Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2002-088 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-088 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as Exhibit "A," attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 02-03 and 02-05, and is commonly known as Village Six ("Property"); and WHEREAS, an application to amend the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan ("Project") was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on February 18, 2002 by Otay Project, L.P. ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the applicant requests to amend the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to re-designate Neighborhood R-7a from SF-4 to RM-2 and reallocate 47 Dwelling Units from Neighborhood R-9a to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b; and WHEREAS, Village Six is located in the north-central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of the future extension alignment of Olympic Parkway, north of the future Birch Road, east of the extension of La Media Road and west of the future SR-125; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said heating, 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, this Project is considered a subsequent action in the program of development evaluated under the Village Six SPA Plan Final EIR 98-01 (Final EIR 98-01); and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has determined that the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified in the Final EIR 98-01. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to Final EIR 98-01 has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan conform to the policies found in the Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan; and Resolution 2002-088 Page 2 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., March 13, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said public hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, by a vote of 6-1-0 (Thomas opposed) the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the amendments to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on March 13, 2002, and the minutes and resolutions resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims. II. ACTION The City Council hereby approves the amendment to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan (Exhibit "B"). III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Addendum to FEIR 98-01, would have no new effects that were not examined in said Addendum (Guideline 15168 (c)(2)). IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the Project from FEIR 98-01 which would require revisions of said environmental report; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken since the previous environmental report; and (3) no new information of substantial importance to the Project has become available since the issuance and approval of the prior environmental report; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to those already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City Cotmcil approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered by the FEIR 98-01 (Guideline 15168(c)(2) and 15162(a)). Resolution 2002-088 Page 3 V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the Addendum prepared to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 98-01, identified as Exhibit "C" in this resolution reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts the Addendum to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 98-01. VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings adopted in the Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR 98-01. VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the Addendum to FEIR 98-01, which adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA (Guideline 15168(e)). VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan based on the following findings: A. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The Project, which is intended to reallocate dwelling units from Neighborhood R-9b to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b is consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan in that goals and policies in both documents allow for such reallocation, and the overall number of dwelling units is consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. B. THE AMENDMENTS WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY, SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE VILLAGE FIVE CORE. The Amendments contain provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of Village Six in that all required and necessary changes have been condition to be made to the applicable documents to ensure orderly development. C. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. Resolution 2002-088 Page 4 At present the portion of Village Six where Neighborhoods R-7a, R-7b and R-9b exist is not adjacent to any existing land uses. The proposed changes are of the same scope and impact as the adopted Village Six SPA Plan. IX. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "D," attached hereto. X. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN The City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the conditions set forth in Section VI and Section IX listed above and based upon the findings and determinations on the record for this Project. XI. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to he so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further condition issuance of all future building permits issued under the authority of the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. XII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenfomeable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by Planning and Building Director ~'City Attorney Resolution 2002-088 Page 5 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 26th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Padilla, Salas and Horton NAYS: Councilmembers: Rindone ABSENT: Councilmembers: None Shirley Hort~, Mayor ATTEST: Donna Norris, Assistant City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Donna Norris, Assistant City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-088 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 26th day of March, 2002. Executed this 26th day of March, 2002. Donna Norris, Assistant City Clerk EASTLAKE GREENS COUNTRYSIDE LOMAS VERDE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL VILLAGE 11 Ncighborhood R-7 VILLAGE 6 VILLAGE 2 PROJECT LOCMION VILLAGE 7 EASTERN URBAN CENTER [HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMEN' LOCATOR ..o~cT  FILE NUMBERS: PRO~ECT'"'PPUC'~'~: OTAYRANCH COMPANY SUBDIVISION PCM-02-20 & .~.ESS: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 6 Otay Ranch Company PCS-02-03 ~ Village 6 Tentative Map ._ NORTH No Scale C:\DAIFILES\locators\PCSO205.cdr 02/22/02 Site Utilization Plan" ! Village Six Exhibit 5 i4 0~ lJ 2.1~lh ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN EIR-98-01 SCH #2001041033 PROJECT NA31E: Olay Ranch Village Six Sectional Plarming Area Plan PROJECT LOCATION: City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICA2qT: Olay Project L.P. DATE: March 7, 2002 I. INTRODUCTION This addendum has been prepared to provide additional information to the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report 98-01 ("FE1R") for the Olay Ranch Village Six Sectional P]arming Area Plan Project ("Project"). As the lead agency for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), the City of Chula Vista ("City") has prepared and conducted an environmental analysis of the Project. A Notice of Preparation was issued on April 5, 2001. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was publicly circulated on September 28, 2001. After a 45-day public comment period, the City prepared responses tu those comments and included them in the FEIR. The City. Council approved the Project and certified the FEIR on January 22, 2002. The FEIR evaluates the environmental effects of the adoption of the Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan for Village Six and the amendment of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan ("GDP"). Specifically, this amendment was for the redesignation of Birch Road tu a six-lane major arterial between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway. The FEIR also included an evaluation of two Conceptual Tentative Maps and the use of an area as a church and private high school. A previous addendum was prepared by the City of Chula Vista to address the mass grading of fill material on the Olay Ranch ComCany property of the Village Six project site. This fill material was extracted during drainage and roadway improvements on 0]3mqpic Parkx~,ay between SR-125 and the SDG&E easement and mass graded on the Otay Ranch Company porlion of the Village Six project site, raising the site's elevation approximately 3 to 8 feet. The addendum concluded that the mass grading for the placement of fill on the Village Six site did not cause any new or more severe physical impacts nor did it require any additional mitieation that was not already addressed in the DEIR. Therefore, the analysis and conclusion~ presented in the FEIR did not change as a result of the mass ~ading. A modification to the SPA Plan for Otay Ranch Village Six has been proposed which would permit the development of multi-family units in Neighborhood 7a. Figure 1 shows the proposed tentative map for the Otay Ranch Company property on Village Six. This addendum has been prepared to provide additional environmental information and analysis concerning the proposed modification of the SPA Plan. II. CEQA REQU1-R~MENTS Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines discuss a lead agency's responsibilities in handling new information that was not included in a project's final environmental impact report ("ERR"). Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines provides: (a) The lead agency or responsible 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 ora subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provides: (a) When an ERR 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 fo lowing: I. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous ERR or negative declaration due to the inx'olvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in lhe severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur w/th respect to the circumstances under which 'the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous ErR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new si~m~ificant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of prex-iously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, wkich was not known and could not ha;,e been 'known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative decla-ation was adopted, shox~s any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the [Final] EIR; (B)Sig-aificant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the [Final] EER; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives 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 ~ ~g~o~oo~.~opo~.,o ~ ~m~. FIGURE 1 ~ ~l~ Proposed Tentative Map for the o~o Otay Project L.P. Portion of Village Six proponents decline lo adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (b) (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the [Final] EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. In the event that one of these conditions would require preparation of a subsequent EIR but "only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the [Final] EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation," the lead agency could choos4 instead to issue a supplement to the Final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15163, subd. (a).) Thus, the City must consider under the standards articulated above whether there will be previously undisclosed significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously disclosed impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162, 15163, 15164, subd. (a).) As the discussion below demonstrates, implementing the Project with the modifications to the SPA Plan for Village Six would result in no new environmental impacts, or no more severe impacts, than were disclosed in the FEIR for the Project. Therefore, it is appropriate for the City to prepare an addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15164. Section 15164 states that an addendum should include a "brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant Io Section 15162" and that the explanation needs to be supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, subd_ (e).) The addendum need not be circulated for public review but may simply be attached to the Final EIR. (Ibid.; CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, subd. (c).) Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following Addendum 1o the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report for the olay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan. III. PROJECT SETTING The Village Six project area is located in the north-central portion of the Olay Valley Parcel of the Olay Ranch General Development Plan. The Village Six SPA project area includes approximately 386.4 acres and is bounded by the proposed alignments of SR-t25 on ~he eas~, Olympic Parkway on the north, La Media Road on the west, and Birch Road on the south. The VilIage Six SPA impact area as addressed in lhe EIR totals 442.7 acres. This includes 386.4 acres within the project area and 56.3 acres in two borrow/storage areas. One borrow/sto[age area is east of the SR-125 aliemnent at the northeastern comer of the site and the second is south of Birch Road in the-south central pon/on of the site. The property is mostly comprised of fallow fields, with intermittent dirt roads, disturbed drainages, and a few fences. Recent use of the site includes ranching, grazing, dry farming, and track farming activities. The project site is currently vacant. The land sm. wounding the project area is also mostly undeveloped. The northern boundary of the project site is Olyrnpic Parkway, which is under construction. Just north of the Olympic Parkway construction, Village Five is also currently under construction. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Otay Project L.P. proposes to amend the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan to modify the dwelling unit densities within neighborhoods R-Ta, To,and 9b. These changes are reflected in Tentative Tract No. 02-05 and include the following: 1. A modification of the zoning of Neighborhood R-7a from SF4 (single family) to RM2 (multi family) to permit the development of multi family homes in Neighborhood R-Ta; 2. A modification of the boundary between Neighborhoods R-Ta and R-TO; 3. The transfer of 23 units from Neighborhood R-9b to Neighborhood R-7a; and 4. The transfer of 24 units from Neighborhood R-gb to Neighborhood R-TO. This amendment proposes 941 single family and 1,291 multi family units, reflecting an 88-unit change in the residential mix. The revised land use designations for the Village Six SPA Plan and neighborhood boundaries between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-To are shown in Figure 2_ V. ANALYSIS The proposed modifications to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan addressed in this addendum (and described above) would result in some changes to the Village Six project that have the potential to result in new or different impacts than that which were described in the FEIR for the SPA Plan. In all but one case, the changes to the project would reduce the potential effects that were described in the FEIR. None of the proposed changes to the Village Six SPA plan would result in either a change in significant impacts or the adopted mitigation measures. A summary of the potential impacts due to the modifications to the Village Six SPA plan are discussed below. Land Use The land use changes addressed in this addendum would have no effect on the impacts and conclusions described in the Land Use section of the FEIR. The proposed SPA amendment increases the number of multi-family units within the village core at a density Ihat provides a transition between the higher density multi-family and the sin_ole-family neighborhood to ~he west. The proposed modification to the SPA Plan ~vould be consistent xvith the City of Chula Vista General Plan designations. The proposed 4 Proposed Site Utilization Plan lbr the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan amendment would also be consislent with the goals and policies of the Olay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the land use designation identified in the Village Six SPA Plan as described in the FEIR. The modified zoning designations would not result in any new land use compatibility issues and would not conflict with any applicable management or conservation plans. Population and Housing The elimination of 88 single family units and the addition of 88 multi family units, as proposed by the SPA Plan amendment, would not result in a change in the total number of units in Village Six. In addition, the same population generation rate (3.0i persons/unit) is used for both single family and multi family homes in the FEIR. As a result, the anticipated population would remain the same and the proposed changes would therefore, have no impact on the potential for exceeding area population and growth projections. Traffic The Traffic Impact Analysis for Olay Ranch Village 6, prepared by Linscott, Law, & Greenspan and dated September 20, 2001, establishes a traffic generation rate often trips per unit per day for single-family homes and eight trips per unit per day for multi family homes. Given the numbers above as provided in the FEIR, this proposed SPA amendment would result in a total decrease of 176 trips per day. Noise The FEIR determined that residential development within the Village Six area would be exposed to si~m~ificant impacts from roadway noise and requires mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The changes associated with the proposed SPA amendment would not affect the noise determinations made in the FEIR. The construction of multi family homes adjacent to Olympic Parkway in the area originally designated for single family homes has the potential to place balconies overlooking the roadway. It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista to require that balconies be designed so that noise levels are below 65 dBA CNEL. The application of noise mitigation measures 5.12-1 through 5.12-5, as detailed in the FEIR, including the requirement for multiple story buildings with balconies, would ensure that there is no si~ificant noise impact. Public Services and Utilities in addition to traffic, several other issues would have a decreased effect as a result of the propsse, d SPA Plan amendment. The environmental issues of sewage generation, potable water demand, and recycled water demand, as presented in the FEIR, are also contingent upon the number of single family and multi family units. According to the FEI]~, single- family homes have a higher generation rate for sewage generation, and potable water than do multi family homes. Se~*'cr: As noted in the McMillin-Otay Ranch l"illage Six Grax'it), Se~a'er Study and the Ovem.iew of Sewer Sera,ice for O~ay .Ranch Company k'illage S&, the sewage generation rate is 265 gallons per day (gpd) per unit for single-family homes and 199 gallons per day (g'pd) per unit for multi family homes. The proposed SPA. amendment would result in a decrease of approximately 5,808 gpd in sewage generation as compared to the adopted Village Six SPA Plan. This represents a one percent decrease in the total amount of anticipated sewage generation for the entire Village Six project. The degree of-this reduction is negligible. Therefore, the impacts associated with this issue would remain' unchanged from those presented in the FEIR. lI~ater: According Io the Subarea Master Plan for Otay Ranch Villages Six, SeYen, and Planning Area !2, Volume l: Conceptual Facilities Plan and the McMillin Village Six [fater Facilities Plan prepared by John Powell and Associates, the potable water generation rate is 420 gpd per unit for single-family homes and 294 gpd per unit for multi family homes. The proposed SPA amendment would result in an overall decrease in water use by approximately 11,088 gpd decrease in the potable water generation would result from the proposed SPA Plan modification. This represents a 1.3 percent decrease in the total amount of anticipated sewage generation for all of Village Six. The degree of this reduction is negligible. Therefore, the impacts associated with xvater resources would remain unchanged from those presented in the FEIR. Recycled water: The issue of recycled water is based upon the number of acres of multi family use. Since single-family homes do not use recycled water, the modifications to the SPA plan would result in an increased demand for recycled water. According to the FEIR, multi family units have a recycled water generation rate of 2,232 gallons per day (~pd) per irrigaled acre. The proposed addition of 1.8 acres of multi family units results in a 4,018 gpd per irrigated acre increase in the recycled water demand. This increase represents a 3.3 percent rise in the recycled water demand for the entire SPA Plan area. Th/s increase is negligible. As stated in the FEIR, the use of recycled water has been p]armed for by the Otay Water District. Implementation of mitigation measures 5.13.2:1 th.rough 5.I3_2-3 of the FEIR reduces the impacts on recycled water to below a level of significance. The proposed change from single family to multi family units would not affect the overall conclusions and mitigation measures presented in the FEIR. Demands for the public services used by Village Six, including law enforcement, parks, and libraries, are projected based upon population and student generation rates are based on lhe total number of units. Since the FEIR used the same population generation rate (3 01 persons/unit) for single family and multi family homes and the total number of units remains unchanged with the proposed changes to the SPA Plan, the conclusions concerning these public service issues would not vary from ~hose made in the FEIR. The pr. oposed modification to the Village Six SPA Plan would not result in any-impacts to other issues that were addressed in the FEIR. The modifications to the Villa~,e Six SPA Plan would change the designs for Neighborhood R-Ta, 7b, and 9b. The cha~ges would increase the number of multi-family units within the village core to a density that provides a transition between the higher density multi-family and the single-family neighborhood to the west. The footprint of the project site would remain the same and the changes in design would not result in a substantial change to the drainage pattern of the site, or in any new impacts to previously unidentified geophysical, agricultural, or paleontological conditions as analyzed in the FEIR. Therefore, the impacts to landform alteration and aesthetics, 'geology and soils, paleontology, agriculture, water quality/and air quality would not be affected due Io the proposed SPA amendment..As a result, the modifications to the Village Six SPA Plan would result in no changes to the significance of the impacts or mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. VI. CONCLUSION The proposed modification to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan would not cause any new or more severe physical impacts nor require any additional mitigation measures that were not already addressed in the FEIR. As such, the analysis and conclusions presented in the FEIR are not changed by the proposed action. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the revisions to the proposed Project will result in only minor technical changes or additions to the Project, and that none of the conditions for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified by Sections 15162 and 15163, exist. Therefore, the preparation of this Addendum is appropriate to make the FEIR adequate under CEQA. Environmental Review Coordinator March 7, 2002 Case No. IS-02-034 ENWIRON~LENTAL CH~ECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Otay Project L.P. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 350 W. Ash Street, Sic. 730 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 234 4988 (619) 2344050 (fax) 4. Name of Proposal: Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan Second Tier FEFR 98-01 5. Date of Checklist: March 7, 2002 Potentially Potentially Significan! Less than Sigmficam Unless Si~ficanl No lmpac~ Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE ANT) PLANNING. Would the proposal.- a) Conflict with general plan designation or [] [] [] [] zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [] [] [] [] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over ',he project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations [] [] [] [] (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangemem of [] [] [] [] an established communi~ (including a Iow- income or minori~ communi~)? Comments: Development of the Village Six Sectional Plannin~ Area (SPA) Plan was evaluated in the Final Second Tier EIR 98-01 for the Pray RanCh Villa~oe Six SPA Plan (FEIR) that was certified on January 22, 2002. The SPA amendment proposed here would modify the zoning on Neighborhood R-7a from SF4 (single family) to RM2 (multi family), permitting the development of multi-family units in R-7a. The proposed project also modifies the boundary between Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b to realloch~e 47 multi- - family units from Neighborhood R-9b to Neighborhoods R-7a and R-7b (23 units to R- 7a and 24 units to R-Tb). This proposed SPA amendment increases the number of muln-family units within the village core al a density that provides a transition between the higher density multi-family and the single-family neighborhood to the west. The Vill2ge Six SPA Plan approved on Janua~' 22, 2002 authorized 1,029 single family and 1.203 multi family units. This amendment proposes 941 single family and 1,291 multi family units, reflecting an 88 unit change in the residential mix. It should be noted that, according to the FEIR, the original total of 1,029 single family units includes 146 additional single family homes that would be constructed should a high school not be built in Neighborhood R-11/S-2. The City of Chu]a Vista General Plan designates Olay Ranch Village Six as fi low- medium density village residential area with three to six dwelling units per acre, distributed around a village core which includes higher density single- and multi-family residential use, an elementary school site, a mixed-nsc site, and a neighborhood park site. The proposed modification to the SPA Plan would be consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan designations. The proposed amendment would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the Olay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the land use designation identified in the Village Six SPA Plan as described in the FEIR. The modified zoning designations would be compatible with adjacent land uses. The FEIR also concluded that agricultural impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementation of the Agricultural Plan in the Village Six SPA Plan. The proposed changes would not disrupt an established community because the area is currently undeveloped. Potentially II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Potentially Significant Less lhan proposal: Significant Unless Significant No lmpac~ Mitigated Impacl Impact a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] [] [] [] population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either [] [] [] [] directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastrucrare)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [] [] [] [] housing? Comments: The elimination of 88 single family units and the addition of 88 multi family units, as proposed by the SPA Plan amendment, would not result in a chan~e in the total number of units in Village Six. In addition, the same population generation rate (3.01 persDns/unit) is given for both single family and multi family homes in the FEIR. As a result, the antic/paled population would remain the same and the proposed changes would therefore, have no impact on the potential for exceeding area population and growth projections. Since the project site is currently vacant, the changes associated · with the proposed amendment would not result in the displacement of existing housing. II1. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal rexult in or Pmtnm, lly Significant LBs ~ arpose people to potential impacts involving: Sigmn:a~t Onlegs sigrafir~nt No_ a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in [] [--] [] [~ geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] [] [] [] overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief [] [] [] [] features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of [] [] [] [] any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, [] [] [] [] either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach [] [] [] [] sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or take? g) Exposure of people or properly to geologic [] [] [] [] hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The modification to the SPA Plan for Village Six would not result in an2,, previously unidentified geophysical impacts or require new any mitigation measures. No major geologic conditions would constrain the development of the site as proposed in the modified SPA Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-I throuah 5.5-6 in the FEIR would reduce any potential geophysical impacts to below a level o~ significance. Potentially Potemially Significant Leas than Significant Unless Si~m~ificam No a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pa,ems, [] [] [] [] or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water [] [] ~ [] related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) 'Discharae into Surface waters or other [] [] [] [] alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] [] [] [] water body? el CNanges in curren~.s, or hhe course of direction [] of water movements, in d~er marine or fresh O Change a ae quantiv of ground waters, eider ·rough direc~ additions or wi~drgwals, or ·rough interception of an aquifer by cum or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ' h) ~pac~ m groundwater quali,? waters? j) Substantial reduction in ~e amoum of water o~e~ise available for public water supplies? Commen~: ~e proposed modification to the SPA PI~ for Village Six, as implemented as a pm of the Tentative Map for the Otay Ranch Company o~ership would not result in a subsmtial ch~ge to ~e ~ainage pa~ of the site as ~alyzed in the FE~. ~e vmed uses proposed by ~e amendment would also have no additional adv~e affect on ~off quali~. Potentially si~ificant hy~olo~/water quali~ impacts identified in the FEIR would be mitigated to a less than si~ificant level by mitigation measures 5.9-1 and 5.9-2. Modifications to the SPA Plan for the Village Six project xvould not result in any previously unidentified water impact, and the mitigation measures idmtified in ~ would be equally applicable to the proposed new configuration of land uses. IV. AIR QUALI~. Would the proposal: Po~ly si~fic~t Si~fi~t U~ms Si~fi~l No a) Violate my air quali, s~ndard or contribme ~o an existing or projected air quali~ v olationV c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause ~y change in climate, eider locally or regio~lly? d) Create objectionable ~ors? e) Create a ~bsmtial increase in s~tionau, or non-smfiona~ sources of air emissions or ~e deterioration of ambient air qualiB,? Comments: ~e FE~ dete~ined ~at significant, umifiaated air quali~, impacB would recur as a remlt of implementing ~e entire Village Si~ SPA Plan. A S~tement of Ove~iding Considerations was adopted at ~e time ~e FEIR was certified. M~ifications to ~e project which include ~e chanae ~ ~e designation of 88 single family uniB to multi family units would not re~lt ~ any mbsmntial additional air quali~ ~pacts. According lo ~e San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), traffic trip generation rates are calculated to be 10 trips per unit per day for single family homes and 8 trips per unit per day for multi family homes. ~e proposed SPA amendment 4 would result in approximately 176 less vehicle trips than the adopted Villaee Six SPA Plan. Due lo the reduction in vehicle trips, air qualiD' impacts would ~be sliehtlv reduced from those previously addressed in the FEIR. Short-terrn conslrucfion impacts to air qualiq, are not expected to be exacerbated by the proposed modifications. Potemial/y 'V. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would ?o~mia~y Sigaifi~xa the proposal result in: Impact Mitigated Italia~ lmpaet a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] [] . [] b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., [] [] [] [] sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to [] [] [] [] nearby uses? O) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [] [] [] [] e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or [] [] [] [] bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [] [] [] [] alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, b cycle racks)7 g) Rail, 'o.'a~erborne or air traffic impacts? [] [] [] [] h) A "large project" under the Congestion [] [] [] [] Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: According to SANDAG. single family units generate an estimated 10 lr/ps per unit per da_,,' and multi family homes generate an estimated 8 trips per unit per day. The proposed SPA amendments for Village Six calls for the elimination of 88 sinele family homes and the creation of 88 multi family homes. The proposed SPA amendment would result in approximately 176 less vehicle trir~s than the adopted Village Six SPA Plan. As a result, all traffic-related impacts anaty~zed in the FEIR are expected to be slightly less xxfth the implementation of the proposed SPA amendment. Other traffic/circulation impacts associated with the proposed modification to the SPA Plan for Village Six would not differ fi-om those presenled in the FEI]~.. Potentially BIOLOGICAL RESOt.rRCES. Wozdd zhe Pc~Icntial!5 $igr'~ficanrLess man proposal result in impacts to: Si~emfican~Unless Significant No a) Endangered_ sensitive species, species of [] [] [] [] .concern or species that are candidates for listino? b) Locally designated spec es (e.g., heritaee [] [] [] [] trees)? - ., c) Locally desi_onated natural communities ( -=., [] [] [] [~ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 5 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [] [] [] [] 0 Affect regional habitat preservation planning [] [] [] [] efforts? Comments: The site is devoid of any sensitive plant or animal species or habitats. The modifications proposed in the Village Six SPA Plan would not change any of the conclusions or mitigation measures of the FEIR with respect to biological resources] VII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. ?o, en~y significant ~ t~ Would the proposal: Significam Unless Sigafificant No a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation [] [] [] [] plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] [] [] inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] [] [] [] protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposed amendment to SPA Plan for Village Six would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans or use any non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. Therefore, no impacts to energy and mineral resources are anticipated with implementation of the modifications to the Village Six SPA Plan. VIII. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Poten'dallySignificam Le~ than a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [] [~ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible inmrference with an emergency [] [] [] [] response plan or emergency evacuation plan7 c) The creation of any health hazard or potential [] [] [] [] health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of [] [] [] [] potential health hazards? e) , Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable [] [] [] [] · brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The FE[R did not identify any public safety (hazards) impacts associated with the proposed development of the Village Six area. The amendment to the SPA Plan would transfer the density in an area already designed for development. The modifications to the SPA Plan would not result in or interfere with any public safety plans, or create or increase an3, health hazards. 6 IX. NOISE. Would file proposal result in: Po,crumb Sigmfirant Less tha~. Sigmficant U~s Sight No a) Increases in existing noise levels? ~ ~ ~ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ~ ~ ~ Commen~: ~e ~ dete~ined ~at residential development wi~h ~e V~lage S~ ~a would exposed to significant impacm from roadway noi~ and requ~es ~tigafion mea~res to reduce ~is impact to a less ~an signific~t level. ~e changes ass~iated wi~ ~e proposed SPA amendment, would not affect ~e noise dete~inations made in ~e FEIR. ~e construction of multi family homes adjacent to Olympic Parkway in ~e area originally designated for s~gle family homes has ~e potential to place balconies overl~king ~e roadway. It is ~e policy of ~e Ci~ of Chula Vista to require balconies be designed so ~at noise levels are below 65 dBA CNEL. ~e application of noise mitigation me--res 5.12-1 ~rough 5.12-5, as derailed in ~e ~, ~clud~g · e requirement for multiple sm~ buildings wi~ balconies, would ensure ~at ~ere is no significant noise impact. X. PUBLIC SER'V~ICES. Would the proposal have Pmenually SignificantLt~ t~an an effect upon, or result in a need for new or Significam Unk~s Sign/fi;ant No altered goYern, metlt services in any of the following Impam Mitigated Impact Impact a) Fire protection? [] [] [] [] b) Police protection? [] [] [] [] c) Schools? [] [] [] [] d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] [] [] [] roads? e) Other governmental sen'ices? [] [] [] [] Comments: Demands for fire protection, police protection, maintenance of public facilities, and other governmental services are based on the projected population esfirmtes. Demands for schools are based on the number of units. Since the FEIR used the same population generation rate (3.01 persons/unit) for single family and multi family homes and the total number of units does not change with the amendment, the projected demands for these services would not change as a result of the proposed project modification. the City's 77*reshold Standards ? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS [] [] [] [] The City's Threshold Standards requires that tim and medical unils must be able to respond to calls within seven minutes or less in 85 percent of the cases and within five minutes or less in 75 percent of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has delermined that this threshold standard would be met because fire services would be provided in aocordanoe with the Otay Ranch Fire Master Plan and EMS Master Plan. Comments: The FEIR states that potential impacts to fire protection and emergency medical senfices would be mitigated by compliance with the Fire Station Master Plan and payment of fees. Since the population generation rate and the total number of units would remain the same, the proposed amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan would not result in substantial changes in the abil}ty to deliver adequate services to the project area_ Therefore, no significant impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services are anticipated with the proposed changes. The Findings of Fact adopted for the FEIR found that the Village Six SPA Plan and the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) would meet projected demands for fire and EMS services. No additional impacts to fire and EMS services are anticipated. b) Police [] [] [] [] The CiD,'s Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 percent of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calks of 4.5 mmmes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10 percent of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all PrioriB, 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. Comments: The FEIR states that potential impacts to law enforcement services would be mitigated by compliance with the Law Enforcement Services Master Plan for Otay Ranch and payment of mitigation fees. Since the population generation rate and the total number of units would remain the same, the proposed amendments to the Village Six SPA Plan would not result in substantial changes in the ability to deliver'-adequate taw enforcement services to the project area. No significant impacts to taw enforcement services are anticipated with the proposed changes. The Findings of Fact adopted for the FEIR found that the Village Six SPA Plan, and the PFFP and the development impact fee program would meet projected demands for law enforcement sen'ices. No additional impacts to law enforcement ser',,ices are anticipated. Po~mrdally Po~nfinlly Significant Less lhan Signifie. ant Unless Signlfmam No Impact Mitigated hnpacl ' Irapa c~ c) Traffic [] [] [] [] The Ci~'s Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOg) "C" or better, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Inlersections west of l-g0$ are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Slandard. Comments: According to SANDAG, the trip generation rates for single family and multi family homes are 8 trips per unit and 10 trips per unit, respectively. As a result, the proposed SPA amendment would result in the generation of approximately 176 less total trips. As a result, no additional traffic impacts associated with the proposed SPA Plan modification are anticipated. The application of traffic mitigation measures $. 10-12 through 5. l 0-18, as presented in the FEIR, would be required for the modified project and would reduce the pOlential for exceeding the City's Threshold Standards for traffic to a less than significant level· Po~tntially Pozc-'mSally Significant ~ Iban Sitmifi~ant Unless Si_~ifieant No Impact Mitigated Impacl Impacl d) Parks/Recreation [] [] [] [] The Cip,_"s Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,O00 population. Comments: Since the projected population is expected to be the same with or without the proposed changes, there is no affect on the demand for additional parkland or recreational sen'ices. Potentially Potenually Significant Less than The Cin_"s Tnreshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City En~m~rmg Standards_ Individual projects would provide necessa.U, improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. 9 Comments: The proposed amendment of the Village Six SPA Plan would not subsmmially aher the drainage over thal analyzed in the FEIR. The modifications to the SPA Plan would not impede the project's abiliD' to comply with City Engineering Standards, and would not result in any impacts not previously considered. Sig~ifit:am Units Sig~ific~m No Impaa Mifigamd ~ . Im~ Sewer ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~re~old Standards require ~at sewage flows an~ volumes not exceed Ci~ Engineering Standards. Individual projecm will provide n~es~ ~provemenm consislent wi~ Sewer Mas~er Plan(s) an8 Ci~ Engineering Standards. ~e propose~ project will comply wi~ ~is ~reshold Standard. Comments: Sewage generation rams as listed in the FEIR are 265 gallons per day (gpd) per unit for single family units and 199 gpd per unit for multi family units. The proposed SPA amendment would result in an estimated 5,808 gpd decrease in sewage demand. It should be noted that the projected sewer demand for the entire SPA as presented in the FEIR is 581,692 gpd. T'ne 5,808 gpd decrease in the sewage demand resulting from the proposed SPA Plan modifications represents approximately a 1.0 pement decrease in the total sewage demand. Therefore, the amendment to the SPA Plan is not anticipated to cause any additional impacts to sewage fiows and volumes· Potentially Potentially Significant Le~ than Si~Jfi~m Unless Signifiz. ant No Impacl Mitigated Impact ImpacI g) Water [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and U'ansmission facilitie~ are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The proposed SPA amendment is calculated to result in a decrease in the total daily usage of potable water and an increase in the total daily usage of recycled water. According to the FEIR, the potable water generation rate is 420 gpd per unit for single family homes and 294 gpd per unit for multi family homes. The proposed SPA amendment is calculated to result in an 11,088 gpd decrease in the potable water demand. This reduction represents a 1.31% decrease in the SPA-wide potable water usage as projected in the FEIR_ The proposed SPA Plan amendment would result in an increase in the generation rate for recycled water. According to the FEIR, single family units do not use recycled water. Therefore, the addition of 88 multi family homes would result in a 4,018 gpd per acre increase over the 1.8 acre-total area containing these homes. This increase represents a 2.00 :'c increase in the SPA-wide demand for recycled water as projected 10 in the FEIR. The increase in the demand for recycled water is negligible. As stated in the FEIR, the use of recycled water has been planned for by the Otay Waler District· Implementation of rrdtigation measures 5.13.2-1 through 5.13.2-3, as listed in the FEIR would reduce the impacts on recycled water io below a level of significance. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would ?olenti~ly $ignifim! L~$ Ih,an the proposal result in a need for new systems, or sirmtk:m Units Signiti~:ant . No substantial alterations to the following utilities: tmp, a Mifigatc-d h~pac/ impact a) Power or natural gas? [] [] [] [] b) Communications systems? [] [] [] [] c) Local or regional water treatment or [] [] [] [] distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? [] [] [] [] e) Storm water drainage? [] [] [] [~ f) Solid waste disposal? [] [] [] [] Comments: Public sera, ice demands were analyzed in the FEIR. The proposed modification to the SPA Plan for Village Six would not require new systems or substantial alterations to any of the planned service systems. The population generation rates would remain the same with the proposed changes and the project site would continue to be served by utili .fy and service system infrastructure provided through the development of Village - Six. No additional impacts to utilities and service systems would be anticipated. Potentially Significan! L~s than X~II. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Siglllflcant Unless Signlficaril .No a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the [] [] [] [] public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a [] [] [] [] scenic route? d) Create added light or glare sources that could [] [] [] [] increase the level of skn_, glow in an area or · cause this project to fail to comply with Section · 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 197 e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? [] [] [] [] . ll Comments: ]~ne proposed SPA amcndmenl re-designates Neighborhood 7a from single £am{~y to rnnhl family to atlo~x for the replacement of S$ single fami]y units with $$ muh½ family units. The proposed change wou]d rep]ace approximately 13 acres of single family homes with 12 acres of muhi family homes and approximately 1 acre of open space. These changes are considered negligible with respect to landform alteration and aesthetics. No addihonal impacts to aesthetics are an~cipated. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the l'o~emiall). Significam Les man proposal: Slgnifica,,~ Unles~ signlr, mm No a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or [] [] [] [] the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or [] [] [] [] aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a [] [] [] [] physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or [] [] [] [] sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan [] [] [] [] EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: Implementation of mitigation measures 5.4-1 through 5.4-3 of the FEIR would reduce any potential impacts to cultural resources to below a level of significance. The proposed revisions to the project would not result in any new impacts. As a result, with mitigation, cultural resource impacts would remain below a level of significance. Potentially SJgnifiean! L~x llaan Significant Unless Si_~aific:ant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X-V. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal resul~ in the alteration qf or the [] [] [] [] destruction of paleontological resources ? Comments: The Village Six SPA Plan site is underlain by alluvium (Qat), Otay Formation (To), and San Diego Formation (Tsd)_ Both To and Tsd formations are likely to contain fossil resources. Implementation of mitigation measures 5.6-I through 5.6-4 of the FEIR would reduce potential impacts to below a. evel of significance. The proposed amendment would not result in any new impacts to potential Faleontological resources. 12 XVI. RECREATION. Would the proposal.. Pm:retail) Sigmflcal~l Less man a) Increase 13e demand for neighborhood or [] [] [] [] regional parks or other recreational, facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [] [] [] . [] c) Interfere with recreation park~ & recreation [] [] [] [] plar~ or program? Comments: The projected demand for parks and other recreational facilities is based on the population. Since the FEIR used the same population generation rate (3.01 persons per unit) for single family and multi family homes, the projected demand for these services would not change as a result of the proposed project modifications. Potentially X-V-II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF potentiallySignificantLc~ than SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for significan,Unless Significant No mandatory findings of significance, lf an EIR is impact Mitigated Impact Impact needed, this section should be completed. a) Docs thc project have the potential to degrade [] [] [] [] the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistoo,? Comments: The proposed modification to the SPA Plan for Village Six would not degrade the quality of the environment because the chan~es are consistent with the issues analyzed in the FEIR. - ' Pmenfially Potentially gig~ifieam L~s fl~an Significant Ul'Jess Si~m~ifizan[ No lmpazt Mitigated lrnpa~ Impact b> Does the project have the potential to achieve [] [] [] [] short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments:' The proposed modification to the SPA Plan for Village Six would be consistent with the issues analyzed in the FEIR, with respect to relat'~onship of short-term and long- term environmental goals. No impacts are anticipated.. c) Does the project have impacls that are ~-~ [-~ [] [~ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection vdth the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: Cumulative effects related to the development of¥illage Six were considered in the FEIR. The potentially significant cumulative impacts associated w/th the proposed project are land use, planning and zoning, paleontological resources, cultural resources, landform alteration/aesthetics, biolo~eal resources, agricultural resources, waler resources and water quality, transportation, circulation and access, public services and utilities, and hazards/risk of upset. The proposed SPA amendment for Village Six would not result in additional cumulative effects that were not considered in the FEIR. Potentially Pol~'ntial~y Sitmificam Le~s than Sigmficam Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated impact Impact d) Does the projecl have environmental effects. [] [] which ;~511 cause substantial adverse effects on human being, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The proposed modification to the SPA Plan for Village Six would not result in any adverse effects on human beings that were not considered in the FEEq. XIX. PROJECTRE'~qSIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: No additional mitigation measures are required. XUC AGREEMENq' TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company(s) author/ty to and do a~ee to the mitigation measures contained herein and xxdthin EIR 98-01, and will implement same Io the satisfaction of the Environmental Rev/ew Coordinator. Applicant shall also spec/ficalty acknowledge acceptance of noise rmtigafion measures 5.12-1 through 5.12-5, as detailed in the FEIK which will apply to ali multiple story buildings 'adth balconies, including those proposed under this SPA amendment. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior considera!ion of the Addendum shall indicale the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) desire that the Project be held in abexance without approval. Ranie L. Hunter, Vice President Otay Project k.P. 14 Exhibit "D" Otay Ranch Company's Village Six SPA Amendment (PCM-02-20) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the conditions and Code requirements set forth below shall be completed as determined by the Director of Planning and Building. Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee. GENERAL/PRELIMINARY 1. To the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, Applicant shall submit to the City amendments to all other Village Six SPA Plan associated documents for review and approval. Said amendments shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of the approval of this Amendment to the Village Six SPA Plan. 2. Applicant shall submit all changes to the Village Six SPA Plan in an electronic format as directed by the Director of Planning and Building within thirty (30) days of the approval of this Amendment to the Village Six SPA Plan.