ~ m ~ ~ ea D Fo rrrl ~ jinF D O ~f ~S -g ~ A _ ~xyt 53 ~9Fd I ~'.<i I S z 3e~u i s Ixp.'~ ~1 p.S{~Q ; G~° d @Sg +~e+~e 3 ~ g efi, E 6..CL ° en~ y, ..9& I S3~ ~ 'x~ ~y~c 4 ~ e=~ ' a^ a°i; s 'ii~ ' an .f _r~ n ~a aF i~ P~ :fi i ~~i ~ 4 s~. 5_ 2Y V .F M - ci ~k .r 1 K ~ ~0 i ~Y A~ ~4 ~ t3 5a. F R~ ~o Ev III;I II ~------~L s~ ~ L-~ ~A a i 1 s s _ o :_-:e 'te ~b pt.p'~, ~ ~=Pip . ~ ..e r _ e_ c n c e ~ m t~ =II y t_~~. : N n c x saw y ~s o o ~ '`so ~ a ' ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ;s e o cam„ a 1 ;s' °R ~ "s a} 9. NC E_.~ i1 `Sy5 7. (IY o.F D.F 9[ F~L Fn F,~ c))~? \ 1, 11 1 St€ C i 1~ b. / J< ~ 5° b. ~ ~ / eax Fa A~ eele 51t CS 5 F t3d €aS v_ {~T n Ya Uw X12 ~4 fiF F n ~ cje ° e ~ I $2 ~ ~ 6 I I Ij ~ I I L~,~ ~,j;'s y. v" r r-^~ \ t~5'1~57 F rn I D ;^s 5' -IC ~'3~ O 91~ ° F ~ 4 Gk ~d G a aE- 3 #3 t ;a ~ - 3 ~ q ~ >m V~33.e m - ~ ~ J o~~ o ~ I v ~ r I° s e ~ m z cn _ _ ~ o l l ~m ~o _ r m 'sk. ~ ;a e, < m ~ o~~se`e.< D < ,~d, ~s C ~ J iS O ~ ~ y Z Ee O 3 `Ct: j"< i \ ~p 1 ~jEF~ `So ySy~ 56 p~ ~ 3. ~3 a" t4 s~ - sr , n~ -p OD P ~;Z;;~' f ~a ~ e c {fjt~~t~{Rr) 3 1`~Ej ji ~i ,~~f 9 ~inii~ pC 4 I~' ~ 5R5A f ^T \ 53~ LC nng~ r~ 4 S pl c ' ~Y~~ ~Y lid ~~y i fi^ %FF n~ n3 e~ ~i f; @~ i R,~7uiH _ j 9 2 Z 9`°.nu C ~ 8. y~,Q 1 i ~ ~~e~R "C I~il _ ~ ~ ~ B~x 'Y q flRH~ti °c rr S ~ ~ I owe F v ' m t I = SS 4~ pa m ~ rn ~ ~ .a ~nr." \1 Z s x9 - g Q 33~~ eg- ~ a3+ ezs ~'3 %~L ~5z ~ ~2Eg a? na, t ~=ea ~t2g x~ G ip~tt E 6~~A ~z ',~'.y c2{ ,1$q,~ ~ ~a a~ ~ 1 0 ~S~'. €9 a 33 ara =~~F ~s ati Y~' n_ 4i 9 G s °7 A,~ 1 e _ : "arc'' 3~a 3~ „ 4: ~ ~ 4r ~ ~ r~~ s Y a 1 F ~ R~ ~e e~ ~L~ID'~ 2~ ~II:I II R ~p a 9 - 333~a£ t ~ ~ ~ 6 o~y F~` 2' :r ~3 ;'p i € ~F P EF 2 '<l~ ' H 3 V ~il; 9 I g iii. m~~~ m ,tip ~ ' ~ e a art" ~-c 2 ?y c- p s e ^ n ~F S C ~ s - _F e a~ S E ~ ~ 6. ~2 ?F ;i 9 j € q. ~ ~ ~ 9 s 4~ ~ / P i c" 4 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ r; "n / n' t ' ~ h9 Yd Qv 5~ `e HF £k d~ 2? 4 ~ ~ C_ F y J N €F ~Z 0©000 00 O O °m > ~ s 5 6 ~ ~ £k ? Spa O ^j y is 's ~"e _ _ _ 4 • _ m2 oa 2 ~ n y 'o B r, ' ~37 ~ z . o ~ d~' % N ~ ~ ~xG - ~ u-~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m - - o - ~ _ .::ii - ~ %E O N II ~ II a ~ I 333sv £ I ° Z ~ ~ I S ~ ~ a 11 I ~ I!(~.~y,~ N