Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/06/04 Item 05CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT - ~ ~,,,,~:-. cnv of "` CHULAVISfA June 4, 2013, Item No.: S ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING:CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO: 1) AMEND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP) AND VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) FOR THE MU-1/MU-2 PARCEL LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF EAST PALOMAR STREET, BETWEEN VIEW PARK WAY AND MAGDALENA AVENUE IN ORDER TO ALLOW AN INCREASE FROM 158 TO 206 ALLOWABLE UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED (PCM-11-23), AND 2) APPROVE A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DRC-I2-OS) TO CONSTRUCT THE MIXED-USE PROJECT. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM (IS-11-004) TO A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-04-035) AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN TO CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE MU LAND USE CATEGORY FROM I58 TO 206 FORA 6.97 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF EAST PALOMAR STREET BETWEEN VIEW PARK WAY AND MAGDALENA AVENUE. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DRC 12-OS) FOR A PROPOSED MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 108 UNITS AND 10,000 SQUARE-FEET OF RETAIL COMERCIAL USE ON A 2.97 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST PALOMAR STREET BETWEEN VIEW PARK WAY AND MAGDALENA AVENUE. SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/ASSISTANT CITY MANAGE~tyY~+~ REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER 4/Sths Vote: Yes X No 5-1 Juue 4, 2013 Item Page 2 SUMMARY Oakwood Development (the "Applicant") is requesting an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Site Utilization Plan to increase the number of permitted multi-family units to allow for the development of a proposed mixed-use project, consisting of 108 multi-family units, 10,000 square feet of retail commercial space and 14,435 squaze feet of Community Purpose Facility on a 2.97 acre site (the "Mazquis II" project). The site is located on the south side of East Palomar Street between View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue (See Attachment 1 -Locator Map). Design Review approval is also being requested for the Mazquis II project subject to the consolidated permit processing provisions pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.14.050 (C). Under the consolidated review process, the City Council will be reviewing and acting on the GDP/SPA Plan Amendment and Design Review permit. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was covered in previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declazation (IS 04-035) for the Otay Ranch Village Six Mixed-Use Project. The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Development Service Director has prepared an addendum to that document (IS 11-04) for the proposed project. Traffic impacts were analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declazation (MND) for the previously approved project. That approval included 60 units and 20,000 "square feet of commercial on the Mazquis II Project Site. While the Project includes a request to add an additional 48 units (for a total of 108) it also includes a reduction of commercial square-footage by 50%. Using the SANDAG Trip Generation Rate Table (2002), the additional 48 units would generate 288 additional average daily trips (ADTs). However, the reduction of 10,000 squaze-feet of commercial would result in 1,200 less ADTs than previously analyzed. The net result is that the Project would result in 912 less ADTs than what was analyzed in the MND. RECOMMENDATION City Council adopt the resolutions. 5-2 June 4, 2013 Item 5 Page 3 BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On April 24, 2013 the Planning Commission approved (4-0-1-1) Resolution No. PCM-11-23 recommending that the City Council approve amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Village Six SPA Plan to allow 48 additional units to be constructed within the MU1/MU2 sites. In addition, the Planning Comission had the following comments on the design review aspect of the Project which they wished to go forward to the City Council 1) Concern over ability to enforce parking restrictions and recommendation for metered parking along East Palomar Street; 2) Concern over the loss of day caze facility and replacment with a smaller community room; and 3) Concern over allowing a reduction in the recommended amount of storefront glazing (See Attachment 2 -Planning Commission Minutes). These concerns are addressed in the Analysis section of this report. DISCUSSION: Back rg ound Based upon a previous GDP/SPA amendment in 2005, the entire MUl/MU2 area (6.7 acres) was designated asMixed-Use and included 158 residential units and approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial In August 2006, the Design Review permit was approved for the mixed use project. Under that approval the northern site (MU-2) was constructed with 98 residential units including 18 live-work units. The southerly site (MU-1) was approved for 60 units, approximatley 16,685 square feet of retail commercial, plus a 6,635 square foot day care facility (including associated parking/activity area). However, this southerly parcel was never developed and is currently vacant It is the last remaining vacant development pazcel in Village Six. Due to the structure of the approved Village Six SPA Plan, the requested GDP/SPA Amendment involves the entire 6.7 acres which encompass the mixed-use sites on both the north (MU-2) and south side of East Palomar Street (MU-1). The subject project, however, which is the focus of the amendments is located on the 2.97 acre (MU-1) site located on the south side of East Palomaz Street, between View Pazk Way and Magdalena Avenue within the Otay Ranch Village Six planned community. The community is fully developed, except for the subject property, which is located immediately north of Santa Venetia Park. The 2.97 acre site is bounded bythe Marquis I mixed-use project to the north, multi-family residential to the east and west and Santa Venetia Neighborhood Pazk to the south. The site has been mass graded as part of Otay Ranch Village Six SPA planned community. (See Attachment 1-Locator Map). The design of the project was presented at a community meeting on January 31, 2013 and also reviewed by a Design Review Board member as required by the CVMC. At the community meeting, only minor issues were raised (See Attachment 3 - DRB Chair and Community Meeting Comments). Project Description The project proposes to construct 108 multi-family units, 10,000 square feet of commercial and 14,435 square feet of Community Purpose Facility (CPF) floor area on a 2.97-acre pazcel. The 5-3 June 4, 2013 Item 5 Page 4 project will include two-story townhomes units above first level podium pazking, housed within two structures. Along East Palomaz Street, 5,000 square feet of retail will be provided on the ground floor of each of these two buildings (10,000 square feet total). Between the two buildings, an approximately forty foot wide plaza corridor will be provided through the middle of the project site providing pedestrian connection between East Palomaz Street to the north and Santa Venetia Pazk to the south. The project is proposing minor amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Village 6 SPA Plan, more specifically described below: General Development Plan The proposed amendment to the General Development Plan would increase the allowable unit count within the MU1/MiJ2 land use district from 158 to 206 (See Attachment 4 -Proposed GDP Table). SPA Plan Amendment The Village Six Site Utilization Plan would be amended to increase the allowable unit count from 158 to 206 units for the MU-1/MU-2 site (See Attachment 5- Proposed Village Six Site Utilization Plan). ANALYSIS: GDP/SPA Plan Amendment The proposed amendment to the GPD/SPA would increase the previously approved 60 units by an additional 48 units (for a total of 108 units) on the remaining MU-1 site. This would result in an increase in the overall yield of the MU1/MU2 site from 158 to 206 units, and then overall residential density from 23.6 to 30.7 du/ac. A mazket study prepared by the London Group substantiates there is a great need for additional rental units in the azea. A density increase to allow the 48 additional units is necessary to make the apartment project financially feasible. The Otay Ranch GDP and the Village Six SPA Plan support these densities and staff believes that the small increase in density is appropriate as these parcels represent the urban core of the village, and are adjacent to a future transit stop. The amendments also propose to reduce the retail component of the site from approximately 16,685 to 10,000 square feet. A commercial mazket analysis prepared by the London Group concluded that both the primary and secondary retail market could not support the higher squaze- footage of retail commercial. Staff concurs with the findings of this study. Otay Ranch Village Six Planned Community (PC) District Regulations/Design Review The following table provides a summary of the project's compliance with the Village Six PC District Regulations/Development Standazds contained within the PC District Regulations (PC District Regs.) as well as the CPF requirements. Other than these standards discussed, the remaining development standards are established based upon site plan approval of the project 5-4 June 4, 2013 Item ~ Page 5 and based upon adherence to site plan and design pazameters addressed in the Otay Ranch Village Six Core Master Precise Plan (discussed later in this report.) REQUIRED PROPOSED i Required open space: Private open space 99 -2 bedroom units @ 80 s.f. per unit = 7,920 s.f. 9 - 3 bedroom units @ 100 s.£per unit = 900 s.f. Total private open space required = = 8,820 s.f. Private Open Space provided = 12,000 s.f. Common Open Space @ 200 s.f. per unit=21,600 s.f Common Open Space provided =9,535 s.f. Community Purpose Facility Community Purpose Facility Current CPF acreage required = 6,625 s.f. Central Plaza = 12,800 s.f. Additional CFP required (48 units) = 7 499 s.f Community meeting room 1,635 s.f Total CFP re aired = 14,123 s.f. Total CPF acrea e rovided = 14,435 s.f Parking: Parking Residential: Residential 99- 2 bedroom units @ 2 spaces/unit 198 Covered (residential) 188 9- 3 bedroom units @ 2.25 spaces/unit = 20 On -site (Openl 34 Total residential parking spaces required= 218 Total residential provided 222 Total Commercial @ 4 spaces per 1000 s.~ 40 Commercial: Total Required 258 spaces On-site (Open) 15 On-street Open) 25 Total Commercial provided 40 Total Provided 262 Building Height/Architecture/Site Layout The proposed project includes two stories of residential above one story of pazking housed within two proposed buildings on site. The exception to this will be along East Palomar Street where the first floor will consist of commercial suites with residential units above. Each of the two buildings will closely "mirror" each other. One of the important aspects of development within the village core is pedestrian orientation. Between these two buildings will be an approximately forty-foot wide plaza comdor that connects the commercial area and transit on East Palomar Street to Santa Venetia Park. This unique feature will provide areas for outdoor activities for the adjacent commercial suites as well as the residents. This plaza corridor will also include a "tot lot" feature as well as BBQ's and seating azeas. The proposed cultured stone and style of the corner elements would match existing architectural elements of the surrounding development. The same European style of architecture has been 5-5 June 4, 2013 Item Page 6 incorporated into the project design to match the style of the Mazquis I Live-Work townhomes across East Palomaz Street. The stone veneer to be used on both communities will be identical. The addition of a brick veneer on the Mazquis II was added to distinguish the commercial spaces and provide for a more urban feel for this side of the street. The focal comer element detailing is typical for the style of architecture with smooth stucco fmish and azchitectural features which resemble the look of traditional limestone quoins on historic buildings. Shutters have been added at the ground level to enhance the gazage walls facing the two streets. Parking Residential: As shown in the preceeding table the proposed project will provide 222 residential pazking spaces; 188 of these will be covered, with the other 34 spaces provided as "open parking" within one of the two open pazking lots. The covered parking areas provide parking for 80 of the town home units with direct access to the residential units above. The remaining 28 units will be provided one covered parking space and one open pazking space. This includes the fourteen units facing East Palomaz Street as well as fourteen internal 2-bedroom units within the project. Commercial: A total of 40 commercial pazking spaces are provided to meet the standazds of one space per 250 square-feet required for retail commercial. These spaces will be provided by a combination of the 25 diagonal spaces along East Palomaz Street, with the other 15 spaces within the two open parking lots provided on-site. At the time the Project was discussed with the Planning Commisison on April 24, 2013, the staff report indicated that a condition of approval will require the applicant to work with the City to provide time-restricted signage between the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. for the diagonal spaces along East Palomar Street to ensure these pazking spaces will be available for patrons of the commercial establishments. At the Planning Commsison heazing, Commssioner Vinson commented that he did not believie that signing of parking spaces would provide adequate enforcement to ensure that pazking spaces are available for retail users. He suggested staff consider installing pazking meters on both sides of East Palomaz Street, both in front of the existing Marquis I project as well as for the proposed Mazquis II Project. Staff has discussed the possibility of having signed versus metered pazking spaces and the pros- and cons- of each. Staff understands that pazking meters would provide the highest level of enforcement but, at the same time, would have the most up-front cost. Rather than requiring meters now, a proposed condition of approval requires that the applicant work with the City to provide signing and a green curb. If it is determined that this signing is not adequate to alleviate the problem of long-term parking by residents or 5-6 June 4, 2013 Item~J Page 7 others (based upon any future complaints received by the City) the item would come back to the City Council for their consideration of installation of pazking meters. Total parking provided: The applicant is providing a total of 262 parking spaces, which exceeds the parking requirement by 4 spaces. Community Purpose Facility All Planned Communities are required to set aside a minimum of 1.39 acres of land per 1,000 persons for Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) per the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Based on prior CPF compliance associated with the Village Six SPA azea, the remaining CPF requirement for the previously approved project (on the MU-1 site) was to be satisfied through the provision of a proposed 6,625 square-foot day care facility. Given this previous approval, staff agreed to use the 6,625 square-foot obligation as a baseline in determining this project's CPF requirement. The CPF requirement for the additiona148 units was then calculated separately and added to this baseline number. The additional units would require 7,499 square feet of CPF, and when added to the baseline figure, results in a CPF obligation of 14,123 square feet for the proposed project. The applicant is proposing 14,435 square feet of CPF on-site which slightly exceeds the requirement. This will be accomplished by providing a highly amenitized 12,800 squaze-foot central plaza comdor running in a north-south direction between the two buildings on-site, connecting from East Palomar Street to Santa Venetia Park. In addition, a 1,635 square-foot community room would be provided near the southerly end of the plaza corridor adjacent to the park. The plaza provides a pedestrian connection between the commercial area and transit stop on East Palomar Street and Santa Venetia Park, and provides a number of outdoor 'amenities including seating areas, BBQs, and tot lot. The pedestrian connection will both invite. pedestrian traffic across East Palomar Street and elsewhere into the plaza space which runs down the spine of the Marquis II site. It will provide an urban plaza setting and include a fountain area surrounded by cafe tables. Just south of this space is a tot lot configuration consisting of pre-cast climbers set into the greater plaza space. From there, residents cross through an outdoor barbeque and recreation plaza followed by a terraced overview of the existing public park. A large shade tree and benches help to frame up the views both toward and away from the central plaza space and a gateway connection to this public park is established through a pedestrian pathway connection. The entire design and layout of the Marquis II central plaza is based upon a concept of pedestrian activity and connection. As previously noted, a concern regarding the current proposal not including a day care facility was raised by the Planning Commission. While the previous project included a day care facility as its solution in the provision of required CPF, this was never realized since the project was never built. The applicant has indicated that the use was considered, but in their opinion, was financially infeasible in this location. This led the applicant to pursue the CPF solution that is detailed above. 5-7 June 4, 2013 Item ,~ Page 8 Open Space: The Property Development Standards contained in the SPA document typically include requirements for the amount of private and common usable open space for a project. Because the project site is designated as mixed-use, no specific standazds were specified. However, the established common practice has been to use the most closely associated multi-family (RM-2) regulations. Per section, II.3.3.4(G) multi-family units with 2 bedrooms require 80-squaze feet of private open space, and multi-family units with 3 or more bedrooms require 100-square feet of private open space (for a total 8,820 s.f required). In addition, section II.3.3.4(C) of the Village Six SPA requires a minimum of 200 square feet of common usable open space per unit (for a total of 21,600 s.f. required). The applicant is providing a total of 12,000 square feet of private open space in the form of second floor decks. This exceeds the amount of required private open space by 3,180 square feet. Additionally, the applicant is providing 9,535 square feet of common usable open space, which is 12,065 square feet less than the minimum requirement based upon applying the RM-2 standazd. The applicant is requesting, and staff supports the proposed reduction in common usable open space requirement for the following reasons: • The amount of private open space provided exceeds the required amount by 3,180 square feet. • The applicant will be providing approximately 2,000 square feet of off-site improvements within the adjacent neighborhood park in conjunction with providing a pedestrian connection though the project. While these improvements have the characteristics of common open space areas, their location off-site precludes them from being counted in the square footage of common open space provided. • The applicant has greatly enhanced the comdor plaza feature to provide an entire pedestrian linkage between East Palomar Street and Santa Venetia Park to the south. The open space plaza area that runs north south toward the existing public park creates a unique social interaction opportunity and. an improved pedestrian connection to a public park. Otay Ranch Village Six Core Master Precise Plans: The Otay Ranch Village Six Core Master Precise Plan (Precise Plan) stipulates design parameters that pertain to site planning, landscape azchitecture, architecture and signage for the 2.97-acre site. The Precise Plan contains illustrations and written requirements to implement the design ideas presented therein. Some of the urban design guidelines also emphasize quality design, site development chazacter and conceptual building/pazking/open space relationships within the project. 5-8 June 4, 2013 Item Page 9 Architecture/Site Layout With a few exceptions discussed further in this section, the Project will comply with the site plan and design objectives outlined in the Main Street District section and accompanying design review checklist contained in the Precise Plan (Attachment 8 -Design Review Checklist). The proposed architecture for Mazquis II complies with the requirements stated in the Master Precise plan by keeping to the California Heritage theme and the European Country architectural style. This is accomplished by providing key elements such as steeped pitched hip roofs with flat concrete tiles, brick, stone and stucco. Community Stone & Brick has been used to mark key locations and focal points at the ground level. The orientation of the two buildings aze situated so the azchitectural elements provide indoor and outdoor spaces which encourages people-gathering by creating pedestrian nodes. At these gathering locations, the scale of the building relates to the pedestrian by providing one story elements that help break up the overall massing and scale of the building. Outdoor refuse and mechanical equipment have all been- completely screened and located out of all pedestrian nodes. This has been accomplished by creating interior trash enclosures and mechanical wells. The materials and colors of Marquis II are in compliance with Exhibit 12 of the Master Precise Plan. The project incorporates flat concrete the roofing that is a mixture of rich colors that provide a sense of rough, weathered and a randomly laid aesthetic. The wall materials consist of two colors of stone veneer matched to the adjacent project, stucco with a smooth hand-troweled finish or brick that is comprised of rich dark colors. A variety of windows have been provided that include multi-paned, arched, square, recessed, storefront systems, fixed and operable. Additional elements have also been included such as awnings, shutters and metal flower boxes which allow for the use of accent colors. The implementation of these elements allow for a cohesive project that relates to the surrounding community. As stated in the guidelines, the most stringent application of these standazds should be applied to the project design facing East Palomar Street, which will contain the highest level of pedestrian activities. In addition, the Precise Plan does indicate that should refinements or adjustments be required to the provisions contained therein, the City Council (acting in place of the Design Review Committee) may consider such requests which staff is in agreement. In the spirit of the design guideline's provision that the standards should be applied along East Palomar in the most stringent manner, the applicant has not requested any refinements along this frontage, but has requested them in other areas of the project as follows: 1) Refinement of the requirement of a village landmark building and central plaza area containing a minimum of 3,000 square feet with minimum width of sixty feet provided along East Palomar Street. Instead of a sixty-foot wide central. plaza being provided ~~ith a single landmark building, the applicant is proposing a 40-foot wide central plaza that extends through the project site, connecting East Palomar Street to Santa Venetia pazk. As noted previously, this plaza contains approximately 12,800 square feet, and has been amenitized to function as 5-9 June 4, 2013 Item 5 Page 10 CPF space. Instead of a single "landmazk" building, landmazk features aze the two main 1.5 story corners which flank the central plaza. 2) Adjustments to the parking setback off of View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue ranging from 12 to 24 feet. While the applicant is able to comply with the requirement to provide pazking in the reaz of the buildings facing East Palomaz Street, the existing site constraints along with the resultant design, necessitates providing driveway access off of View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue. On site parking spaces aze typically provided beginning just inside the driveway entrance, as is the case here. As a result, the applicant is proposing a setback of 7.5 feet for covered and 10 feet for open parking azeas from these two streets as specified in the following table: Setbacks (non-residential) Minimum Parking setback allowed Minimum Parking setback re uested View Park Wa 14.5' ] 0' Ma dalena Avenue 12' 10' Setbacks (residential) View azk Wa /Ma dalena Ave 25' 7.5' 3) Refinement of the requirement that the storefronts incorporate display windows, with a minimum of 70% glass. The current design calculates at approximately 50% glazing which is appropriate given the European Village Style architecture proposed for the project. Historical buildings, which this style tries to mimic, were not typically 70% glass. That requirement seems more appropriate for conventional retail, not mixed-use blending styles with a residential community. At the Planning Commission heazing of April 24, 2013, concern was expressed over the proposed reduction in the amount of storefront glazing and it was recommended that the amount not be reduced below the amount which exists at the existing Marquis I project. Staff has worked with the applicant to determine that the percentage of glazing on the existing Marquis I -Live/Work building is 30 %, which is below the 50% now being requested by the applicant. DECISION MAKER CONFLICTS: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Councilmembers and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is subject to this action. Staff is not independently aware, nor has staff been informed by any City Councilmember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. 5-10 June 4, 2013 Item Page 11 CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT: The application fees and processing costs aze paid for by the Applicant. The project will not be fully constructed until 2016, beyond the current fiscal year. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed project was required to estimate the fiscal impact that the proposed amendment will have on the City of Chula Vista operation and maintenance budgets. The fiscal analysis presents future revenues and expenditures in 2011 dollazs. Previousl~pnroved Plan The fiscal revenues to the City associated with the approved Project for the subject site range from $37,040 to $63,237 annually over the five-year projection period. Fiscal expenditures are projected to be $84,258 and remain fixed over the five-year projection period. The net fiscal impact from developing the approved Marquis II Project is negative and results in a continuous annual negative net fiscal deficit of $21,021 at the end of the five-year projection period. The cumulative deficit over the first five yeazs is estimated to be $98,573. Proposed Amendment Plan The fiscal revenues to the City associated with the proposed Marquis II Project SPA plan amendment range from $53,963 to $90,611 annually over the five-yeaz projection period. Fiscal expenditures are projected to be $119,000 and remain fixed over the five-year projection period. The net fiscal impact from developing the Marquis II Project is negative throughout the development and results in a continuous annual negative net fiscal deficit of $29,290 at the end of the five-year projection period. The cumulative deficit over the first five years is estimated to be $136,186. The fiscal impact of these two scenarios is summarized on the following table: Projection Period Scenarios Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Approved SPA Scenario Pro osed SPA Amendment $0 $0 ($47,218) $65,938 ($9,108) $11,500 ($21,226) $29,458 ($21,021) $29,290 ($98,573) $136,186 Variance $0 ($18,720) ($2,392) ($8,232) ($8,269) ($37,613) As indicated in the above table, the proposed SPA amendment results in an increased ongoing, annual fiscal deficit of $8,269 over the approved SPA scenario. The proposed SPA amendment cumulative deficit exceeds the approved SPA scenario by $37,613 at-the end of the five-year projection period. It is also important to note that the original fiscal analysis for the Village 6 SPA Plan as approved in 2002 forecasted several positive years of fiscal impact followed by negative fiscal impacts in perpetuity. 5-11 Juue 4, 2013 Item Page 12 Section 19.09.060(J) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the project be conditioned to provide funding for periods when expenditures exceed project revenues. A condition requiring the applicant to enter into a fiscal impact offset agreement prior to the issuance of any builidng permit is included in the attached Resolution. Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution and Minutes 3. DRB Chair & Community Meeting Comments 4. Proposed GDP Table 5. Proposed Village 6 SPA Site Utilization Plan 6. Proposed Site Plan 7. Proposed Open Space and CFP Plan 8. Design Review checklist from Master Precise Plan 9. Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declazation 10. Ownership Disclosure Form 11. Project Plans Prepared by JeffSteichen, Associate Planner 5-12 ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATO~Z ~VIAP ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMSSION RESOLUTION AND MINUTES 5-14 RESOLUTION NO. PCM-11-23 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ADDENDUM (IS 11-004) TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARTION IS O4-035 AND APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THEVILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN TO CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE MU LAND USE CATEGORY FROM 158 TO 206 FOR A 6.97 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF EAST PALOMAR STRET BETWEEN VIEW PARK WAY AND MAGDLANEA AVENUE. WHEREAS, on December 6, 2011 a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department by Oakwood Development ("Applicant"), requesting approval of amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the Village Six SPA Plan to allow an increase in the number of allowable units from 158 to 206 for two mixed-use parcels located on the north and side of East Palomar Street between View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue ("Project"); and WHERES, the Project consists of developing the southerly 2.97 acre mixed-use site with 108 multi-family residential units, 10,000 square feet of retail commercial and 14, 435 square feet of Community Purpose Facility; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental.Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was previously covered in Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 04-03) for the Village Six Mixed-Use Project, The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Development Service Director has prepazed an Addendum (IS 11-04) to this document; 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. April 24, 2013 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the hearing was thereafter closed. 5-15 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: L CEQA The Planning Commission finds that the Addendum (IS 11-004) to Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS O4-035) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. II. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS The Planning Commission finds by clear and convincing evidence that: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN The proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Village Six General Development Plan reflects the land use, circulation system and public facilities that are consistent with the City's General Plan. PLANNED COMMUNITY CAN BE INITIATED BY ESTABLISHEMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE The proposed amendment to the Village Six SPA Plan only affects the 2.97 acre remaining vacant site known as Marquis II, which is in conformance with the Otay Ranch GDP and the Village Six SPA Plan policies and development regulations, that were adopted by the City council in 2005. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH OR PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA; AND THAT THE SITES PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC FACLITIES, SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS ARE ADEQUATE TO THE SERVICE THE ANTICIPATED POPULATION AND APPEAR ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF The proposed 108 multi-family residential units are high density (approximately 30.7DU/AC). The proposed development will complement the existing mixed-use development located on the north side of East Palomar 5-16 Street. The proposed density and design are compatible with the village core design principles which call for highest densities to promote pedestrian orientation and transit oriented development. In addition, the proposed project will provide a pedestrian connection from the Marquis I site and the BRT transit stop in the median of East Palomar Street through the project and to the Neighborhood Park (Santa Venetia Park). ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION The 10,000 square feet of proposed convenience commercial will provide neighborhood serving commercial uses to the residents of the proposed project as well as surrounding residents and visitors to the area. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVLOPMENT The area surrounding the project is fully developed. The site represents the only remaining vacant parcel in Village Six and will complete the development of the village core. III. ADOPTION OF AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN In light of the findings above, the Planning Commission recommends that the Otay Ranch General Development Plan be amended as set forth and diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "B", approved and adopted in the form presented to the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. IV. SPA FINDINGS THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND ITS SEVERAL ELEMENTS The proposed amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan reflect Mixed Use Land Use Designations that are consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The residential component of the proposed mixed use would be consistent with the other adopted high-density residential uses within the village core. The proposed amendments are consistent with the previously approved plans and regulations applicable to surrounding sites and, therefore, the proposed 5-17 amendments can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said development. THE SPA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS The proposed Village Six SPA Amendments will promote the orderly sequentialized development of the SPA Plan area by allowing for the completion of the development within the village core area of the SPA. THE VILLAGE SIX SPA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USES, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The proposed amendment to the SPA Plan, will not adversely affect the circulation system and overall land use pattern as previously envisioned in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Village Six SPA Plan. An Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declazation No. IS 04-035 has been prepared and any impacts associated with the proposed amendments have been previously addressed by Mitigated Negative Declaration IS 04-035 Thus, the requested amendments to the SPA Plan will not adversely affect the adjacent land uses, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality of the surrounding uses. The potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been thoroughly analyzed based upon the proposed project resulting in specific requirements that must be complied with at the time of development within the project area. This includes the required installment of a fully activated traffic signal at the intersection of East Palomaz Street and View Park Way. V. APPROVAL OF SPA AMENDMENTS Based on the fmdings above, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Village Six SPA Plan as shown in Exhibit "C" subject to the conditions set forth below: 1. The Project shall comply with all mitigation measures specified in MND IS 04- 035, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 2. The Applicant shall install all public facilities in accordance with the Village Six SPA Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan or as required to meet the Growth Management Threshold standards adopted by the City. The City Engineer may 5-18 modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 3. The Applicant shall implement the Federal and State mandated conservation measures outlined in the Water Conservation Plan of the Village Six SPA Plan. 4. Prior to approval of building permits for each phase of the Project, the Applicant shall demonstrate that air quality control measures outlined in the Air Quality Improvement Plan for Village Six SPA Plan pertaining to the design, construction and operational phases of the project have been incorporated in the project design. 5. Prior to the 30a' day after the Resolution becomes effective, the Applicant shall prepare 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 Village Six SPA Plan shall be incorporated into the final document and approved by the Director of Development Services for printing. VI. VILLAGE SIX SPA REDUCTION IN AREA REGULATIONS While Property Development Standards for standard residential development typically include requirements for the amount of private and common open space, no standards have been specified for mixed-use development. However, the established common practice has been To use the most closely associated multi-family (RM-2) regulations and apply them to mixed-use development. Per section, IL3.3.4(G) Multi- family units with 2 bedroom require 80-square feet of private open space. Multi- family units with 3 or more bedroom require 100-square feet of private open space. In addition, section IL3.3.4(C) of the Village Six SPA requires a minimum of 200 square feet of common usable open space per unit. The applicant is providing 9,535 square feet of common open space which is 12,060 square feet less than the minimum requirement based upon applying the RM-2 standard. Section II.3.9.3 requires the following firidings in order to grant a reduction: 1. That the proposed project or use is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and adopted policies of the City.; The proposed project does not alter any land use designations in the Chula Vista General Plan, but is simply a reduction in common open space from 21,600 square feet to 9,535 square-feet, and common open space is a Specific Plan level development standard. 5-19 2. That the proposed project or use is consistent with, or found to be in substantial conformance with, the Village Six SPA Plan, the purpose and intent of these Planned Community District Regulations, and the Village Design Plan. The proposed project, which includes a reduction in common open space from 21,600 square-feet to 9,535 squaze-feet is consistent with the purpose and intent of the SPA, PC District Regulations and Village Design Plan in that the reduction is offset by 1) increase amount of private open space beyond what is required; 2) providing 2,000 s.f. of off-site improvements in adjacent neighborhood park in conjunction with providing a connection to the pedestrian connection to the project; 3) providing, in addition to a more typical central plaza with fountain being used to accommodate the Community Purpose Facility requirement, the applicant has greatly enhanced this feature to provide an entire pedestrian linkage between the transit stop on East Palomar Street to the north and Santa Venetia park to the south, an open space plaza area that runs north/south toward the existing public park that creates a unique social interaction opportunity and an improved connection to a public pazk with a transit stop provides opportunities for additional pedestrian use of the plaza corridor area; and 4) provide features and enhancements such as tot lots within the CPF corridor plaza. While these features and improvements have the characteristics of common open space areas, they are precluded them from being counted in the squaze footage of common open space provided. 3. That the proposed project or use will not, under 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 proposed project, with proposed reduction in common open space, will not be detrimental to health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The project does provide amenities such a tot lots, which typically occur within common open space areas; however, in this instance they are provided within the CPF plaza corridor azea in order to be accessible as part of the community-wide feature connecting East Palomaz Street and Santa Venetia park. As a result of their placement within this plaza, the these amenities, normally counted towards open space, could not be included in the project open space total. In addition, the connection to the neighborhood pazk will also necessitate the applicant providing 2,000 square-feet of improvements, but since the additional square footage will be located just inside the boundaries of the park, it cannot technically be counted towards common open space. 5-20 4. That the proposed project or use is consistent with the principles and overall quality of design established for the Otay Ranch Planned Community. The proposed plaza corridor being considered as Community Purpose Facility area within the proposed project is an enhancement of the requirement contained in the Village Six Core Master Precise Plan to provide a plaza with fountain feature mid-point along East Palomar Street within the project site. However, as the plaza area expands into the between East Palomar Stret and Santa Venetia park, which is open to the community, the features such as tot lots included in this corridor, cannot be counted towards common open space even though they are essentially providing the same function as common open space.~y. VII. 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 terms, 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 under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigate or compel their compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by Applicant or successor in interest by the City approval of this Resolution. VIII. 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 are 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Drafr City Council Resolution approving the Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 5-21 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT a copy of this Resolution and the draft City Council Resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 24th day of April 2013, by the following vote, to- wit: AYES: Moctezuma, Spethman, Vinson,Liuag NOES: ABSENT: Calvo ABSTAIN: Anaya Lisa Moctezuma, Chairperson ATTEST: Pat Laughlin, Secretary 5-22 ~~tt~ CITY OF CHUTAVISTA Planning Commission nliiaufes REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION April 24, 2013 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER At 6:03 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Bldg 100 276 Fourth Avenue ROLL CALL: Commissioners Anaya, Calvo, Liuag, Spethman, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma Members Present: Anaya, Liuag, Spethman, Vinson and Chair Moctezuma Members Absent: Vice-Chair Calvo MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Vice-Chair Calvo had contacted staff and requested an excuse from tonight's meeting MSC (Spethman/Vinson) to excuse Vice-Chair Calvo. Motion carried PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE OPENING STATEMENT: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 27, 2013 MSC (Spethman/Vinson) 4-0-1-0 Calvo absent March 27, 2013 MSC (Vinson/Spethman) 3-0-1-1 Calvo absent/Moctezuma abstained PUBLIC COMMENTS: John Moot, representing Inland Industries (the largest land owner in the South Bay with 28 acres) gave a 10-minute presentation regarding the SDG&E substation that is going to be built in the South Bay. Their overall concerns revolve around the height of the towers and whether or not the wires would be undergrounded. 5-23 Planning Commission Agenda April 24, 2013 Page -2- PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Public Hearing: PCM-11-23 Consideration of amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) for the MU-1/MU-2 parcel located on the north and south sides of East Palomar Street, between View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue in order to allow an increase from 158 to 206 allowable units to be constructed. Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation on the above topic. Slides included the project site map, aerial views of the project site, parking provided, the Central Plaza Corridor, open space distribution and composite elevations. Oakwood Development (the "Applicant") is requesting an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Site Utilization Plan to increase the number of permitted multi-family units from 158 to 206 units (an increase of 48 units) on the 6.7-acre MU-1/MU-2 mixed-use area (which consists of two separate parcels located on the north and south side of East Palomar Street). Because the northerly MU-2 site is already developed with 98 residential units ("Marquis I"), these amendments are necessary to allow for the development of a proposed mixed- use project, consisting of 108 multi-family units, 10,000 square feet of retail commercial space and 14,435 square feet of Community Purpose Facility on the southerly 2.97 acre MU-1 site (the "Marquis II" project.). The project site is located on the south side of East Palomar Street between View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue (see Attachment 1 - Locator Map). Design Review approval is also being requested for the Marquis II project. The project is subject to the consolidated permit processing provisions pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.14.050 (C). Under the consolidated review process, the City Council will be reviewing and acting on the GDP/SPA Plan Amendment and Design Review permit. The Planning Commission's action will be a recommendation to the City Council. The design of the project was presented at a community meeting on January 31, 2013 and also reviewed by a Design Review Board member as required by the CVMC. At the community meeting, only minor issues were raised (See Attachment 4-Community Meeting Comments). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution PCM-11-23 recommending that the City Council: a) consider the Addendum 5-24 Planning Commission Agenda Apri124, 2013 Page -3- (IS 11-04) to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS O4-035); and b) adopt a Resolution approving the proposed Otay Ranch GPD/ Village Six SPA Plan Amendment (PCM-11-23). DISCUSSION: There were questions from the Board pertaining to whether the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board were now one in the same. Clarification was given by ACM Halbert, who stated that they are not the same yet, and that the Planning Commission is required by charter to make a recommendation. Otherwise it would be be a single hearing of the City Council. Vinson: Has been in the area and there is a problem with parking in the commercial areas. Is there a possibility of having meters in place -on both sides ofthe project. Streichen: It has been discussed that there should be a requirement for signing of the spaces for 1-hour maximum parking during the day. Discussion continued regarding how to fix the problem so that businesses can have cars coming and going. ACM Halbert said that it would be possible to have parking meters if the signed 1-hr limit did not work. Vinson: Is the child care facility no longer going to be a part of the project? Discussion ensued as to the prior approval of a child care facility - a Community Purpose facility designated. The Community Purpose Facility is now proposed as a Community Room, part of the corridor area. Q. What is the purpose of dropping the glazing (window frontage) from 70%to 50%? A. The 70% is more conducive to the standard commercial type of retail establishment. In this case, they are trying to mimic a certain architectural style and they feel the 50% is more conducive to the style that is being proposed. It was asked if any comments were received from the Public Outreach. Staff indicated there had been no comments received. Q. What is the traffic impact to the area? A. It has been determined that there is less of an impact than the first project because of the reduction in commercial space. Public Hearing Opened The architect for the applicant, Oakwood Development, came to the podium to answer questions from the Board. 5-25 Planning Commission Agenda Apri124, 2013 Page -4- Vinson: Has concern about the parking and the fact that businesses will not have parking available for their customers without parking meters. Architect: We are not opposed to doing the additional parking restriction if that is what is necessary. The owner currently owns both sides of the street so if the 1-hour parking currently proposed is not working, we could come back to ask for the meters. There was discussion as to how the parking meters would be requested and the process. The request would have to be made to the Traffic Safety Committee and then to the City Council. Commissioner Vinson wanted it noted in the record that we keep approving projects and he believes there is going to be a parking problem. Architect - Because the majority of parking is in open/shared parking or common garage, it is believed that it is a huge difference from existing neighborhoods with 2 car garages. We all know that most people don't park their 2 cars in their garages. We believe the fill rate per unit size will make this parking a success. Q. What about the 70% down to 50% glazing? Just trying to match the project. A. Trying to match the "French Provencial" style ofthe other parts ofthe community. Slides were shown to compare the architecture of the neighborhood. If you went to 70% glazing you'd lose 2 columns and, visually, it would not be as appealing as the 50%. We're trying to reflect the old-world style. There was continued discussion between the board, architect and staff regarding matching the designs. It was determined that since the Board is not performing the design review function, it would be more appropriate to address this concern when it moves on to that level and that Commissioner Vinson's comments should be passed on. A slide of the view across the street was also shown as a comparison. Q. Daycare is still a concern. Why have we dropped it down to a 1,600 sf Community Room? A. Daycare was marketed to daycare providers and no one would accept the space because they didn't feel there was a demand in that location. The space would have been designated as daycare, but it would have remained vacant. We worked with city staff and came to the conclusion that a Community Purpose Facility, that potentially the adjacent community could rent out, would be more beneficial to the community. Commissioner's Comments Spethman: Shares Commissioner Vinson's concerns, but tonight is about the up-zone and not design review. Wants to make clear to staff, that at some time we're taking on the design review responsibility, that the elevations, glazing, a materials pallet and that everything needed is in the packet prior to having to make a design review decision. 5-26 Planning Commission Agenda April 24, 2013 Page -5- MSC (Spethman/Vinson) to support the project item. Motion carried 4-0-1-1 with Calvo absent and Anaya abstaining Chairman Moctezuma specified that the glazing and design comments are put forward for the next step. Attorney David Miller advised the Board that prior to the project going to Council, it goes before one person on the Design Review Board and then it goes to Council with their recommendation. Assistant City Manager Halbert assured the Board that, at the time they take over a larger design review function, all of the items that were mentioned as concerns would be available in the packets. OTHER BUSINESS 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Halbert spoke about the Port/City Bayfront Cultural and Design Committee (BCDC). He gave the background of how the committee would be formed of members (1 member from: Planning Commission, 1-RCC and 1 Design Review Committee) appointed by the City Manager. The committee was created in a settlement agreement between the City, the Port and the Bayfront Coalition. The purpose of the committee is to provide recommendations to the Port on design guidelines and, in the future, on projects on the Port tidelands and the park design at the Bayfront. He will pass on names of additional people that are interested to the Port. 4. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Liuag voiced that he still has an interest in the BCDC and would like his name passed on to the Port as a possible member-at-large. ADJOURNMENT at 6:51 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on May 8th, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Submitted by: Patricia Laughlin, Board Secretary 5-27 ATTACHMENT 3 DRB CHAIR AND COMMUNITY MEETING COMMENTS 5-28 MARUIS II PROJECT COMMENTS BASED UPON REVIEW BY CHAIR OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND RESPONSES Comment Number Comment Response Would like to see elevations and/or renderings Color renderings not available at that time 1. in color to have better understanding of the but revised plans and elevations provided exterior elements and materials. for review with narrative explanation. Comment satisfied. It seems like some building elements are out of Revised plans and elevations provided 2. context with the neighborhood (ie. the large with explanation at so how comer stone cladding/arches of the corner. However, it elements match other existing projects in there are existing buildings with similar features the area. in the vicinity, there is no problem. Comment satisfied. 5-29 ISSUES RAISE AT MARQUIS II COMMUNITY MEETING-January 31, 2013 Comment Comment Applicant Response Number How will the residential parking work and what There will be a combination of covered 1. assurance will there by that assigned parking and open pazking provided with the will be used for parking and not storage? project. Almost every unit will be provided with two covered parking spaces, with a few provided with one covered and one. open space. Covered parking space will be within lazge garage areas, open on three sides. This will prevent the possibility of covered parking used for storage. How will access be provided for residents to Remote controlled gate for residents to 2. enter the parking garage? enter the parking garage. 3. Believed the size of "commercial" Size of commercial spaces/suites are space available within existing live/work units being analyzed. They could have suites as in Marquis I are too small and asked about size large as 2,000 square-feet available. of roposed commercials ace with this roject. Could you add more trees/architectural There will be trees and the entry to 4. amenities to the gazage entrances? garages; additional emphasis will be added to the garage entries. Would the proposed project result in additional There will be no more impact than the 5. ADT's than for what was previously proposed previously approved project for the site on the site? because even though additional units are being proposed the commercial portion of the project is being reduced. There is already too much commercial at The project will focus on "convenience" 6. Heritage Town Center type of commercial. 7. Would you consider relocating the garage Will consider this but believe residents entrances off of Magdalena Avenue due to would be aware of times of these traffic back-ups at times of school drop off/pick occasional back-ups and be able to work u in azea? around them. 5-30 ATTACHMENT 4 PROPOSED GDP TABLE 5-31 Village Six Dwelling Units Acreage Use Approx SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch. C'ml. Ope" ~ Art. Total 'Pop' Sp. L1yIV 941 941 4.9 206.3 11 5 . 217.8 3 011 MU X38 206 338 206 '. ` 30 7 6.7 - 7.6 2.2 ~ 16 5 , 483 . *** . 927 MH 1,291 1,291 18:0 69.0 10 0 . 79.0 3,292 OTHER 22.0 58.3 80.3 '-~"^~, 98 8~ Z75S 6~ TOTAL 941 1497 21438 86 282 7.6 13.7 10.0 , ** 22.0 58 3 393 6 686 , . . 6,_,830 *Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to communiTy pazks. Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level. Pazk acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. **Actual CPF acreage to be determined at the SPA level; CPF acreage based on rato of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. ***Commercial included as component of residential acrea PROPOSED EXHIBIT 49 VILLAGE SIX LAND USE TABLE . '. 5-32 ATTACHMENT 5 PROPOSED VILLAGE 6 SITE UTILIZATION PLAN 5-33 -, ,. 1~ .. PROPOSED Lend Use Summary Tahle RESIDENTIAL Neighborhood Land Use Acreage Units 0<nsity R-1 SF 26:2 " 108 4.0 R-;A SF 19.0 92 4.6 R-28 SF 213 I16 5.6 P.-3 SF 35.fi 159 4.5 R-4 SF 20.4 92 4,8 ft-5 SF 18.8 106 fi.7 R-6 SF 20.4 126 6'+ 6ubtatal Sf 159.5 796 5.0 R-7A MF 7.0 Bo i~,e R-76 MF 10.8 201 18.6 ft-8 MF 11.7 293 28.7 R-9AlD MF 21.8 168 8.8 R-9B - MF 12.7 - 255 20.8 R-iD MF 12.1 212 17.5 6ub1olal.MF 76.1 1,239 18.6 MU-12• MU BJ -450-- -23ir 206 30_7 Subtotal Rezldenliai 282,3 -4,i9~- 9,3 Z,Z41 R-11 SF (Alt to 521 325 1d8 45 Total Rezfdenhal 274.8 }i29-- e.l Nen-Residential 23~ 87 GPF-1 CPF 1.5 CPF-2bx CPF 0.7 GPF-2 CPF 11.5 5-1 School 70.0 8-2 PrF+ate Mgh School (Sea R-11( p-1 Park 7.6 OS Open Space 22.0 TOTAL ~ 386.4 x:539-- 8,2 2,38) Ndee: t qn Y' 1f1.W..s( i Pam nuniGar, c tl xR-3a. ,:d •eaa wbadfattlul may (` v_mnroM1<d lc CFf uu as an anc:wrv f>A+~paaez ur P'.+~i+J.i iamJSCaPd )) conu)uidY tl~.eliip area 2 k-tt=mo bane lartluu which / tpT~eh!mals l0eadended pwate faghuht=I. maj' bra ~~dC+l:wam GPF 2 arro R-31 me h4vedeaeled. p1~F+fy BL~J~te1:'aac J Sip~ocle bangrn wUWnOat ' wrHOmwauz rna may a r.iMd aW~hg llltl WMYMpIfNQbi, •CPF-3 (1.5 Ac.(Included In MU-1 siW, R-i bite Utilization Flan R3 R-2a ~ R-ffi ~ er +ch rta.d £-p~_~~iliage ~~ 1?i{A,~ Vpµ ornY RnNCH 9!1105 5-34 -'..sir" (. '. ~`` i,ti ~ R-6 „'1'~ ~~~-- ~ R-B R-9afd rl ~~ ~_ CPF-1 ~~'~ ~.. MU--2 : ,If R-7a CPF-3~-` R-9b ~3 R-7b MU-i i P-i R-1D .~ •: S-1 ~ ~ ~ R-6 f~ i ~. .~- ; I ' ' R-4 R-1115-2 V%/ '*` I ~ ~ I YI ~ \i ~~~ ". I _. I _, l `~ CPF-2 ~` '(I I: T-.. Ltnc7 PImn46g ~~, F« l J Exhibit 5 ATTACHMENT 6 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 5-35 ~ x3333 ~ _a• U 33 = [" ! ~~;Ev: 6 6 ° 6E 6l., c.6 N p a _ g `- p:E ~g~ ' '~~ 3 ~ ~ sE`~'t 38 - ~ e Ea E e83 cz N ~ ~E i3 6Eg°!9~¢Yq 99g' tl~Ea z$ QE=~31. sE€~~~:' .5 ~ p E66 ~~1po P$ :'g 1E:3!~1 ;$ p i@3E~vv _~ ~ @ ~ C is ~ _-_YE• ~ s4 - Q 'x56 1~~~~ '~ E. v !' [°: 6c ! 3°3 a 1' ! E QEI, 9 i t t 1 f !! gq €- 9 ~: '$i €e~~p~ ifiE;l~~ 30 $~ p {sE cFi : °.. ...... F ~>s E 3. Qc5 !as egg 9 Q if[ ! Qz E e ~: [ ~x5 1 @e e~ 33t ~~a°'°~ ~•3s9f3$° 3 !p f ip E°; ! ! p r . 1 u ~ c~~ 9x5p .. da! !~ 3` k6E@~~°_ lap ~Q'- p9v=. fvn! E! ,"i ! oQ~o 6 ti-' 6:E3'i. g _9 -av fa, >_ v i 2 n : Iv~ ` es5v A~ ~s_e3s[a ag ! EEe33°a p ~'~ !- i. a l1 i ° O ! @ 5 ~ E3 ~ a„ a_f !a~Y 6~ ®G.~ °°!•ap~~tl°;ea of E° _ [ pQ ~~[ea ~ - _ ! 3 l . = e qq :a & .t: ~a g ~- iel~i EIe UC eval4a-a°~z~gQjlalfp1 p ~ 9~ Eea6- ~ w ! z 9 _ c v f , m 33 G1 ! ifi I a p _ E E p3! 63~a~§ 4° .Ee 6l p ~. al Ez~ 3 6qa_ f° i p p ~a i a!_, QE p e•C 6- v o' 3 a w yaj f3E4p~p~~@pp ggvggid E€:B°ppi°~~i ~EE6~ 93~.€36863 aaE p 2 ~ a a e [ 1 @ j6ai W 9 °j i2 ~ I"€5€t~! EE.i2;iEs46~4s:EEilEpE°~E?Eae$!E~@pEBi~: g~ ~ E 3 E ~ p i ~ i ` ~3;F s qE? .6 c9 _........ ec. _ _ _ x. x e c : e % z a in ii a ! s a O c__a V 4E3~ is U W Z x.;166 ~ %1 ~ehiP [°d®®~ y a J ^ 0 g :533 ~ E9E3f ~ :e; 9!l1i;3 d ~ 1`.9.1. l 5:. i 'B9~ j svlli j° 3%' 9 9 6•• ~ pa•- h a:Ca N ;4318 z ~ ¢ o ~ e f E a e' ° 51 ~?9 f ~' ~ i..% a ~ : ! ~ p! u blaac.ra Q z ~E ~Q~ q .i1 pEQE~ ~ P ~-" i at ~!~ a Ei ~i aEE z i 3 Q' ^ p u'gff °zk~~~€4iE':.af f oev~ ~' 2 ~ ~~c 4 ~ ~ ~g a (Yv J wLL ~J1n3:5~~E$ !Ed!EEe€E~~3 @ gai ~i n~F a® cSQgE~~ a 8$E m Ff_ .i~i~e ~ - C'J ,J Q U Q ~ J d d~// ~ ~ p ZLL Vu ~ O// LL e a e a 33 Q ~ ~- v ~Z n 6E ! E1 6 fi @ ~ E ~ yy .° 99 : 43 3 !~ 3 a a p ~E 9lsE E; s ![ ! EEa~ ` i E~~' EEi~ a ~'~ F9 b f'p 6a ~ 3ea: ~ i SEe ~ 3!a: vl 3~ ~~~ 3E 4 ~e ! ~ 61~~ ~ e4€`H ~ eag ~ of N p p3 i ` 3! O ~¢ ?~ !S I ~a E! 3Q4k !~ EfiQEa ~i 3Efia a ~ p y 3a 5 Y 5'a `E w ~:~6 ~ u~ z! fQ §~ i~a'C~ i6 EBE~ i6 E F~€ e'e p€0~ ;,d ~ y 4 i!~ 3 ~ ~'pa ' ~ © i % ~ . $$ s~ ~ =6: aJ ~ I f~ '[~ a a a a ~ g x ~ i' q ~ p ~ I E ° i F~ e y ', p y g Y Q~ °'EP d,~ ~N Y 9 =1`~ 6 ~ ~i`~~' S 1 ~~ ~ E l~ pg p` E ,J @@ ! EIS ~s ~' ~~ e ~~f69 ~~~ ~ E? z~ El3 m` `'9 ~E ~ ~ yQ ;`~ [~ ~~ g a' ° ~E ,~ ~ a~,~ E6 a 3° p f # E l p R # E E E 6 ~ E xa 6` ~ 2a l ~ p :3 a a s a a x ~ ~~; ,. E€ 5-36 _ ~ ~ U = P ~ e N L r ~ ^' ~`. IC A ii-390-L99 Ndtl ~ // I,, ` V ~ S d `~ 2C>9l ON dYW V .a t ~...', I: mmi. ni .._.._' ~ ~ Leo ; ~ q ;~ ~~~~ ~ 5~5a a ~ 9 --~~ ~ - -r a`nronv 0o e ~ L-vo -_~ ,. ~nle.-L ---oub~71C~7V49ViV~ ~ _ v 2 3 _ IT _ _ -^- '^ ~ i ~ \ 7 _. -~ _ ~ -_ _ Q ~ ~ _~ /r '... '.4 >~~ - . : ~ I~ l i 4 . i s I ~ I _ ~.,_ I. ___ I_.. I It i ~ a 3.. ~F ~t~y ~'S' )1; ~ __ ~ 1 g ®!'S I\ ` k lI~V ~ {I ~3 3 ~ {~ br Y~ ! ~~. } _, I ~ ~ ~ I EI .. g~S v uYr .`.`~c'..'~.""' l a_'"~, l,~ ~t 11~ E ~i. 5 ~ I _ l a. J ~~. U d ~..._ I . ? ~ n.,.. .. r" ° kLTi x ~S'rl ~.. ~ ic- 11 II - _ z 1 ~ ~ r IN .l.v '... -f Y -.'T' ~) I. ~ I \ ! ~`~I M ~ \C~9 a ~_ ~a a'sm~l v~~via ~ _ ~ :. _.. ; ~ ~ 1 - -- ~ ~. 7 ~$EI~ t i I Y € ~ ~~ v ! .~ 1i• w .. r' ie~l f~ P s s e~s .°~,' ~~~a l_tr 3 "-_a 1.'. ~ Y J'i 1 ~ 1 1 ~ v ~ ~- L.@Ip I ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~-{v ~ (' z I Ik i I , 1 _ y.... ~ ~ i L ....... ~ i - 4 u. A I P ~ ~ ri ~,. ~ 4 t rs~s ~11 ~ .: ~ ._ a. «y I c:. 1t ~tn~ I t _ l ~ 1 I ~ i sr r F ~~~~ 141.:~Ia II}= u I III, ~ ~t' P °.. _( 't~ba''1 ~~c;..:} "~..` l~ a _-£, I y, "'`_ _ `~. :I > ~ ~ T d ILL-' I A, ~ v ~ I ~_ .. l~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - _ '..o"' _ _ _ ~ _ _ yam- ~ _,~' - _ ~ 11 - ~ I l' I ~ i ~;G ,~~. ;ANM xM/d M3('~_ 1 d:.=~ ~ ~_~ T'~ I ~Y~ ~ ~~ L 1 ~,. ~ ' co-zs9 ee9 Ndtl .:... ~P 919P1 ®N dbW ~ I ! f ?W31139 ~ - li yE N ~ ~ ~ v I~- I I g ~ O i 'Ia II- I ~ E I I, ,- I i~, 8 e ~~~ f~ ~ _~ ATTACHMENT 7 PROPOSED OPEN SPACE AND CPF PLAN 5-38 E4Sr PALOMAR STREET -K -m-A Z III I T I I s BLDG. B j BLDG. A It 4 NIL Q,OPANP C" 11 Lc) is CPT :1.1 ml �;-- ON �LAFFFA VIDaIA PARK OAR N. 1444 . PAF�EL -V AP, .43".61-117 COMMON LI&APLEOPOV SPACE CPrSUMUUD` ILLFIRL, �,­ -R FIFFICIR)IN- '1 10 111. INF-1. DRC-12-05 111FAIll 11 OPEN SPACE AND CPF AREAS 11111T MARQUIS 2 C4 (OTAY RANCH CRY OFCKUl VILLAGE VMM, 6, MU-1) CALIFORNIA 9 ATTACHMENT 8 DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST FROM MASTER PRECISE PLAN 5-40 /CAIN STREE7~MIXED USE AREA MU-~ DESIGN DISTRICT: • Main Street District LOCATION: • General and focal portion of the core fronting East Palomar Street across from CPF-1 PLANNED USE: • "Main Street' with storefront commercial, office and muki- familyresidential. PERMITTED USE: • As permitted by the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan PC Districe Regulations. MANDATORY SITE PLAN ELEMENTS: • Village Landmark Building with playa at the commercial center directly across from CPF-1. ~ Architectural focal paint on the corners of East Palomar Street and View Park Way and East Palomar Stree[ and Magdalena Avenue. • Pedestrian connection to the Transit Station and CPF-1 sire directly across Ease Palomar Street. • Residential Promenade Street streetscape on View Park Way, Village Promenade Street streecscape on Magdalena Ave. • Commercial buildings oriented directly ro the Village Pathway along East Palomar Stteet. • A multi-story office building edge along East Palomar Street shall reflect a retail commercial storefront appearance for the first floor and shall be comprised of a minimum of 70% glass. • Integrated pedestrian circulation throughout the mixed-use area. • Provide increased upper story setbacks above 2nd story. • Parking lot(s) to occur behind the buildings along East Palomar Street. • Maximum of one automobile curb cut along East Palomar Street. Omy Ranch Master Precise Plan • Village structure design elements consistent with Village Village Six Core Design Plan.. DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST 5-41 79 9/!6/1001 P°* ~`" P-I No S-va Dimmmm~.bn I Lcr+Ywn & reA~p-oxnetn ATTACHMENT 9 ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5-42 ADDENDUM TO MTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS 04-035 PROJECT NAME: Marquis II Project PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed. project site is a 2.97-acre parcel located on the south side of East Palomar Street in Village 6 of the Otay Ranch Planned Community. The mixed-use project proposes 108 multi-family residential units, 10,000 square feet of commercial and 14,435 square feet of Community Purpose Facility. The project includes a request to amend the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GPD) and the Village 6 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in order to allow 48 additional residential units beyond what is currently approved for the site. PROJECT APPLICANT: Oakwood Development CASE NO: DATE: IS 11-004 Apri12, 2013 L BACKGROUND/SCOPE OF ANALYSIS The purpose of this Addendum is to address the proposed project, Marquis II, in replacement of a portion of the previously approved Village Six Mixed-Use Project as it applies to the project site. As the lead agency for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code, Sec. 21000 et seq.), the City of Chula. Vista prepared and conducted an environmental analysis (Mitigated Negative Declazation IS 04-035) of the Village Six Mixed-Use Project dated September 7, 2005. The previous project consisted of two vacant underdeveloped sites for a proposed project consisting of 158 units, including live/work units and 20,000 squaze feet of commercial. The southerly of these two parcels (the current project site) was proposed to contain 60 units along with the commercial retail component. The current project requests an additional 48 units (for a total of 108 units) as well as additional Community Purpose Facility square footage and a reduced commercial component. The Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed detailed amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to allow fora 158 unit mixed-use project to be developed on both the north and south sides of East Palomar Street. The northern site has been developed and the southerly site is currently vacant. 5-43 The environmental impacts of developing the 2.97-acre southern site, have been previously analyzed in the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-04-035). Specifically, the physical impacts of developing the 2.97 acres site were evaluated in the Village Six Mixed-Use Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-04-035) and are hereby incorporated by reference. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Land Use Designation for this portion of the site is Mixed Use, and the SPA identifies this portion of the site as Mixed Use "which permits commercial uses such as, but not limited to, retail shops, professional offices, and service commercial within a Village Core. Transfer of residential uses above or connected to the commercial uses is permitted." The residential land use density ranges that are permitted within the Mixed Use category generally correspond with the General Plan residential land use designations for the High (H) (18-27 du/ac.). The proposed amendments to the SPA Plan are based upon a site plan that includes 108 residential units arranged in a townhome style within two buildings. Each of these two buildings will contain 5,000 square feet of retail commercial on the ground floors facing East Palomaz Street. Between the two buildings, a wide central plaza corridor will provide pedestrian access between East Palomar Street and Santa Venetia Neighborhood Park to the south. The acreage for residential development would increase slightly and there would be a decrease in the amount of retail commercial square footage proposed as seen in the following table: Approved Mixed Use Project for MUl- MU2 site Proposed Marquis II Project on MU-1 site 158 units including 98 units on north 206 units proposed on the MU-1 site (an (MU-2) site leaving 60 remaining units to increase of 48 units than what was be develo ed on the south (MU-1 reviousl anal zed Approximately 20,000 square-feet of 10,000 square-feet of commercial and commercial and 6,625 square-feet of 14,435 square-feet of Community Purpose Community Purpose Facility on the south Facility on the south (MU-1) site. (~-1) site not develo ed) The proposed amendment and related documents to reflect this new development concept have been submitted and reviewed. Mitigation measures from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with Mitigated Negative Declaration for IS O4-035 ("MND") are still valid and applicable to this project. The physical development of the 2.97 has been previously addressed in the MND. Thus, this Addendum focuses on the proposed Marquis II GDP and SPA amendment and land use change for the 2.97 acre portion of the site on the south of East Palomar Street which is currently vacant. Technical reports prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS O4-035) have been updated to reflect the new proposed project configuration and layout. The updated 5-44 technical reports demonstrate and substantiate that the proposed GDP and SPA Amendments do not result in any new significant impacts nor increase in severity of any previously identified significant impacts. The environmental analysis presented in this document addresses the modification of the previously approved GDP and SPA plans. While the modifications to the GDP and SPA plans would result in a minor increase in the number of allowable units, there would be no expansion of the limits of grading, Thus the proposed SPA Amendment is considered to be adequately covered under Mitigated Negative Declaration No. IS 040-35 and no further analysis is warranted. II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The applicant has applied to amend the Otay Ranch GDP and the Village Six SPA in order to allow an additional 48 residential units to be constructed on the project site. The proposed changes include the following: a) Anew project description and development plans b) Amend the Site Development plan to increase the number of units for the MU1/MU2 from 158 to 206. c) Amend the GDP table to reflect the increase of 48 additional units to the MU1/MU2 site. Entitlements applied for: GDP/SPA Plan Amendments • Amendment to the Village Six SPA Site Utilization Plan to increase the number of units for the MUl/MU2 from 158 to 206. • Amendment to the GDP table to reflect the increase of 48 additional units to the MUl/MU2 site. III. CEQA REQUIREMENTS Sections 15162 through 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines discuss a lead agency's responsibilities in handling new information that was not included in a project's certified environmental document. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 5-45 (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c. Mitigation measures or altematives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that: A. The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. B. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. 5-46 C. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. D. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed changes to the project do not constitute a substantial change to the previously approved project. The modifications proposed would not result in any environmental effects that were not considered in the MND, nor would the changes increase the severity of any of the impacts identified in this MND. There has been no significant material change in circumstances relative to the project, and no new information of substantial importance has become available after the prepazation of the Village Six Mixed-Use Project MND (IS-04-035). The mitigation measures identified in MND would be equally applicable to the revised project. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared this addendum to Village Six Mixed-Use Project MND (IS-04- 035). IV. ANALYSIS Updates to technical studies previously prepazed for the Village Six Mixed-Use Project MND have been prepared to address the proposed project, Marquis II ,and identify any potential impacts. Additional technical study updates to air quality, water quality, hydrology/drainage, sewer, geology, noise and firewater service studies have been prepared. Also, since Greenhouse Gas was not addressed in MND (IS-040-035) a GHG analysis has been prepared. No new significant impacts were identified in the updated technical studies regarding the proposed project, Therefore, no new additional mitigation measures or modifications to existing mitigation measures are required. Aesthetics The proposed 108 unit residential buildings contained within two buildings represent a minor increase in the number of units previously proposed for this south parcel. The provision of the units within two large buildings allows for a great amount of architectural articulation and facade treatments which would otherwise be made difficult had the units been proposed in a greater number of but smaller units. The project represents a vertical mixed-use project with the ground floor facing East Palomar Street containing the retail component of the project. A large number of fagade treatments have been added to hide the podium style parking garage located on the ground floors of both side building elevations facing East Park Way and Magdalena Avenue. The overall proposed height of these buildings will be 40 feet with a 45 foot height measured to the top of the accent ridge. No additional significant impacts to aesthetics beyond those 5-47 anticipated in the MND (IS-04-035) are anticipated with this project. The mitigation measures identified in the MND IS-04-035 have been determined to be equally applicable the revised project. Air Quality An Air Quality Study, dated September 2011, was prepared by Dudek to access potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. The study evaluated the potential for significant adverse impacts to the ambient air quality due to construction and operational emissions resulting from the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed 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 analysis concludes that the daily construction emissions would not exceed the City's significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Air quality impacts resulting from construction would, therefore, be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in any significant long-term (operational) impacts to air quality, as new mobile and stationary sources associated with the proposed project would remain well below the significance thresholds following the completion of construction activities. The air quality study does not identify any significant air quality impacts and the mitigation measures contained within theMND (IS-04-035) for the Village Six Mixed Use Projecthave been determined to be equally applicable to the proposed project. The project's potential effect on global climate change was evaluated, and emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) were estimated based on the use of construction equipment and vehicle trips associated with construction activities as well as operational emissions once construction phases are complete. With implementation of GHG reduction measures, the proposed project would reduce GHG emissions by 29.7%. The proposed project would therefore achieve the target of 20% below business as usual, which has been established for the purposes of assessing operational GHG emissions of projects in the City of Chula Vista, and this reduction would be consistent with the goals of AB 32. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with Section 15.26.030 of the City's Municipal Code by employing energy efficiency measures beyond that required by the state Energy Code (Title 24), resulting in a 15% reduction in emissions generated by in-home energy use. Additionally, the proposed project would reduce the overall use of potable water by 20%, consistent with the City's Municipal Code. The project would therefore have a less than significant impact on global climate change. Land use The proposed amendments would not conflict with the surrounding land uses nor the intent of the General Plan. The residential nature of the proposed use would be consistent with the adopted Mixed Use designation for the project site and compatible with the surrounding residential and open space land uses of the Village Six azea. While the proposed amendment to the GDP and SPA Plan result in a small increase in residential units, the limits of grading remain the same as that originally addressed in the approved 5-48 SPA Plan and Village Six Mixed-Use Project. No additional significant impacts to land use above those anticipated in the MND are anticipated with the proposed project. No significant impacts were identified regazding land use, planning and zoning and, therefore, no mitigation measures were required with respect to the Village Six Mixed- Use Project. No mitigation measures are recommended for the proposed project, Marquis II Project. Transportation, Circulation and Access Traffic impacts were analyzed in the MND for the previously approved project. That approval included 60 multi-family residential units and 20,000 square feet of commercial on the Marquis II Project Site. While the Project includes a request to add an additional 48 units (for a total of 108) it also includes a reduction of commercial square footage by 50%. Using the SANDAG Trip Generation Rate Table (2002), the additional 48 units would generate 288 additional average daily trips (ADTs). However, the reduction of 10,000 square-feet of commercial would result in 1,200 less ADTs than previously analyzed. The net result is the Project would result in 912 less ADTs than what was analyzed in the MND (IS-04-035) for the approved Village Six Mixed Use Project and the mitigation measures contained within the MND have been determined to be equally applicable to the proposed project. Drainage and Water Quality Hunsaker & Associates prepared a drainage study addendum, dated September 13, 2012, to evaluate any changes in drainage patterns and runoff rates created by the proposed project. The updated study indicates that the proposed changes to the site will not result in any previously unidentified significant hydrologic impacts nor identified any new hydrologic impacts. The mitigation measures contained in MND (IS-04-035), for the approved Village Six Mixed-Use Project, would be equally applicable to the proposed project, Marquis II. A preliminary Water Quality Technical Report for the Marquis II project, dated January 22, 2012, was prepared by Hunsaker & Associates to evaluate the change to the storm water quality as a result of the proposed project. The mitigation measures contained in MND (IS-04-035) for the approved Village Six Mixed-Use Project, would still be applicable to the proposed project. Noise An Acoustical Assessment Letter Update, dated December 3, 2012, was prepazed by Dudek to evaluate potential noise impacts created by the proposed Marquis II project to surrounding areas and noise impacts to the proposed project area. As the project would include 108 multi-family units and 10,000 square feet of commercial space, proposed land uses would be less intense than previously approved land uses based on anticipated traffic volumes. The acoustical report does not identify any significant noise impacts and 5-49 the mitigation measures contained within MND (IS-04-035) for the approved Village Six Mixed Use Project have been determined to be equally applicable to the proposed project. Public Services, Systems and Facilities Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. prepared an On-Site Sewer letter-report for Marquis II, dated February 24, 2012. It concluded that although the proposed Marquis II amendment would exceed the units foreseen in the 2009 Poggi DIF update, the limits of the required Developer Impact Fee (DIF) improvements remain the same. The cost related to the DIF improvements have been identified in the Poggi DIF program and the Marquis II Amendment project will be required to update the Poggi DIF study as a condition of approval for the project. The letter-report also verified that the existing onsite sewer system for Village 6 is adequate to serve the proposed project. V. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based upon the above discussion and substantial evidence in the record supporting said discussion, I hereby find that the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental Impact Reports adequate under CEQA. Je eic A ciate Planner Attachments: 1. Project Site Plan(s) 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for IS-04-035 and MMRP References: City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures City of Chula Vista General Plan Update Otay Ranch Village Six GDP and SPA Plan Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Technical Studies/Information for Marquis II Proiect Acoustical Assessment Report prepared by Dudek, dated May 24, ZO10 Air Quality Impact Analysis prepazed by Dudek, dated June, 2010 On-Site Sewer Analysis prepazed by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc, dated February 24, 2012 Drainage Study, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates dated September 13, 2012 Water Quality Technical Report, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated January 22, 2012 5-50 ' aELLEME M4P N® IL6~5 ~'4PN 6<3-651-OJ _.... .\ IEW PRBK WAY '_~_' Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Otay Ranch Village Six Mixed-Use Project PROJECT LOCATION: East Palomaz Street between View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue. ASSESSOR'S PARCELNO.: 643-051-23 and 643-051-24 PROJECT APPLICANT: Otay Project L.P. CASE NO.: IS-04-035 DATE OF DRAF'£ DOCUMENT: July 29, 2005 DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: August 29, 2005 BATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: September 7, 2005 Prepazed by: Mary Venables, Associate Planner/GreenStar Coordinator A. Proiect Setting j ~ The project site consists of two vacant undeveloped properties, a 3-acre pazcel and a 3.7-acre parcel in Village Six of the Otay Ranch Planned Community. The subject parcels aze located on the north and south sides of East Palomaz Street between View Pazk Way and Magdalena Avenue. (Refer to Exhibit A-Location Map)_ The project site is relatively flat and has been rough graded. Frontage roadway improvements are completed along East Palomar Street, View Pazk Way and Magdalena Avenue. Land uses surrounding the project site consist of the following: North: Neighborhood pool & recreation facility South: Pazk and school East: Multi-family residential with NE portion under construction. West: Multi-familyresidenfial B. Proiect Descriytion The proposal consists of an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) to increase the total number of authorized units in Village Six by approximately 97 units. Also included is a request to amend the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to rezone the existing 3.7-acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF-1) site to Mixed-Use (MU-Z) and to add a 1.5-acre CPF site (CPF-3) within the existing MU-1 pazcel to permit the development of 158 for-sale condominiums, including live/work units and approximately 20,000 square feet of ground floor commercial retail space. In addition, a Tentative Map (TM) revision So allocate the residential units for condominium sales 5-52 including a portion to be reserved as affordable for purchase by low-income households is a part of the proposal. - Prior Approvals and Environmental Documentation The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/SRP Program Final EIR (EIR 90-O1) and the Sphere of Influence Update EIR have previously addressed the development of Village Six. The Otay Ranch Pror~arn EIR was certified by the City Council and San Diego County Boazd of Supervisors on October 28,1993. The City of Chula Vista certified the Sphere of Influence Update E1R and Mitigation Monitoring Program on March 21, 1995. A Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (FE1R 98-O1) addressed the adoption of a Sectional Planning Area Plan for Village Six of the Otay Ranch. The impact area considered in this EIl2 totaled approximately 443 acres; this included 386 acres within the Village Six project azea and 56.3 acres in two borrowlstorage areas. The City of Chula Vista certified the Final Second Tier EII2 and Mitigation Monitoring Program in December2001. Environmental review for the proposed project has been required to address any potential environmental impacts beyond those originally anticipated in the Village Six EIR. This document is a tiered environmental document to the Village Six FEII2 98-01. The project proposal involves an increase in the total number of authorized units in Village Six from 2,086 units to 2,183 units. This represents an increase of 97 dwelling units that were not analyzed in [he certified E1R for the Otay Ranch Village Six and SPA. In the previous envizotunental document, FEIR 98-01, the 3.7-acre parcel was designated a Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site and the 3-acre site aMixed-Use site. 1n order to implement the groject proposal, a rezone of the 3.7-acre CPF site to Mixed-Use is necessary. C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans The site is located within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan with a Land Use Designation of LMV (Low-Medium Village Density Residential) and CPF-1 & MU-1 (Community Purpose Facility & Mixed Use) in the Planned Community (PC) Zone. The project is consistent with the regulations of the PC Zone and with the LMV General Plan designation. The project requires fhe approval of amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and a Tentative Map revision by the Planning Commission and City Council. D. Public Continents On May 12, 2005, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a. 500- foot radius of the project site. The public comment period ended on May 23, 2005. Staff received 7 verbal communications and 2 written communications from residents of the surrounding area. The majority of the public comments focused on the potential impact of affordable housing on property.values, as well as traffic congestion, pazking and increased density. The traffic issues are addressed in the technical study noted below. 5-53 On August 5. 2005, the Notice of Availability of the_ Proposed Mitigated Negative Declazation for the nroiect was posted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to urooertv owners and residents within a 500-foot radius of the oroiect site The 30-day public comment period closed on September 5, 2005. No written comments were received from the uu blic. E. Identification ofEnvironmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) 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 less than significant level. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepazed in accordance with Section 15070 of the State of California Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Air uali The proposed project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). To assess the potential air quality impacts of the proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP and Village Six SPA, Otay Ranch Village Su SPA ~4mendment; Supplementary stir Quality Report was prepazed by EDAW Inc., dated June 15, 2005. The results of this analysis are summarized below: Short-term Impacts The proposed project will result in an increase in air pollutants during the constmction phase of the project. Fugitive dust would be created during grading and construction activities. Although air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations aze potentially significant, they are considered short-term in duration since constmcfion-related activities are a relatively short-term activity. Dust control measures implemented during grading operations would be regulated in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the California Air Resources Board. FEIlZ 98-O1 identified significant temporary equipment exhaust emissions resulting from the construction of the Village Six SPA and mitigation measures 5.11-1 were required to mitigate short-term construction related air quality impacts to below a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures will be implemented during construction and placed as notes on all grading plans for development within Village Six to lessen short term impacts to a level of less than significant. Long-term Impacts Regional Air Quality The Supplementary Air Quality report determined mobile source emissions calculated for the proposed project would result in a minimal increase in pollutants above what was evaluated in FEIlt 98-01. The project air quality study projected a less than 10 percent increase in pollutants wZth the proposed condominium and mixed-use land uses. As indicated in the air 5-54 quality report, regional air quality conditions are likely to improve due to improvements in vehicle manufacturing standazds. Regional impacts to air quality would be less than significant. Local Emissions According to the Supplementary Air Quality report carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots" would not occur as a result of the proposal since there are no severely congested intersec$ons in the project site that would at operate at LOS E or F needed to result in hot spots. No significant local emission impacts were identified in FEIR 98-Oi Hydroloay and Water Quality To assess the potential hydrology, drainage and water quality impacts of the proposal, Otay Ranch Village b GDPJSPA Plan Amendment Drainage/Waier Quality Memorandum, dated Mazch 23, 2005 was prepared by Hunsaker & Associates. The results of this analysis are summarized below. Onsite Hydrology The onsite hydrologic analysis indicates that the proposed project will generate a minimal change in runoff from the anticipated flows reported in FEIR 98-O1. The Drninage/Water Quality memorandum indicates that the change in flow would not result in significant impacts to the stoma drain system- The onsite storm drain facilities would adequately accommodate the projected flow. t7ffsite Hydrology Lrr the Addendum to Master Drainage Study for Poggi Canyon Channel, prepazed by Hunsaker & Associates and dated March 24, 2004, the project site was considered commercial land use with a higher projected runoff than the proposed project. The current offsite analysis for the proposed project indicates a decrease in flows to the Poggi Canyon Channel due to the change in Land use thus resulting in a reduction in the impact previously anticipated. Water Quality Runoff from the project site is proposed to be routed to a storm water treatment unit located north of the site within Village 6. This downstream treatment unit would adequately accommodate the flow generated by the proposed proj ect. The City's Storm Water Management Standards and the adopted Standazd i3rban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) require the project applicant to prepaze a Water Quality Technical Report (WQTR) prior to submittal of grading plans. In compliance with the SUSMP the WQTR identifies pollutants of concern, incorporating on-site Best Management Prnctices (BMP's) and long-term maintenance provisions. x-55 -- These mitigation measures include the approval of a detailed drainage study prior to issuance of a grading permit, submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), erosion control measures on all disturbed azeas, plus erosion control measures in place during winter and spring months for the undisturbed azeas, and treatment of urban pollutants. As a result of compliance with these measures the impacts aze mitigated to a level less than significant. Noise To assess the potential noise impacts of the project, a supplementary noise report was prepared by EDAW Ina, Otay Ranch Pillage Six SPA Amendment: Supplementary Noise Report, dated Tune 15, 2005. The results of this analysis aze summarized below. Construction Noise Construction acfivities have the potential to cause short-term noise impacts to noise-sensitive uses adjacent to the project site (i.e., single family residences). Noise produced by construction equipment varies substantially depending upon the type of equipment being used and its operation and maintenance. Due to the presence of residential development in adjacent and surrounding azeas of the project site, the provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 17.24.050(.1], regarding construction noise applies to the project. This requirement would ensure that residents are not disturbed by construction noise during the most noise sensitive periods of the day. Noise-Land Use Compatibility The land use compatibility noise standard of 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) was used in the noise analysis presented in FEIR 98-O1 and the Supplementary Noise Report. The Supplementary Noise Report determined that the traffic noise level to the residences north and south of East Palomar Street on View Park Way would be 59 dBA CNEL and the traffic noise to those residences on Magdalena Avenue south of East Palomaz would be 62 dBA CNEL. Traffic noise levels at the edge of the right of way of the project site on East Palomar Street are projected at 65 dBA CNEL. The noise level threshold of significance will not be exceeded and no significant noise impacts will occur and no additional mitigation measures would be required beyond those measures contained in FEIR 98-O1. In conformance with the Village Six FEIR 98-01, the applicant will be required to submit an acoustical study demonstrating that exterior azeas aze below the 65 CNEL threshold. The proposal includes approximately 17,000 squaze feet of ground floor commercial retail space that may contain HVAC equipment. Mitigation measures in FETR 98-O1 require that noise levels from HVAC equipment shall not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance Standazds. The mitigation measure also requires preparation of a report demonstrating that the HVAC equipment is designed to insure compliance with the noise standazds prior to approval of building permits. Mitigation Measure 5.12.3 in FEIR 98-O1 will mitigate the impact to a level less than significant. Interior Noise 5-56 The State Uniform Building Code specifies that an interior noise study must be prepared whenever an exterior noise level at amulti-family residential unit is anticipated to exceed 60 CNEL. The noise study must demonstrate the structures are designed to limit interior noise levels to no more than 45 CNEL. Mitigation Measure 5.12-1c of FE1R 98-O1 requires such a noise study and thus would also apply to residences proposed on East Palomar Street between View Park Way and Magdalena Avenues and on Magdalena Avenue south of East Palomar Street. Implementation of this mitigation measure would mitigate interior noise impacts to a less than significant level. Traffic/Circulation To assess the po#ential traffic/circulation impacts of the project, a traffic impact analysis was prepazed by Wilson & Company, Otay Ranch - Yillage Six Mined Use Affordable/Market Housing Project Traffic Impact Study, dated Tune 9, 2005. As indicated in the project traffic study, trip generation for the project was determined by adjusting the previously planned community facilities Iand uses and incorporating the proposed 1S8 units. The project proposal is estimated to generate an additional 1,108 daily trips; including 93 AM peak hour trips and 115 PM peak hour trips. Roadway Segment Analysis Level of Service (LOS) analyses for nineteen key study area roadway segments determined that all would operate at LOS C or better with the exception of Magdalena Avenue, between Cobblecreek Street and Wellbrook Street and Magdalena Avenue between Wellbrook Street and East Palomar Street. These segments would operate at a LOS D, which is consistent with the City's traffic threshold and the Otay Ranch GDP Village Street System Policies and Mobility Objective. Therefore, the segment impact is considered not significant. Intersection Analysis The traffic impact study analyzed twelve key study azea intersections. The intersection at East Palomaz Street and View Park Way is the only study azea intersection projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS. All other study azea intersections would operate at LOS C or better. The additional traffic created by the proposed project would cause a cumulative impact at East Palomaz Street and View Park Way; therefore, a mitigation measure would be required at this location. In order to ensure an acceptable LOS, signalizafion at East Palomar Street and View Pazk Way is required as a mitigation measure. Site Access Access to the project site is proposed by means of five stop-controlled driveways, three along View Pazk Way and two along Magdalena Avenue. All project driveways would operate at acceptable leve]s of service and will be designed in accordance with City standards. Utilities and Service Systems Otay Ranch Village 6 Sewer ,Service Memorandum prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., dated April 19, 2005 provided an assessment of the onsite and offsite sewer facilities for 5-57 ~'" the proposed project. The project proposal will result in an increase in the average daily sewage flow of 18,440 gallons per day, approximately 70 additional EDUs beyond that which was originally estimated for the project site and considered in FE1R 98-O1. According to the City's Engineering Department, the onfite 8-inch gravity sewer line can fully accommodate the proposed increase in sewage IIow. No impacts aze anticipated. The offsite sewer analysis determined that upon completion of Reach 205 of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor, the system will have adequate capacity to serve the total committed EDU's plus the additional 70 EDLI's from the Village 6 Mixed Use project. The Engineering Department has indicated that project specific constmcfion and building permits aze contingent upon completion of Reach 205 of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor project, which is currently underway at this time. A mitigation measure stipulating completion Would mitigate offsite sewer impacts to less than significant. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Sienificant Impacts The following mitigation measures shall be made conditions of project approval where appropriate and/or shall be shown on all applicable demolition, grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate. Air Ouality 1. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction and placed as notes on all grading plans: ~~ a) Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units b) Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment c) Use electrical construction equipment as practical d) Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment e} Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment f) W ater the construction azea twice daily to minimize fugitive dust g) Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust h) Pave permanent roads a quickly as possible to minimize dust i) Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if available j) Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site prior to public road entry k) Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads 1) Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30minutes of occurrence m) Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred n) Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads o} Cover haul trucks or maintain at Ieast 12 inches of freeboazd to reduce blow-off during hauling p) Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per hour 7 5-58 Hydrolooy and Water Quality Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City Engineer shall verify that the grading or construction plans comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-O1 with zespect to construction related and permanenk,post-construction water qualitybest management practices (BMPs). 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be installed. Protective devices will be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Noise 4. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(7) of the Chula Vista Municipal- Code, project-related construction activities shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays. 5. Prior to project grading the applicant shall submit an acoustical study for approval by the Director of Planning and Building, which demonstrates that bamers or setbacks have been incorporated into the project design, such that noise exposure to residential receivers placed in useable exterior areas ar below 65dB CNEL. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit an interior acoustical ( study for approval by the Director of Planning and Building for those residential units anticipated to exceed 60 CNEL, as identified in the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA ' Amendment; Sugplementary Noise Report dated June 15, 2005. In conformance with the State Uniform Building Code, the required noise study shall demonstrate that the structures are designed such that interior noise levels, due to exterior sources, will be at or below 45 CNEL. 7. Prior to approval of building permits for commercial development, a report shall be prepared demonstrating that HVAC equipmen# is designed to insure that noise levels from the equipment will not exceed the City of Chula Vista's Noise Ordinance Standards. Traffic 8. The applicant shall install a fully activated traffic signal at the intersection of East Pa]omaz Street and View Pazk Way. The signal shall be installed at the direction of the City Engineer in conjunction with the construction permit for the proposed East Palomar Street modifications. Utilities and Service Svstems 9. Prior to final map approval, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that the Poggi Canyon Interceptor has adequate capacity to handle interim projected sewage flows or necessary upgrades to Reach 205 of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor are completed. 5-59_. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Oreanizations City of Chula Vista: Marisa Lundstedt, Plaruring and Building Rick Rosaler, Planning and Building Hazold Phelps, Planning and Building Mary Venables, Planning and Bulding Frank Rivera, Engineering SamirNuhaily, Engineering Dave Kaplan, Engineering Dino Serafini, Engineering Khosro Aminpour Beth Chopp, Engineering Mark Caro, Parks and Recreation Applicant/Property Owner: Otay Project L.P. Others: Otay Water District Chula Vista Elementary School District Chazly Bull and David Gottfredson, RECON 2. Documents The following documents are available for review at the City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue: City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989 (as amended) Title 19, Cfiula VistaMunicipaI Code Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report 98-O1, December 2001 Otay Ranch Village Six 5PA Amendment; Supplementary Air Quality Report, EDAW, Iune 15, 2005 Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Amendment; Supplementary Noise Report, EDAW, June I5, 2005 5-60 Otay Ranch Village 6 GDP/SPA Plan Amendment Drainage(Water Quality Memorandum, Hunsaker & Associates, March 23, 2005 Otay Ranch Village 6 Mixed Use Project Sewer Service Memorandum, Dexter Wilson Engineering, April 19, 2005 Otay Ranch -Village Six Mixed Use Affordable/Mazket Housing Project Traffic Impact Study, Wilson & Company, Tune 9, 2005 Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any continents received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regazding the environmental review of this project is available fzom the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. ~~~1~~~{~yvyL Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator ]:\PlanninglMaryVw-6~i5-04035MND, doc 10 Date: g ~ dS~ 5-61_ Exhibit A 5-62 ATTACIlMENT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (NIlVffZP) Otay Ranch Yi11aQe Six Mixed-Use Protect IS-04-035. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with the proposed Otay Ranch Village Six Mixed-Use project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declazation (IS-04-035) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines. The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declazations. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s): I. Air Quality 2. Hydrology and Water Quality 3. Noise 4. Traffic 5. Utilities and Service Systems MONITORIIVG PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator, and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting. Progzam aze met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer- Evidence in written form confimung compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declazation IS-04-035 shall be provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures contained in Section P, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-04-035, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification aze identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for morutoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. I~~Plan ningVv]aryV\V-bVS-~4-035mmnext doc 5-63 C @ E E 0 V d m F 9 m Q 9 n N O U 'c c v @ n m ~ u~ c ~a Q nn ~1° a , c m ~ ~ ~ u ~ c n n a R ¢a~ 4. (7 .~ Z o0 F 6U X 0 ~ c C C W 1 O~ O N X R p H` ~~ Q F ~ a v° X O Z ~ K ~ O F O °O me ~ ~ ~ 3 . O fy R<~ ac7_ ` Q m ~ v c m m m ~ E 3 m t° c° y m o m n ~"' Ew E c'S a E o m m o°- . a ' a 5> -°u ~ ~ ~ v_ m p ' m a m E n m o o : W n a W m o= rn ~ c , c= . nm g a m m o> N a n ~ ~_ me E p C K O O ry ~_ ~ O R J O U Y f a j E 9 c ~ a °' ~ "m ~ 6 N "= ~' m~ m- N i C O t n m O c c jp L W m ~~ N N ~ O E~ N j N G m L C C v ~ C U >. ]C m> > ~ ry O l0 N 7 a ' W 3 N O N '> q a 3 V V ?~ A W p C U p U~ 0 m W C ltl m N R Q N ' V N OI ~ d P O' 6~ ~ W m j O O C~ @ C° 3 ' C~ ~ a C m C '6 E N N L C 'O 6 {y~ O= @ T R R ~i RA °J C R N '~V HL m0 Rj `ya .~= E~ 7~ o ~m G C ° `~ C ° N. m no y3 ' ` ue m " a~ `o~ 1 ~ ~ W E . C 4 ° E @ E1 i 2 m - u rn C - _ u O d~ v ttl o E..- t` m t N N m Z. .c a N A E ' gy c R C ° ° C y N c V ; 9_ a -° m p ~._ c o ~ a 'E a, c W m pZ` m '^ N O ~ . "~ u- O m ° ~ m ° ~ o ~m ~ c n -T-a um m 3B ~ i 5 tm Q ~y -`' O m. .e :~ Ec ~ m v u - c o o~ uN rn m 3 W9 :um Ema mm . m= xL ' i ' ~ „ € L m mE a ~ - °' ` H~ 3 m m @ E = d N N v o ° '° 0 ° 3 o W ; i u v u y ` n E m • - , _ m , JTS O E N m @ m 7 @ J J R C m C N E n m A m ~ @} m W C E r O m 9 ° ~ 7 7 m 7 m R ~ ~ NE aE ~ m Qcn Sn KN rmN an U~-- N Q o a ~~ . i N a m ~~ E c o n 6 Y'~o n is a o v _, m C m L '- Y _ aZ a m W ~ .- m ~ ~ m m d R F m ~ m G 'o C v C c G E ° ~ - c c c c m U~ ~ U~ A >. a U~ C C R >, ~ U C C C R U °i C C R U O1 °1 u .7 R C ' ~ R ~' " >'GUm R p D~ ~"Gpm ~°-~ .7 ~Om an d- E m~ t 'RCN c m ~ m° c J ~ c ~ c m c m u ~ m non n_m nron n_m nrn n nGgm nrnaa nGGm n man nc m nrn a ° G ¢ao ¢a^ ¢wRo ¢WRO ¢Wm^ ¢ w ~o ~+J iv pJ yu ...r °p 4 U c w x cv o'u ~o t'o p x X X x s c ° ^U U pU o J ~ °° o x x x x J ac U 4 U U s f ~ ~ r ~ v C m C o C o Y C 0 C m C N o y N y O N D ~ p G ~ U U ~ V ~ G 0 6 R L N C y n N L C y 6 R L c o n R L M C° m R t t/nl m m m N aU5 aU° av5 aU5 aU5 $US .>`.ORmCN C m E U raCCCT NmA N.-r U ~m~0 RC>NO R WmAm ~L TLd L.~-~L "jUa Aplm~ C R L V O pi0 a o'maam >"i O L O m m c V H C~ 3 3 >.mcc yN= EO O T m'^c= c 'S„ m c m ` ~ T E P E E `pit m u E G R aF c~ m d ~ a a a m$ y a 3 E m... U c 0 ,.~ . ..u v m m'~ O n d_ n'"~""° J n m V o ~ C R S d m i6 V N N~ m N 0 C~ n°`on °~E E 0 O C m . . ° _ 'E c~ ~ ° ` ° ~ Z.R ~ c E= o h om Z' -R u n ND m ` am nnoiv ~„`o R y mm . ` °~v o u o m~a o m i~rN o N j L noarncma D ° ? ~ ~m ` p c nwa c umrna ..`o `° ycu Ro ~~-xa R a .~O m c > w_ rnNn U m c ~ N _ _ O m J ¢ i •pROCC ~~ N R O C dN a V ~> m 0 'n iUQTIn L R VORa t 6 .D 6 TOIWa m`1~ E U Z G N~• D d mmaOC C y C ~ U °i m O U C d b dU qa > n m a Oa a N d m R LL m 6 '[f ~. R L R m N C y D._ m0 ~ N a U E o m~ g N _ n C m O~=_ N R`. j'OO d Od ° L ' V N °L=O`m o q G~¢ °nm and ma ~ W U O j3 O RO d 2 m R r N O C v N c L N a m Ol R N 4.Z ~ R m m J r _C V m ¢~ U D a a ~ m~ c A R a G m F- ¢ L 6 p] J 0 m O r C N v m ~ r U m D 9 v i° >" m U W m o `9 $ m Z a` a m Da -3 o x ~ ~ j L r N n 3 m v- m c u L o m D~ m u u c = E ~ `" ° ° 'm ~ m a a c 9 m V m ~ a m a u K._ °_~> ' E z ~ a ~ N~ -- U . c o 3 U q ca c o u L V1 N R O c a m R dt m N~ ~ r m ,J O D m j U O Z 7 drotinu > ~. ~-Ny m_ o m c .`u am m E `o~~E._ vi° ° m a o Ep m vm"~W ~c -- rn v Z m `p mEmm m n ¢ } n U--oR N 3 T >i o. ~ . y u..Em _ d> G m E mm~a N O'~ O R avg'p m 9 L R N >i ._. _ u.~camRE-- C m !~ m_ a O~ p U > o O R SL Z U i N d'q ~ ~ J C U m d j L O U ~~ O O D.C O O d Et n'^ N G a nr O C C C p `o ` n G m V~ ° ~ U ~Ec.-cE p m~Qovm -o m°nt om> D. ' u _a m R Ea ls p ...n ~ _~mE ~ ~ o uu n7 o - Gm m Edo ~R RmU E~ E¢°i-^ : U ~ ...v oG N R R C R .. G uoEE '.__. " - C W UI m°-$AC D= R O rnc_cR S~ N y o_o ~Rmcd R 2~ a_ L °n~ .j R I O= u. ^ } m `p Dlcm EG D m m . C R ~ y m O- _ v p C T C G Z Ec=o ] J N O E _ N ~acom O U 9 n d m E~_+>.N N= O~ m C R ~p m t R p N ~m - °~ m> L Y S j O.W p_>Z nE n.a O. ._NdW Q.~ r Q. mQJd mR dN^JO Z.=_. N.=..R QaLmU F ~i vi v ~ri m r N R a S-6S i _, t N fC ~" m m d m >,a a "mw.. ~ mrn.. C a m a C a d C v = E ~ ~ = E p C Q~ m ' p C (ll q ~ " ma n Q m n rna n Q W~ O Q W m ~ n°p u O1J C x N co x vu x J u o X U f F- m C m t N O ~ p d C d n C W 6 dLN ao5 ryt av. N ~ d m~ E n~ o 0 _ _ T O13 pn ' c ~ .c m3m ' °U c N d O p C p- N N U~V ~ m d N m ~ m Ol a d J =m"a = p rnt 3a m a o m C m d 0 L V p m m C W 6 N _ m andE ~ ~ $a.- m o uNV$ m ~ W U :: urn a.E ~ 3~ ' v ~i t ~ o~ J m .29 T ~ p'o d c c dd of y , `y '° cEm meJ~ W oU~c ~.o c i6m,~" W > ' nn me-°a~ L C N "~w ` d N m o N ~E n -d m o .. p n U E N O rn~ d ^ t rn rn m N ~ Z L n rvTi m vm Q m m ~m U y m C p I . , ~ 7 ~ 4~ `p O n F rn W ay v ° m e W v 1 - m ._ N d p L y ` '-53vs ~ a hu~- Q; m J b mr 5-66 ATTACHMENT 10 OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM 5-67 ~ 1 acv or CHULA VISTA List the names of all persons. having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application, project or contract (e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier). APPLICATION APPENDIX B Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action on a matter that requires discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission or other official legislative body of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownerships or financial interest, payments, or campaign contributions must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1 2. 3. 4. 5 Carl Renezeder 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. Carl Renezeder 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. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you-have authorized to represent you before.the City in this matter. Doug Brooks Karvle Kelly Damian Taitano Planning & Building Department Planning Division ~ Development Processing Eric Armstrong Carl Renezeder Catherine Visichio 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 within the past 12 months. Yes ^ No ~_ If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official" may have in this contract. 5-68 276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista ~ California ~ 91910 ~ (619) 691-5101 f ~`~~/ ~y Planning & Building Department an or CHUTA VISTA Planning Division ~ Development Processing APPLICATION APPENDIX B Disclosure Statement- Page 2 6. Has any person "'identified in 1.,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 ®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 Q_ No ~_ If Yes, which official`* and what was the nature of item provided? 8. 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 more to an official"` of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? Yes ^_No ~_ DoUg Brooks Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant Person is identified 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 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 of legislative body. 5-69 276 Fourth Avenue ~ Chula Vista ~ California ~ 91910 ~ (619) 691-5101 If Yes. which official" and what was the nature of item provided? ATTACHMENT 11 PROJECT PLANS 5-70 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSIDERING THE ADDENDUM (IS-11-004) TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-04-035; APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN TO CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE MU LAND USE CATAGORY FROM 158 TO 206 FORA 6.97 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF EAST PALOMAR STREET BETWEEN VIEW PARK WAY AND MAGDALENA AVENUE. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the azea of land that is the subject of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached to and incorporated into this Resolution, and commonly known as Marquis, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 6.97 acres located on the north and side of East Palomar Street between View Pazk Way and Magdalena Avenue ("Project Site"); and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, a duly verified amended application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on December 6, 2011 by Oakwood Development ("Applicant"), requesting approval of amendments to the Otay Ranch General Plan and the Village Six SPA Plan to allow an increase in the number of allowable units from 158 to 206 for two mixed-use parcels located on the north and south side of East Palomar Street between East Park Way and Magdalena Avenue ("Project); and C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, development of the Project Site. has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including: 1) General Development Plan and Village Six SPA Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution Nos. 2005-345 and 225-346 on October 11, 2005; and 2) Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Districts Map approved by City Council Ordinance No. 3024 on October 25, 2005; and D. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was covered in Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 04-03) for the Village Six Mixed-Use J:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Mitigated East Palomar.doc 5/30YL013 9:30 AM 5-71 Resolution No. Page 2 Project. The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of subsequent documents have occurred; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared an addendum (IS 11-004) to this document, and E. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice 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 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 April 24, 2013 and voted. (4-0-1-1) to recommend the City Council approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on the Project held on April 24, 2013 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and, F. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing 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 hearing; 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 June 4, 2013 in the Council Chambers in the City Ha11, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, at 2:00 p.m. to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regazd to the same. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it finds, determines, and resolves as follows: J:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Mitigated East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:30 AM 5-72 Resolution No. Page 3 II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council finds that, in the exercise of their independent review and judgment, the addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 04-035) in the form presented, has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and adopts Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-04-035 . III. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS The City Council finds by clear and convincing evidence that: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Village Six General Development Plan reflects the land use, circulation system and public facilities that are consistent with the City's Genera] Plan. PLANNED COMMUNITY CAN BE INITIATED BY ESTABLISHEMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE. The proposed amendment to the Village Six SPA Plan only affects the 2.97 acre remaining vacant site known as Marquis II, which is in conformance with the Otay Ranch GDP and the Village Six SPA Plan policies and development regulations that were adopted by the City council in 2005. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH OR PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA; AND THAT THE SITES PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC FACLITIES, SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS ARE ADEQUATE TO THE SERVICE THE ANTICIPATED POPULATION AND APPEAR ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF. The proposed 108 multi-family residential units are high density (approximately 30.7 DU/AC). The proposed development will complement the existing mixed-use development located on the north side of East Palomar Street. The proposed density J:Wttorney\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Mitigated East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:30 AM 5-73 Resolution No. Page 4 and design aze compatible with the village core design principles which call for highest densities to promote pedestrian orientation and transit oriented development. In addition, the proposed project will provide a pedestrian connection from the Mazquis I site and the transit stop in the median of East Palomar Street through the project and to the Neighborhood Park (Santa Venetia Park). ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION. The 10,000 squaze feet of proposed convenience commercial will provide neighborhood serving commercial uses to the residents of the proposed project as well as surrounding residents and visitors to the area.. A retail market study prepared by the applicants consultant (The London Group) economically justifies this as the maximum squaze- footage of commercial than should be constructed on the site . THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED 1N COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVLOPMENT. The azea surrounding the project is fully developed. The site represents the only remaining vacant parcel in Village Six and will complete the development of the village core. IV. ADOPTION OF AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN In light of the findings above, the amended Otay Ranch General Development Plan is hereby amended as set forth and diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "B", approved and adopted in the form presented to the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. V. SPA FINDINGS A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ITS SEVERAL ELEMENTS. The proposed amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan reflect Mixed Use Land Use Designations that are consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The residential component of the proposed mixed use would be consistent with the other adopted high-density J:Wttorney\F'INAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Mitigated East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:30 AM 5-74 Resolution No. Page 5 residential uses within the village core. The proposed amendments are consistent with the previously approved plans and regulations applicable to surrounding sites and, therefore, the proposed amendments can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said development. B. THE SPA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS. The proposed Village Six SPA Amendments will promote the orderly sequentialized development of the SPA Plan area by allowing for the completion of the development within the village core area as contemplated by the SPA. C. THE VILLAGE SIX SPA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The proposed statistical amendment to the SPA Plan, will not adversely affect the circulation system and overall land use pattern as previously envisioned in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Village Six SPA Plan. An Addendutn to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. IS 04-035 has been prepared and any impacts associated with the proposed amendments have been previously addressed by Mitigated Negative Declaration IS 04-035. Thus, the requested amendments to the SPA Plan will not adversely affect the adjacent land uses, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality of the surrounding uses. The potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been thoroughly analyzed based upon the proposed project resulting in specific requirements that must be complied with at the time of development within the project area. This includes the required installment of a fully activated traffic signal at the intersection of East Palomar Street and View Park Way. IV. APPROVAL OF SPA AMENDMENTS Based on the findings above, the City Council approves the Village Six SPA Plan as amended shown in Exhibit "C" subject to the conditions set forth below: 1. The Project shall comply with all mitigation measures specified in MND IS 04-035, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. J:\Attomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Mitigated East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:30 AM 5-75 Resolution No. Page 6 2. The Applicant shall install all public facilities within the Village Six SPA Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan or as required to meet the Growth Management Threshold standazds adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such revision. 3. The Applicant shall implement the Federal and State mandated conservation measures outlined in the Water Conservation Plan of the Village Six SPA Plan. 4. Prior to the 30th day after the Resolution becomes effective, the Applicant shall prepare a clean copy of the SPA Plan document by deleting all strike out/ underlines and shading. Where the document contains bothan 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 Village Six SPA Plan shall be incorporated into the final document and approved by the Director of Development Services for printing. VII. VILLAGE SIX SPA REDUCTION IN AREA REGULATIONS While the common open space standards for the MU-1 site are not provided in the PC District Regulations, the established common practice is to use the most closely associated multi-family regulations. The RM-2 standard is 200 square feet of common open space per unit. The applicant is providing 9,535 square feet of common open space which is 12,060 square feet less than the minimum requirement based upon applying the RM-2 standard. Section II.3.9.3 requires the following findings in order to grant a reduction: THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT OR USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTED POLICIES OF THE CITY. The proposed project does not alter any land use designations in the Chula Vista General Plan, but is simply a reduction in common open space from 21,600 square feet to 9,535 square-feet, and common open space is a SPA level development standard. THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT OR USE IS CONSISTENT WITH, OR FOUND TO BE 1N SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH, THE VILLAGE SIX SPA PLAN, THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THESE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND THE VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN. J:\Attorney\F'INAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Mitigated East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:30 AM 5-76 Resolution No. Page 7 The proposed project, which includes a reduction in common open space from 21,600 square-feet to 9,535 squaze-feet is consistent with the purpose and intent of the SPA, PC District Regulations and Village Design Plan in that the reduction is offset by I) increase amount of private open space by 3,180 square feet beyond what is required; 2) providing 2,000 s.f. of off-site improvements in adjacent neighborhood park in conjunction with providing a connection to the pedestrian connection to the project; and 3) providing enhanced corridor plaza features which connects between. East Palomar Street to the north and Santa Venetia Park to the south, thus reducing the ability to designate any of this corridor area as common open space; THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT OR USE WILL NOT, UNDER 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 proposed project, with proposed reduction in common open space, will not be detrimental to health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The project does provide amenities such a tot lots, which typically occur within common open space areas; however, in this instance they are provided within the CPF plaza corridor area in order to be accessible as part of the community-wide feature connecting East Palomar Street and Santa Venetia Park. As a result of their placement within this plaza these amenities, could not be included in the project open space total. In addition, the connection to the neighborhood park will also necessitate the applicant providing 2,000 square-feet of improvements, but since the additional square footage will be located just inside the boundaries of the park, it cannot technically be counted towards common open space. THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT OR USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES AND OVERALL QUALITY OF DESIGN ESTABLISHED FOR THE OTAY RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY. The proposed plaza corridor being considered as Community Purpose Facility area within the proposed project is an enhancement of the requirement contained in the Village Six Core Master Precise Plan to provide a plaza with fountain feature mid-point along East Palomar Street within the project site. However, as the plaza area expands into the area between East Palomar Street and Santa Venetia Park, which is open to the community, the features such as tot lots included in this corridor, cannot be counted towards common open space even though they are essentially providing the same function as common open space. 1:\Attomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Mitigated East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:30 AM 5-77 Resolution No. Page 8 At the same time, the reduction in open space will not affect the provision of features such as tot lots as they will be provided within the plaza corridor. VIII. 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 terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of future building pennits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute, litigate or compel their compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by Applicant or successor in interest by the City approval of this Resolution. IX. 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 are 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 not further in force or in effect ab initio. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopt this resolution THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APOPT THIS RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITONS CONTAINED THEREIN. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council. /~ -~ Presented by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Gkn R. Assistant City Manager/Director of City At Development Services J:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Mitigated East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:30 AM 5-78 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DRC 12-OS) FORA PROPOSED MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 108 UNITS AND 10,000 SQUARE-FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL .USE ON A 2.97 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST PALOMAR STREET BETWEEN VIEW PARK WAY AND MAGDALENA AVENUE I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached to and incorporated into this Resolution, and commonly known as Mazquis II, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 2.97 acres ("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 December 6, 2011 by Oakwood Development ("Applicant"), requesting approval of a new mixed use project for the Project Site ("Project"); and C. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was covered in a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 04-03) for the Village Six Mixed-Use Project. The Development Services Director has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of subsequent documents have occurred; therefore, the Development Services Director has prepared an Addendum (IS 11-004) to this document; and D. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing 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 hearing; and J:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 ] 3\Planning -Design Review East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:39 AM 5-79 Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public heazing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on June 4, 2013 in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, at 2:00 p.m. to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it finds, determines, and resolves as follows: II. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS/ APPROVAL A. THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS CONDITIONED, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VILLAGE SIX PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND THE VILLAGE SIX CORE MASTER PRECISE PLAN. With the exception of parking and open space, Section II.3.4.5 of the PC District Regulations (Regulations) specifies that the property development standards that shall apply to all land and buildings permitted in the Village Core Districts shall be those indicated on an approved Design Review Application. The project will be providing a total of 262 parking spaces (covered, open and on-street) which exceeds the requirement to provide a total of 258 spaces. Because, because the Regulations aze silent on open space requirements for mixed-use, the established common practice has been to use the most closely associated multi-family (RM-2) regulations. Per section, II.3.3.4(G) multi-family units with 2 bedrooms require 80-square feet of private open space, and multi-family units with 3 or more bedrooms require 100-square feet of private open space (for a total 8,820 square feet required). In addition, section II.3.3.4(C) of the Village Six SPA requires a minimum of 200 square feet of common usable open space per unit (for a total of 21,600 square feet required). The applicant is providing a total of 12,000 squaze feet of private open space in the form of second floor decks. This exceeds the amount of required private open space by 3,180 square feet. Additionally, the applicant is providing 9,535 square feet of common usable open space, which is 12,065 square feet less than the minimum requirement based upon applying the RM-2 standard. The applicant is requesting, and staff supports the proposed reduction in common usable open space requirement which findings are discussed in the accompanying Resolution for the GDP/SPA amendment. J:\.Attorney\FINAL RESOSAND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Design Review East Palomat~.doc 5/30/2013 9:39 AM 5-80 Resolution No. Page 3 Additional required site plan elements are included in the Village Six Master Precise Plan approved by the Chula Vista Design Review on September 16, 2002, and the project is in compliance with most of these. As stated in the Precise Plan, the most stringent application of these standards should be applied to the project design facing East Palomar Street, which will contain the highest level of pedestrian activities. In addition, the Precise Plan does indicate that should refinements or adjustments be required to the provisions contained therein, the City Council (acting in place of the Design Review Committee) may consider such requests with which staff is in agreement. In the spirit of the design guideline's provision that the standards should be applied along East Palomar in the most stringent manner, the applicant has not requested any refinements along this frontage. Requested refinements include the following: 1) Refinement of the requirement of a village landmark building and central plaza area containing a minimum of 3,000 square feet with minimum width of sixty feet provided along East Palomar Street. Instead of a sixty-foot wide central plaza being provided with a single landmark building, the applicant is proposing a 40-foot wide central plaza that extends through the project site, connecting East Palomar Street to Santa Venetia Park. As noted previously, this plaza contains approximately 12,800 square feet, and has been amenitized to function as CPF space. Instead of a single "landmark" building, landmark features are the two main 1.5 story corners which flank the central plaza. 2) Adjustment to the parking setback off of View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue ranging from 12 to 24 feet. While the applicant is able to comply with the requirement to provide parking in the rear of the buildings facing East Palomar Street, the existing site constraints along with the resultant design, necessitates providing driveway access off of View Park Way and Magdalena Avenue. On site parking spaces are typically provided beginning just inside the driveway entrance, as is the case here. As a result, the applicant is proposing a setback of 7.5 feet for covered and 10 feet for open parking areas from these two streets. 3)Refinement of the requirement that the storefronts incorporate display windows, with a minimum of 70% glass. J:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Design Review East Palomar.doc 5/30/20] 3 9:39 AM 5-81 Resolution No. Page 4 The current design calculates at approximately 50% glazing which is appropriate for the European Style architecture proposed for the project. Historical buildings, which this style tries to mimic, were not typically 70% glass. That requirement is more appropriate for conventional retail, not mixed-use projects that are blending styles with a residential community. It should be noted that the percentage of glazing on the existing Marquis I - Live/Work building is 30 %, which is well below the 50% now being requested by the applicant. B. THE DESIGN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ARE CONSISTENT WITH, AND ARE A COST EFFECTIVE METHOD OF SATISFYING THE VILLAGE CORE CONCEPT OF THE VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, MASTER PRECISE PLAN AND THE CIT-Y OF CHULA VISTA DESIGN MANUAL AND LANDSCAPE MANUAL The project will comply with the design objectives outlined in the Main Street District section and accompanying design review checklist contained in the Precise Plan The proposed architecture for Marquis II complies with the requirements stated in the Master Precise Plan by keeping to the European Country architectural style. This is accomplished by providing key elements, such as steeped pitched hip roofs with flat concrete tiles, brick, stone and stucco. Stone & Brick has been used to mark key locations and focal points at the ground level. The two buildings are oriented so the architectural elements provide indoor and outdoor spaces, creating pedestrian nodes, which encourage public-gathering. At these gathering locations, the scale of the building relates to the pedestrian by providing one story elements that help break up the overall massing and scale of the building. Outdoor refuse and mechanical equipment have all been completely screened and located out of all pedestrian nodes. This has been accomplished by creating interior trash enclosures and mechanical wells. The materials and colors of Marquis II are in compliance with Exhibit 12 ("Main Street District Building Materials and Finishes") of the Master Precise Plan. The project incorporates flat concrete the roofing that is a mixture of rich colors that create the sense of rough, weathered and a randomly laid aesthetic. The wall materials consist of two colors of stone veneer matched to the adjacent project, stucco with a smooth hand- troweled finish or brick that is comprised of rich dark colors. A variety of windows have been provided that include multi-paned, arched, square, recessed, storefront systems, fixed and operable. Additional elements have. also been included such as awnings, shutters and metal flower boxes which allow for the use of accent colors. The implementation of these elements allow for a cohesive project .that relate to the surrounding community. J:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDRJANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Design Review East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:39 AM 5-82 Resolution No. Page 5 III. APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT Based on the findings above, the City Council approves the Design Review Permit subject to the conditions set forth below: A. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City, prior to issuance of the first building permit, unless otherwise specified. Planning: 1. Prior to, or in conjunction with the submittal of plans for the building permit, pay all applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit account DQ-1677. 2. The colors and materials specified on the building plans must be consistent with the colors and materials shown on the site plan and materials board approved by the City Council on June 6, 2013, or as subsequently modi5ed per their direction. 3. Concurrent with building permit submittals, the Applicant shall provide detailed landscape and irrigation plans prepared by a registered landscape architect for review and approval by the Director of Development Services or designee. Said plans shall be prepared in accordance with Landscape Manual and the CVMC requirements including Chapter 20.12, the Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. Plans shall include a "Concept Design Statement". that references the Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance. 4. Prior to the issuance of the improvement plan, the applicant shall specify "cool" paving for the parking stall paving at the open on-site parking lots to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services or designee. 5. Obtain the following permits for areas of off-site improvements within the Santa Venetia Park: a. A letter of permission to work offsite from the City of Chula Vista. b. An encroachment permit. c. A maintenance agreement for the HOA to maintain off-site improvements. d. Approved L & I plans for the improvements, including all reinstatement to the park, accompanied with a cash bond for the off-site improvement portion of the work J:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning-Design Review East Palomaz.doc 5/30/2013 9:39 AM 5-83 Resolution No. Page 6 6. Concurrent with building permit submittal, provide a detailed open space exhibit and accompanying landscape plans that clarify the construction details for each of the open space areas identified on said exhibit. Said exhibit and plans shall be in substantial accord with those approved by City Council on June 6, 2013. 7. All ground mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City. 8. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This shall be noted for any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 of the CVMC regarding graffiti control. 9. The Applicant shall develop, submit and obtain approval of "Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan" by the City's Conservation Coordinator. The synopsis of the plan shall be included in the notes on the Building Plans. The plan shall demonstrate those steps that the Applicant will take to comply with the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Sections 8.24 and 8.25, and meet the State mandate to reduce or divert 50 of the waste generated by commercial, residential and industrial developments. The Applicant shall contract with the City's franchise hauler throughout the construction and occupancy phase of the project. The Plan shall include a statement of how the Applicant will implement and participate in the Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan requirements and how yard waste will be diverted. The proposed trash enclosures shall be designed with appropriate screening. 10. The Applicant shall implement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director and the City Engineer all applicable mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-04-035), and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 11. Per Section 19.09.060(]) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the Applicant shall enter .into an agreement with the City that will provide funding to the City for years two through eleven based upon the Fiscal Impact. Analysis prepared for the project which indicates how expenditures generated by the Project exceed projected revenues during this time period. The amount paid shall be the net difference between the deficit generated by the previously approved project and that currently being proposed. J:\Attomey\F'INAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Design Review East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:39 AM 5-84 Resolution No. Page 7 12. The applicant shall work with the City to provide signing and green curb for parking along East Palomar Street. However, if it is determined that such signing of spaces is not adequate to alleviate the problem of long-term parking by residents or others (based upon complaints received by the City) the item would come back to the City Council for their consideration of installation of parking meters. Land Develonment En ing Bering 13. Applicant shall pay the following fees: a. Sewer Capacity Fees b. Traffic Signal Fees c. Development Impact Fees per Master Fee Schedule 14. The applicant shall update the 2009 Poggi DIF study. 15. Applicant shall upload copies of the Street Improvement Plan, Grading Plan, Final Map and Site Improvement Plan in digital format such as AutoCAD DWG or DXF (AutoCAD version 2000 or above), ESRI GIS shapefile, file, or personal geodatabase (ArcGIS version 9.0 or above). The files should be transmitted directly to the GIS section using the city's digital submittal file upload website at http://www.chulavistaca.gov/goto/GIS. The data upload site only accepts zip formatted files. 16. Applicant shall obtain an approval by the City of Chula Vista, of an encroachment permit for all temporary improvements (such as fence, asphalt ramps, signs, etc.) located in street right of way, city easements or City owned Open Space Lots. 17. Applicant shall pay the current Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fee per dwelling unit in accordance with CVMC 17.10.100. 1B. Applicant shall obtain a Land Development Permit in accordance with Municipal Code Title 15.05. Applicant shall submit Grading Plans in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual and the City's Development Storm Water Manual requirements, including, but not limited to the following: a. Grading Plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. b. Drainage Study and Geotechnical/Soils Investigations are required with the first submittal of Grading Plans. The Drainage Study shall calculate the Pre- Development and Post-Development flows and show how downstream properties J:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Design Review East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:39 AM 5-85 Resolution No. Page 8 and storm drain facilities are impacted. Design shall incorporate detention of storm water runoff if Post-Development flows exceed Pre-Development flows;. analysis shall include flows from 2 yr, 10 yr, and 50 yr return frequency storms. c. Drainage study shall also demonstrate that no property damage will occur during the 100-year storm event. d. All onsite drainage facilities shall be private. e. Any offsite work will require Letters of Permission from the property owner(s). 19. Applicant shall enter into a Storm Water Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement to perpetually maintain private BMP's located within the project . 20. Applicant shall obtain an approval by the City of Chula Vista,. of an encroachment permit for all temporary improvements (such as fence, asphalt ramps, signs, etc.) located in street right of way, city easements or City owned Open Space Lots. 21. Applicant shall submit Improvement Plans in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual and a Construction Permit will be required prior to issuance of any Building Permits. The Improvement Plan shall include but not be limited to: a. Removal and replacement of any broken or damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk per SDRSD G-2, and G-7 along the project's frontage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sidewalks shall be designed and constructed with proper transitions to existing conditions. b. Additional asphalt paving for the replacement of the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk c. Removal and replacement of existing pedestrian ramp on the comer of East Palomar and Magdalena and View Parkway per Chula Vista Construction Standard CVCS-25. Current pedestrian ramp shall be replaced, if it does not meet the City of Chula Vista Design Standards/ADA Standards, or if existing pedestrian ramp is cracked or broken. d. Installation of 4 driveway(s) meeting design standards as shown in Chula Vista standard detail CVCS-1B. Dedication of R/W as needed in order for driveway to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) requirements. e. Utilities Trenching and Restoration per CVCS-3 & 4. 22. Prior to first submittal of grading plans, Applicant shall provide 2 copies of the following technical reports with the ls' submittal of grading plans: a. Drainage Study b. Water Quality Technical Report (WQTR) o. Geotechnical Report Building: 23. Plans shall comply with Title 24 and 2010 California Building Code (CBC), California Mechanical Code (CMC), California Plumbing Code. (CPC), California J:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Design Review East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:39 AM 5-86 Resolution No. Page 9 Electric Code (CEC), California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) and 2008 Califomia Energy Code. Fire: 24. Comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department including the following: a) Indicate how the Project will provide a fire flow of 8,000 gallons per minute fora 4-hour duration; Show construction type and square footage of enclosed parking garage based on Table 503; 3) provide a water flow letter indicating the required fire flow is available to serve this project; 4) provide a water supply analysis (technical report for review and approval. This report shall be a node to node analysis using the Hazen-Williams formula. The analysis shall show that the required fire flow is available at the hydrants and that simultaneously, the sprinkler demand is available at the most demand sprinkler riser; 5) provide fire hydrant plan showing a minimum of 8 hydrants with spacing no greater than 300 feet apart; 6) provide two Knox appliances to the buildings; 7) address the buildings in accordance with lettering size criteria provided by the Fire Department; and 8) protect the Project throughout by an approved automatic fire sprinkler and fire alarm system. B. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the property as long as it relies on this approval: 25. This permit shall become null and void and if not used or extended in accordance with Section 19.14.600 of the Municipal Code. 26. All landscape and hardscape improvements shall be installed-and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. 27. Applicant shall remain in compliance with all applicable conditions of approval for Tentative Map No 02-05. 28. Applicant shall remain in compliance with all requirements of State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity, and any subsequent re-issuances thereof. In accordance with said Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Monitoring Program Plan shall be developed and implemented concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall specify construction structural and non-structural pollution prevention measures. J:\Attomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Design Review East Palomaz.doc 5/30/2013 9:39 AM 5-87 Resolution No. Page 10 29. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of the Municipal Code, and other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 30. 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 and issuance of this Design Review Permit 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 Design Review Permit 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. This condition may be modified by the Zoning Administrator subject to input from the City Attorney Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use of the subject property in reliance upon this approval, the Applicant/Representative and property owner shall execute this document by making a true copy of this resolution and signing both this original letter and the true copy on the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the Applicant/Representative and Property Owner have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement the same. Upon execution, the true copy with original signatures shall be returned to the Project Manager in the Development Services Department. Failure to return the signed copy of this document within thirty days of the effective date hereof shall indicate the Applicant's/Representative's or Property Owner'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 Signature of Applicant Date Date 7:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES\2013\06 04 13\Planning -Design Review East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:39 AM 5-88 Resolution No. Page 11 IV. 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 terms, 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 under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigate or compel their compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by Applicant or successor in interest by the City approval of this Resolution. V. 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 are 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 not further in force or in effect ab initio. -, Presented by Gary Halbert, AICP, PE Assistant City Manager Approved as ,s :Glen R. Gbeg City Attorney J:Wttomey\FINAL RESOS AND ORDINANCES~2013\06 04 13\Planning -Design Review East Palomar.doc 5/30/2013 9:39 AM 5-89 '.'{ City Council Meeting June 4, 2013 Agenda Item 5 To follow Page 5-78 EXHIBITS A, B AND C FOR RESOLUTION APPROVING GPD/SPA AMENDENTS To follow Page 5-89 EXHIBIT A FOR RESOUTION GRANTING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT EXHIBIT A ~u u~ ucm ~~'' ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~ e 1 r ~ ~~ ~ `~U ~J~,e\C ~1~-BIOi~ DR ~ 1 e ~~~ ~~ ~~ o "OJN ~~~ i ~ ~ ~~ 1 p' 1 `'"~ ~~ ~ FAA EST 1 F ,.p 1 A9~0 CY~ cN ~0 1 ~i9 ~ ~ EYSp 1 SST ~ ~ L< o i °Mq~s 7 0 401 ~I J 1 ' R U~ J ( r o ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~' Rp g~ e ~~e ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ PROTECT ~F<<~ ~ ~~ °° LOCATION ~=e ~ksT ~'~ ,. o~ 1 r cosB F r `' ° ~ '( . R Fks2. . ~ o" 1 o ( ~G PSS 1 SPNS PVEN~ 5 ~ ~O ~ 1 ~ I v 1 z ' p 1 LOCATOR ~ 9 ~ t BIRE~ D O 1 NORTH ! LOCATOR MAP EXHIBIT B Village Six Dwelling Units Acreage A x Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park" CPFk° Sch. C'ml. OpeD Sp. ~ Art. Total ppro ~ P0p' LMV 941 941 4.9 206.3 11.5 217.8 3,011 MU 206 206 30.7 - 6.7 7.6 2.2 ,~ 16.5 Mg 1,291 1,291 18.0 69.0 10.0 79.0 3,292 OTHER 22.0 58.3 80.3 TOTAL 941 ~~ 1,497 o,a~n 2 438 ~ 8.6 ~ 2-753 282 7.6 13.7 10.0 ~ 22.0 58.3 393.6 6,,86 6 830 *Part of park acreage requirement have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined a[ the SPA Level Pazk acreage based on ratio of 3.G acres per 1000 persons. # *Actual CPF acreage to be determined at the SPA level; CPF acreage bazed on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. - ***Commeicial included as component of residential acreage. EXHIBIT 49 VILLAGE SIX LAND USE TABLE EXHIBIT C ~' r._ f l 1.., .~ :' Lund Use summary Table ~ ~~}~ V`'~IZ~t(Op~ ~.~~~ RESIDENTIAL - 4 ` Nefghhorlrood Land Use Acreay. Units O<nsfty - R-1 SF 26.2 " 1p6 d.0 R 2A 5F 79.0 52 q 6 R 2H SF 21.3 ~ 116 ~ 5,4 P.-3 SF 35.6 159 d.5 R-4 SF 20.4 92 q_6 R-5 SF - 16.6 IDj 6] R-6 SF '+O.d 136 6 ~ Sub[ota15F 159,5 796 - 5.0 R-]A MF 7.0 gp 1ig f R-7H A1F 10.6 201 18.6 R-3 h1F 11.7 293 28.7 R-9AI0 MF 21.6 188 8.6 R-9H - MF 12.7 - 255 20.8 - ' R-70 MF 1211 212 175 Subtotai,MF 76.1 1,239 t6.9 206 30_) _ '~r"r:3 i, . Subtolai Rezldential 242J -E,i43- g,; ~' 2,241 ~'~ \ R-11 SF (All l0 5 2) 3~.5 1d6 4 5 '~~ Total Rezldenlul 274.8 -2;dd4- 6-7 ice'- -. '.I{-. ,\, Nan-Rexidmlial 23~l •~•~ S'•M1. CPFd CPF 1.5 q lip- `-~ CPF-:bx CPF 0.] ~ ~~ llh~ CPF-2 CPF 11.5 s-] senanl 10.0 ~~ R-6 .,'t~ =- 5-2 PrHace Mgh School (Sea R-01) t~ot.y L,r,`. os Openspaae 2zo oe'~ ~~ R-9ald j CircuSlion sea CPF-1 7OTAl. - ~ 386.d ~s3g- 6.2 \ ~L_ . •+~~, . 2,36J ~. Mif-2 ' ",,' CPF-3l- q~ R-7a \ R-8b kl i R-7b MU,{ Nw..: t Au7 Iw.w~p aPa R4+ mur.arn ~ R3 ~ i P 3. mi.~~-, aaubm Illal may •~ b'C3,h/ellld to CRF UbI aF allreehre n-a,mo ~orao.;~.aWmxaad , ~?"~ P.{ R-iD I , cxlr+nTlo~x^?^+~• urcd mer J~ ~ I 2 k-tt m noel ndu wh2h 9 os rtrNS the'~I Oxl p~vafc hghxh0ot, m .ay Fyne boe,aur trMem erF a.a a-„ ~ ~~' 5-1 ~~ .. maim rMm a nag hnv dnalad . vlmhi,l acr~,eto~c ~ y R~ 1~ .'. R-4 ~~ )- ;~ i~ . 3 SV[+wa la b.npNin wtxfennat ~ ~ S wnonw w. r.s mayae.6rod ~ '{„+ ow6v}lhen hbvaton cm ceu. ~ / ~ 4 •CPF-] (t 6A I Indudetl In MU-1 sl1e. ~ ~ R-0 ~ / \ ~ 1 ~~ ' ~ k-m, R-{415-2 ~~~ ''t+l : ~ 11,\•, it _ ~._ ~~ 1 R-2a R-2b /II CPF-2 \; I I ;''' ac -_ ';'I v'~~ •~~~ i 3' ~,~ ~YHa~~ ~1~ ~-=L~-~ Fly n-~ihsct OTAY RANCH i J snlos Exhibit 5 EXHIBIT A: ~~~~~ t ~~ ~-c ~~ ~/v~//m ~ ~~ p~~lr~ JN V~~ION DR ,j/ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ '~~ F<A EQ~-I 11j ] l ~9`p~ ~~ N LL 'E~Y~~"' -i~"(~"jT~~j~~~p ~ ~ -~ ~ .9~Sj ~ ~1.LIyL.i1i1~-'~~ Q ~ °Mit~s r o ~ ~ ~t Q~, k v~ ~ ~ ts3~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~~ ~ t ! ®®g ~ ~ReN"~A~PC ~ ®® ,~ i p ~ ~~'1 ~ ~F<<eRp ~ ! PROTECT ~ `~' ~~ ~ ' °~ LOCATION =~ pKST ~" ae ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Oea F i ~ o ~ RF ~ ~ 1 i kST. ~a 0 G t J~\P'~ 51 Gip ~ SpN 6E~ y ~ Z y O LOCATOR ~ ~ q i ~ BIR~~ ~ o NORTH ~ n . LOCATOR MAP