HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1998/11/04
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
7:00 p.m.
Wednesdav. November 4. 1998
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter
within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation
may not exceed three minutes.
1.
REPORT:
Consideration of Final Second-Tier Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR-97-
03), California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact,
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring
Program (Continued from meeting of 10-28-98)
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GPA-97-04 & PCM-97-1O: Consideration of amendments to the City of
Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan/Subregional Plan in Villages One, Two, Six, Seven, 13 and 15
(Continued from meeting of 10-28-98)
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GPA-98-02 & PCM-98-26: Consideration of an amendment to the City
of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan/Subregional Plan to remove residential land uses in Village Two of
the Otay Ranch within one thousand (1,000) feet of the Otay Landfill
(Continued from meeting of 10-28-98)
(-more- )
-2-
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
to the Regular Meeting of November 11, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista. in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who may
require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service to request such
accommodation at leastfarty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days in advance for scheduled services and
activities. Please contact Diana Argas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for
the Deaf (TDD) (619) 585.5647. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
PLANN~G COMMISSION AGE]I,1)A STATEMENT
Item: 1
Meeting Date: 11/04/98
ITEM TITLE:
REPORT: Consideration of Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact
Report (ElR-97-03), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Findings of Fact. Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation
Monitoring Program
BACKGROlJ}l,1):
A public hearing on the Draft of this EIR was held by the Planning Commission on August 26,
1998 closing the hearing and public review period. Staff, the consultant (lettieri-McIntyre &
Associates) with the legal assistance of the law firm of Remy, Thomas & Moose, have prepared
the Final EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact. Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring
Program. The certification of the ElR was continued in order to prepare the addendum indicating
the change in status of the Otay Tarplant.
RECOMMENDA TION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution EIR-97-03 certifying the Final EIR and
addendum, adopt CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
Resource Conservation Commission
At their August 17, 1998 meeting, the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) passed the
following motions:
. A motion was made (Fisher/Marquez) that EIR-97-03 - Otay Ranch is inadequate due to
a series of species (including the whip tail lizard, grasshopper sparrow, burrowing owl,
badgers and cactus wrens) inadequately analyzed or insufficiently mitigated; vote MSUC
4-0.
. A second motion was made (Thomas/Marquez), vote MSUC 4-0, to recommend the
following actions be taken:
a. Study the metapopulation Ranch-wide and do a quantitative analysis of individual
species and habitats;
b. Study the cumulative impact of the effects of losing Poggi Canyon with regard to
regional, biological, geological and paleontological concerns as it relates to other
coffilecting canyons;
.,.___,._.__ __"'..______...._.__._._.._._m...__.,'._
Page 2, Item: I
Meeting Date: 11/04/98
c. Consider a local program for retaining paleontology and archeological resources;
d. Request the City review the "mortgaging the future" short-term policies and
perform an evaluation of different scenarios going out for future;
e. Conduct studies of the biological value of what is going to be developed vs not
developed lands to make sure trade-off is comparable;
f. Note that historical sitings of sensitive species need to be shown where appropriate
on ElR maps.
Staff and the City's environmental consultant believe the Final EIR adequately responds to the
comments made by the RCC. The RCC comments with the Final EIR responses are attached for
the Commission's consideration.
DISCUSSION:
The project consists of a variety of land use actions including proposed amendments to the Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, Otay Ranch Phase Two Resource Management
Plan (RMP), the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the Chula Vista General Plan.
In addition to the land use designation changes in these plans, the project would revise specific
land use policy goals in the GDP.
Leners of Comment were received from the following agencies and individuals and are included
in the Comments/Response section of the Final EIR:
. California Department of Transportation
. Chula Vista Elementary School District
. Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)
Also see a second MTDB letter received after the comment period.
. Otay Water District
. City of San Diego, Development Services
· County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use
. Sweetwater Union High School District
. California Transportation Ventures, Inc.
. Endangered Habitats League
. The Otay Ranch Company
Also included are the minutes from the RCC meeting on the Draft EIR and a transcript from the
Planning Commission public hearing.
Page 3, Item: I
Meeting Date: II/04/98
Since the preparation of the Final ElR. the Otay Tarplant has been listed as threatened by the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service. This action has resulted in the need for an addendum and revisions to
the Final ErR. CEQA Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Findings of the FEIR:
Project level and cumulative impacts were identified and divided into three categories: significant
and umnitigable. significant but mitigable to a less-than-significant level and less than significant.
All feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project or made conditions of
approval. Feasible mitigation measures are those which are capable of being implemented. If they
are infeasible, they cannot be implemented. A more detailed analysis of some measures will be
required at the tentative map or grading plan level of consideration. The significant and
umnitigable project and cumulative impacts require a Statement of Overriding Considerations in
order to approve the project.
These conclusions are based on the General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) Final
Program ElR, the GDP/SRP CEQA Finding Standards of Performance and the subject FEIR.
With the exception of cumulative impacts that effect the buildout of the Otay Ranch Project, all
issues raised during the environmental review process such as the net development area of the
high school site and the density within the Village Core to support the transit stop have been
addressed in the report.
Significant and Not Mitigable
Except for project direct impacts in Landform/Visual Quality and Air Quality, all the significant
unmitigable impacts are cumulative. Cumulative impacts are significant when the project is
combined with other Subregional projects. The reasons for these impacts being identified as
significant and unmitigable are discussed below.
. Land Use (cumulative)
The conversion of existing vacant and agricultural land to urban use is considered a
significant unavoidable impact. The GDP ErR identified this impact, as did the Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Mitigation measures ensure proper planning
and development review. Land use impacts can be minimized if all site-specific
development is reviewed for compliance with the SPA One Plan. Impacts remain
significant, however, due to conversion of land uses from agriculture to development on
the entire Ranch.
Page 4, Item: I
Meeting Date: 1l/04/98
. Biology (cumulative)
With the implementation of the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan, impacts
to biological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant 1evel. Cumulative
impacts will remain significant because of the over all amount of development approved
by the project as previously identified in the Program EIR 90-01.
. Traffic/Circulation (cumulative)
The Draft ErR traffic studies were based on three master planned community efforts: Otay
Ranch SPA One Amendment, EastLake Trails and San Miguel Ranch. Four networks were
tested in three time frames for the years 2000, 2005 with and without SR-125 and 2010
with SR-125 and buildout with SR-125. The study was performed to analyze the impacts
of SPA One and to identify mitigation measures necessary to maintain acceptable peak
hour traffic conditions.
The only significant and unmitigable impacts associated with buildout of the project are
on the freeway system. The Draft ErR recommended that the project applicant participate
in freeway deficiency planning by SANDAG and CaITrans to implement freeway
improvements and fund those improvements on a fair share basis. The applicant's
participation will be required in the amended SPA One Plan and tentative map conditions.
. LandformlVisual Quality (direct and cumulative)
The Draft ErR identified direct impacts to steep slopes on-site in Villages One and Five
as significant. Due to development of the area, extension of tl1e trolley and construction
of Olympic Parkway, it is not feasible to avoid all steep slopes on site. The total
development of the Otay Ranch will, however, achieve the performance standard identified
in the GDP (i.e.. preserve at least 83 % of steep slopes) on a Ranch-wide basis. Mitigation
measures such as compliance with landform grading policies have been incorporated into
the project design to the extent feasible. Scenic corridors have been planned along
Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway. Landscaping and landform grading design
guidelines have been included in the project design. The mitigation measures also include
a table to track steep slope preservation throughout the development of tl1e Otay Ranch.
Even though 83% of steep slopes on the entire Ranch will be preserved, the GDP Program
ErR identified impacts to landform and visual quality as significant impacts Ranch wide
due to the amount of development associated with the project.
. Cultural Resources (cumulative)
As stated in the GDP Program ErR. impacts related to the Otay Ranch remain unavoidable
at this level of analysis. The SPA One impacts may be mitigated to a less than significant
Page 5, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 11/04/98
level. but have to remain identified as significant on the cumulative level until the
mitigation measures are implemented Ranch-wide.
. Air Quality (cumulative and direct)
The GDP Findings of Fact anticipated that the project would have significant impacts to
air quality and Overriding Considerations were adopted. Regional Air Quality Standards
mitigation measures were required as conditions of approval. The significant impact occurs
from an increase in emissions. The pedestrian orientation of tl1e village concept will help
reduce project emissions, although not to a less-than-significant level.
Project level impacts identified in the Final EIR are associated with dust control during
grading and development. Mitigation measures have included but cannot be assured until
development.
· Agricultural Resources (cumulative)
The impacts to agricultural resources, as a result of future development within the project,
will remain significant and unavoidable as previously identified in tl1e Program EIR 90-01.
As a result, to approve the proposed project, the City must adopt a "Statement of Overriding
Consideration" (Section VIX of the CEQA Findings) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections
15043 and 15093. Page 103 of the CEQA Findings of Fact note the following areas of overriding
considerations: enviromnentaJ protection and preservation, community planning and development.
comprehensive regional planning, regional housing needs, and fiscal benefit. This Statement
allows a lead agency to cite a project's general economic. social or other benefits as a justification
for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not
been avoided. The Statement explains why, in the agency's judgement, the project's benefits
outweigh the unaided significant effects. These specific benefits include the overall environmental
protection and preservation provided by the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the protection
of other resources including cultural, paleontological and recreational, the implementation of the
terms of the Otay Landfill Agreement, the provision of regional housing needs and fiscal benefit.
Significant Impacts Mitigated to Less- Than-Significant
Impacts in the following categories for the SPA One Amendment can be mitigated to level below
significance with the implementation of mitigation measures.
. Biological Resources
. Geology
. Cultural Resources
. Paleontological Resources
· Hydrology (Telegraph Canyon fees)
Page 6, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 11/04/98
. Public Services
. Water and Reclaimed Water
. Sewer
. Schools
. Law Enforcement
. Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Services
. Library
. Safety Services
The impacts in these issue areas have been mitigated or will be through SPA and tentative map
conditions to less than significant levels through various means such as mitigation monitoring,
payment of fees and threshold compliance.
Impacts Less- Than-Significant
Impacts in the following categories were determined to be less than significant.
. Land Use
. Traffic/Circulation
. Biological Resources
. Geology
. Agricultural Resources
. Hydrology (Poggi Canyon)
. Water Quality
. Air Quality
. Noise
. Mineral Resources
. Public Services
. Parks and Recreation
. Solid Waste Management
ANALYSIS:
During tl1e review of the propose project in the preparation of Draft EIR, City staff identified a
number of issues and concerns. A reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project were
prepared. The City eXanJined the alternatives to the proposed project, including the original
proposed project as described in the FEIR. Those alternatives are:
Alternative A
The portion of Village One within the proposed SPA One Amendment Area would be
reconfigured. The number of community purpose facility areas would increase and the overall
Page 7, Item: I
Meeting Date: 11/04/98
area devoted to community purpose facilities would increase. The acreage devoted to commercial
would increase. The total number of residential units would increase.
The high school site and all but 5 acres of the proposed community park would be eliminated from
ViI1age Two West. The amount of acreage devoted to community purpose facilities would be
reduced. The community purpose facility area would also be moved away from the landfill
boundary. The proposed multi-family development would be eliminated and replaced with two,
single-family neighborhood areas. The remaining 5 acres of park would be located on the western
boundary to augment future park area within the adjacent Sun bow development.
Village Two would be revised to accommodate the high school site relocated from Village Two
West to a si1e south of Olympic Parkway between Paseo Ranchero and La Media Road. The
community park site in Village Two would be retained but decreased by 5 acres.
A Special Study Area designation would be applied to the area of Village Two West which shares
a boundary with the Otay Landfill. The Special Study Area designation would be a holding
designation until a suitable use for the area can be determined. County staff has determined that
the Special Study Area designation would not conform to the land use designations selected by the
County under the landfill agreement and, therefore, this alternative cannot be considered by the
City.
Alternative B
The uses in Villages One, One West and Two would be identical to Alternative A. The major
difference between Alternatives A and B would occur in Village Two West. In Alternative B, the
Special Study Area designation would be replaced with an Industrial designation.
Alternative C
Project alternative would include the proposed project:
· Village One-West would be amended to increase allowable single-family development
area, identify an elementary school site and a neighborhood park site.
· Village Two would be amended to increase developable area, re-orient residential away
from the Otay Landfill, increase total residential units, create a high school site, reloca1e
the community park site and convert the original park site to residential uses.
· Village Six would be amended to reduce the density within the village core area.
· Village Seven would be amended to substitute residential development for the high school
site which would be moved to Village Two.
Page 8, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 11 /04/98
. Village 13 and 15 would be amended to convert portions of the residential designations to
open space to implement the Otay Ranch MSCP Subarea Plan Agreement.
After the public hearing on the Draft ErR, letters from MTDB redefining their position to that of
support for the staff recommended modified" Alternative C" and a letter from the Endangered
Habitats League giving support to "Alternative C - modified" were received. A copy of these
leners are attached to this staff report. This alternative consists of a limited industrial use in
Village Two West (south of Olympic Parkway and west of Paseo Ranchero), maintenance of
higher density in the Village Core, a paseo heading from the eastern part of Village One to the
Core, and an emergency access from Village One to Olympic Parkway.
CONCLUSION:
The City has determined that neither Alternative" A" or "B" (1) meets project objectives, or (2)
is enviromnentalJy preferable to the project. Staff is recommending approval of a project which
is a modification of Alternative "C" in the Final ErR not the original proposed project in the
project description section of the ElR.
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to project impacts. Although
in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts,
adoption of the measures will not fully avoid the impacts. However, the remaining impacts are
wi1hin the range of impacts identified in the Program ErR and are considered by staff and the
environmental consultant to be acceptable.
Attachments: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
FEIR-97-03
Resolution EIR-97-03 and the attachments thereto
Letters from MTDB and the Endangered Habitats League
Comment and Response Section of the Final EIR
Addendum to EIR-97-03
Revised pages for EIR-97-03
(A:\llb\initial studies\eir9703.pc)
ATTACHMENT # 2
RESOLl:TlO>\ "JO.
?-ESOLUTlO>\ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND-TIER
Th'VIRONMThlAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 97-03) A.""ID
ADDENDUM FOR THE OTA Y RA.1\JCH AMENDED SECTIO:!\AL
PLlI...1\JNIJ\1G AREA (SPA) ONE; MAKlNG CERTAIN FINDINGS
OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERA.TIONS PURSUANl TO THE CALIFOR1\ilA
Th'VIRONMThlAL QUALITY ACT; ,ANl) .tillOPTING A
MITIGATIm; MONITORING MID REPORTNG PROGRi\M.
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City") circulated a request for proposals to prepare
an environmental impact report for the Otay Ranch Amended SPA One Plan and selected the firm
of Lettieri-McIntyre & Associations, Inc. to prepare the EnviromnentaI Impact Report (EIR). On
December 22, 1997, the City, Lettieri-McIntyre & Associates, Inc. and the Otay Project, LLC
("Applicant"), entered into a three- party contract, where the City managed the preparation of the
EIR, Lettieri-McIntyre & Associates, Inc. prepared the EIR, and the Otay Project, LLC reimbursed
the City for the full cost ofEIR preparation; and.,
WHEREA..S, a Draft EIR was issued for public review on July 7, 1998, was reviewed by the
Resource Conservation Commission on August 17, 1998, and was processed through the State
Clearinghouse; and.,
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on
the Draft EIR on August 26, 1998; and.,
WHEREA..S, the firm of Lettieri-McIntyre & .I\.ssociates, Inc. prepared a Final Second-tier
EnviromnentaI Impact Report (FEIR 97-03) and Addendum on the Otay Ranch Amended SPA One;
and.,
WHEREA..S, this Second-tier FEIR incorporates, by reference, three prior EIRs: the Otay
Ranch General Development PlanISubregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01; the Chula Vista Sphere
of Influence Update EIR 94-03, as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Programs; and the SPA One FEIR 95-01. Program EIR 90-01 was
certified by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October
28, 1993; the Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council
on March 21, 1995; and the SPA One FEIR 95-01 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on
June 4, 1996; and.,
WHEREA..S, to the eJ\."tent that these Findings of Fact conclude that proposed mitigation
measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or
\vithdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in
inl:7est, to impiement those measures. These findings are not mereJy inforrnationaJ or ad\'!so:-y. Dut
constitute a binding set of obligations that wiU come into effect when the City adopts the reso]ution
approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other
requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted
concurrently with these Findings of Fact and wilJ be effectuated through the process of impJementing
the Project; and
'WHERE/IS, the status of the Otay tarplant changed under the Endangered Species Act and
aT. addendum was prepared to reflect this change in status.
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. PLAN1\'ING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearings on the Draft EIR held on July 7, 1998, their public hearing on this project held on
October 2 I, 1998 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby
incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents
submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any
claims under the Claifornia Enviromnental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code
921000 et seq.).
II. FEIR CO~'TENTS
That the FEIR consists of the following:
1. Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01;
2. The Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03, as well as their associated
Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; and
3. FEIR 95-01, including three Addendums; and
4. FEIR 97-03 and Addendum
(all hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 97-03").
City Council
Amended SPA One EIR Resolution
2
B:\CClEIR-RES.wPD
---....-.. _.._._.".,.~
III FEIR REVIEWED A"-'TI C01\:SIDERED
That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered
FEIR 97-03 and the enviromnenta] impacts therein identified for this Project. the Findings
of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this ResoJution,
known as document number ~, and the proposed mitigation measures contained therein,
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this ResoJution,
known as document number ~, prior to approving the Project. Copies of said Exhibits
are on fiJe in the office of the City CJerk.
IV. CERTIF1CATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ThTVIRONMENTAL
QUALIIT ACT
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 97-03 and the Findings of Fact and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution), and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution) are prepared in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA (pub. Resources Code, 921000 et seq.) the
CEQA Gnidelines (California Code Regs. title 14, 915000 et seq.), and the Enviromnental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That the City Council finds that the FEIR 97-03 reflects the independent judgment of the
City of Chnla Vista City Council.
\1. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING A.1\ID REPORTING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth
in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings
of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, known as document number _, a copy of
which is on file in tl1e office of tl1e City Clerk.
B. Statement of Overriding Consideration
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant enviromnental effects caused
by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City
City Council
Amended SPA One EIR Resolution
3
B:\CClEIR-RES.wPD
of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations in the fOTITI set forth in Exhibit "A", known
as document number _, a copy ofwhich is on file in the office of the City Cierk,
identifYing the specific economic, social and other considerations that render the
unavoidable significant adverse enviromnental effects acceptable.
C. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 97-03 and in the Findings of Fact for
this project, w!rich is Exhibit "A" to this Reso]ution, known as document number
_, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council
hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section ]5091 that the mitigation measures described in the above
referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity (such as
the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement same.
D. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures
lIS more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 97-03 and in the Findings ofFact for
this project, w!rich is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, known as document number
_' a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, certain rnitigation
measures described in the above-referenced documents are infeasible.
E. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 97-03 and in the Findings of Fact,
Section xn, for this project, w!rich is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, known as
document number _, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the
City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were
identified as potentially feasible in FEIR 97-03, were found not to be feasible.
F. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
lIS required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, City Council hereby
adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in
Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, known as document number _' a copy of which
is on file in the office of the City Clerk. The City Council hereby finds that the
Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the
p=i.ttee/project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project
Ci1y Council
Amended SPA One EIR Resolution
4
B:\CClEIR.RES.wPD
-..'...-.---....-.-.--...----.-.--.-......---.. ,.-
components and compJy with the feasible mitigation measures identified ir; the
Findings of Fact and the Program.
Vll. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Enviromnental Review Coordinator of the City ofChula Vista is directed afte;- City
CounciJ approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the
County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents, along with any documents
submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any
claims ffilder the California Enviromnental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code
!i21000 et seq.).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California,
tllli; 27th day of October 1998 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTh'T:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATI'EST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COlJNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify tl1at tl1e
foregoing Resolution No. _ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
City Council meeting held on the 27th day of October, 1998.
Executed this 27th day of October, 1998.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
City Council
Am"Dded SPA One EIR Resolution
5
B:\CC\EIR-RES. WPD
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
City Council
Amended SPA One EIR Resolution
6
RICClEIR-RESWPD
RESOU.TTJO:>\ EIR 97-03
?2S0LUTIO:>\ OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1m
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFY1NG THE FINAL SECOND-
TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 97-03) A'ID
ADDENDUM FOR THE OTA Y RANCH AMENDED SECTIO!\'AL
PLfL'lNING l>JffiA (SPA) ONE; MAKING CERTAlN FINDINGS
OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFOR.1\J1A
B\"'VIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A
JvfITIGATlO1\ MONlTORlNG AND REPORTING PROGRAM;
.fL'ID RECOMMENDING CERTIF1CATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City") circulated a request for proposals to prepare
an enviromnental impact report for the Otay Ranch Amended SPA One Plan and selected the firm
of Lettieri-Mcintyre & Associations, Inc. to prepare the Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR). On
December 22, 1997, the City, Lettieri-McIntyre & Associates, Inc. and the Otay Project, LLC.
("Applicant"), entered into a three-party contract, where the City managed the preparation of the
EIR, Lettieri-McIntyre & Associates, Inc. prepared the EIR, and the Otay Project, LLC reimbursed
the City for the full cost ofEIR preparation; and,
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was issued for public review on July 7,1998, was reviewed by the
Resource Consf:1"Vation Commission on August 17, 1998, and was processed through the State
Clearinghouse; and,
WHEREI\S, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on
the Draft EIR on August 26, 1998; and
WHEREI\S, the firm of Lettieri-McIntyre & Associates, Inc. prepared a Final Second-tier
Enviromnental Impact Report (FEIR 97-03) and Addendmn on the Otay Ranch Amended SPA One;
and.
WHEREAS, this Second-tier FEIR incorporates, by reference, three prior EIRs: the Otay
Ranch Genera1Development PlanISubregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01; the Chula Vista Sphere
of Inf1uence Update EIR 94-03, as well as tl1eir associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Programs; and the SPA One FEIR 95-01. Program EIR 90-01 was
cerriiied by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October
28,1993; the Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council
on March 21,1995; and the SPA One FEIR 95-01 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on
June 4, 1996, and;
V;HEP2AS, to the extent that these Findings of Fact conc]ude that proposed mnigatJon
mec.sures outiined in the Final EIR are feasibJe and have not been modified, superseded or
wJtlldrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in
interest, to imp]ement those measures. These findings are not merely informationaJ or advisory, but
constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resoJution
approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other
requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted
concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing
the Project; and,
WHEREliS, the Otay tarplant changed under the Endangered Species Act and an addendum
was prepared to reflect this change in status.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1. FEIR CONTENTS
That the FEIR consists of the following:
1. Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01;
2. The Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03, as well as their associated
Findings ofFact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; and
3. FEIR 95-01, including three Addendums; and
4. FEIR 97-03 and Addendum
(all hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 97-03").
II. FEIR REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
That the Planning Commission of tl1e City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and
considered FEIR 97-03 and tl1e enviromnental impacts therein identified for this Project, the
Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this
Res01ution) and the proposed mitigation measures contained therein, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution) prior to approving tlJe
Project. Copies of said Exhibits are on file in tlJe Planning Department office.
Planning Commission
Amended SPA One EIR Resolution
2
RIPCIEIR-RES.\VPD
---...-.-,.-------..,,-------- .~-_...,--
T"' CERTIFJCATlON OF COMPLlA..'JCE \\lTH U..LIFORJ'nA E"TIRONME"TLS
QUALITY ACT
That the Planning Commission does hereby find that FEIR 97-03, the Findings ofFacl and
the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution), and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution) are prepared
in accordance with the requirements ofCEQA, Pub. Resources Code, ~2J000 et seq.) the
CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. title 14, ~15000 et seq.), and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
1\. INDEPENDENT JUDGMEJ\rr OF PU\...NNING COMMISSION
That the Planning Commission finds that the FEIR 97-03 reflects the independent judgment
of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission and the City of Chula Vista staff.
V. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The Planning Commission does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if
set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the
Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution.
B. Statement of Overriding Consideration
Even after the adoption of all feasible rnitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant enviromnental effects caused
by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the
form set forth in Exhibit "A", identifying the specific econonllc, social and other
considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse enviromnental effects
acceptable.
C. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
/1.5 more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 97-03 and in the Findings of Fact for
this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, the Planning Commission
hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above
referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity (such as
Planning Commission
Amended SPA One EIR Resolution
3
B:\PCIEIR-RES.\VPD
L1~ project proponent or the City) assigned there::,y to impJemen: same.
D. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures
A5 more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 97-03 and in the Findings ofFac: for
this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, certain mitigation measures
described in the above-referenced documents are infeasible.
E. Infeasibility of Alt=atives
As more ful1y identified and set forth in FEIR 97-03 and in tl1e Findings of Fact,
Section XII, for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, the Planning
Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were
identified as potentially feasible in FEIR 97-03 and Addendum, were found not to
be feasible.
F. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Planning Cormnission
hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth
in Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program is designed to
ensure that, during project implementation, the permittee/project applicant and any
other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the
feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TIIAT THE PLANNING COMMISSIOK recormnends that
the City Council certify Final EIR 97-03.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISS10N OF CHULA VISTA,
CALJFORNIA, this 21st day of October 1998 by the fol1owing vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSE1\'T:
Patty Davis
Chair - Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Amended SPA On" EIR Resolntion
4
RIPCIEIR-RES.wPD
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas
Se::retary - Planning Commission
ExbJoits
ExbJoit A: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
ExbJoit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
ExbJoit C: Draft City Council Resolution
Plarming Commission
Am::nded SPA One EIR Resolution
5
B:\PCIElR-RES.WPD
. MroB. . AJB
Me!JDpDIiIan Transit Development BaanI ~ .,
~ .:...'~,-_.:: -- -
- .
-';:: _ "::--
~ , ~,
--
RCCE!w=n
-"""'.-..
ATTACHMENT # 3
. .
-';:';;
. -,'~
=:....) :. -;. 2:,":;'.3~:,-
September 28, 1998
SEP 3 0 199B
b . AG 270.1. SRTP 820.6
rLANNjf~G (PC 271)
Mr. Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner
Planning Department
City 0; Chula Visca
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Rick:
Thank you for meeting with us earlier this month, together with Kim Kilkenny and Kent Aden of
the Otay Ranch Company, to discuss the Otay Ranch SPA One amendments and associated
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Our comments on the EIR (dated August 21, 1998) focused on the need to maintain village core
densities at 18 dwelling units pet acre to reduce densities in areas not served by transit and to
provide multiple and direct street connections to the planned trolley station. We indicated partial
support for the EIR-proposed Alternative C. At our meeting with you, we were pleased to learn
that several of our issues had been addressed. Most significantly, the Otay Ranch Company is
now proposing to maintain the village core area density at the level envisioned in the General
Development Plan. The applicant also agreed to eliminate the multi-family units from Village Two
West due to its distance from the trolley station and village core. Regarding the circulation
system, we still believe that the full loop road paralleling and connecting to East Palomar Street
was a good feature, but we are comfortable that the proposed plan for Village One offers a high
level of access to the planned trolley station and to destinations within the village.
Given t~e changes identified above, 'we can now support a project based O~ a modified
Alternative C. Thanks again for meeting with us and for YOUt continued interest in the transit
elements of the Otay Ranch plan. If you have any questions, please contact Nancy Bragado of my
staff at 557-4533.
7~':'a
vJiliia;n~~'L~
Director of Planning and Operations
.
SGreen/L -ROSALER. NBRA GA
cc: Douglas Reid, City of Chula Vista
;/'~'~:J"" ':-.::0'- ~ ~:
." ' ~ ~'.- ~
.'- -
. .
n" ~.__ -. - .
. ~ ,'., ~ =.. - -'
- -'..,~
-. .
''"' =':'
~ -,
,.--
0' '",C:':::~: :: :~. ::;1;" c' 1:.':"\';<'
-. ~" ::"'3'; ",'i::l~K.'
:::"" :.: :;2:':':-~ ~ :.."":'_1 ~: ::,(1, :: <~ S::.:~;:;- :",!ii;':;~~I;~
-
1/;':':::;::;;:;:;:2- - -:::- 0'" :':i"",\'~::::G~'~- ::::2':: '~ :ooro:..o:::::- :. :-_~ ,,'1,,"":':::::':::3:- - - ,,-3" .; '3~"':- :::~_:
S:'::::S:::;:~", =-:-::.- .:o;::J~.s-_~~- :: ~;::: -=[;51" ~c:;:::""": ::~:~.~ S2r, ::'JI~,,:- - ," _' c_
""' -
- ---
':-:1~'r:;:;:~1!~r
~
- - .
Iii ::"'8,- --:."i.:....~_~;;::Jn::
- . .
=23~!?:~r -_= ,.."'1 0:)iTlc;;r"
;.}~r';-llfr-r:'
;. >."" t ;- 1
El'ITIANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
nr-;-
.....'-' I -' U
~'. r _
!':::':"
J6.z:::ztai to Ecosys:.rn: Protection and Irm:mwed lAnd Use Pltmnmz
JZ:. Sliver . CDxd.ir..ator
&.;2~A Santa Moni::a Blvd., #592
:..os Angeles. CA 90069-4267
T2.. 32.3-654-1456 . :AX 323-65H931
'1~
Oct. 8, 1998
?lannin2 Commission
AllN: -Planning Dept.
City of Chula ViSla
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista., CA 91910
RE: any Rmch Village 1 (Draft Second 1ier ElR for any Ranch SPA 1 and GDPISRP
Ame~-ElR-97-03, FB-083, SCH#97091079)
Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission:
The Endan"oered Habita!S League (EHL) wishes to supponModifiedAlternative C for
Village L It is our understanding that this alternative embodies ttansit-supporring modifications in
density, land use, and circularion which have been developed in consultation with the Metropolitan
Transit Development Board (MTDB).
Although the density levels remain at the minimum threshold originally found in the GDP,
E>-1L nevertheless concurs that with this package of improvements, Modified AltemaIive C is in
compliance with the Oct. 28, 1993 "Findin2S of Fact and Stalement of Overridin!! ConsideraIion n
ID.aCJe for the OIay Ranch project These fiti"dings include the effective creation ora "mulIi-modal
transportati on network. n
EHL is committed to sustainable development The creation of livable, transit-oriented
communiIies is part of this StraIegy. We commend the applicant, your staff, and the MTDB for the
progress they have made. We urge your support for Modified Alternative C.
Thank you for considering our views, and we look forward to working with you in the
f UIllre.
Sincerely,
~~
..
Dan Silver,
Coordinator
cc: Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
-....-.---.... .__.._.__._~-"----- .-."--.---".-....-,--,'.----,...-
ATTACHMENT # 4
r.I)
"
-
:r:.
Z
o
~
r.I)
""'
..,;
-
;;; -= 11 . o ~
-, o...! 0
e:'" ij"h , ..~.~ bj ]"08: ~.
~ .
g:; r ~ .~ .~~ . t ~o"' fj
;!HJ ~ if. f ~ .
,," 1 ~!E ! . & r; i.gii
8 R C!.!i Q m. a:. .~
q; .;f8]~ ~ c ...~~ =" ~ c f"~tf!~
- ~ - ~ . . = ~.-" r- i>
{j", 11' , ,:,i~ ] h1 Eo;
~ z: .. '" = "':: i ~ r
H ~ -; " z -:B 0 i!
-=~ . fj E t M ~ ~..~~'!
" . ~ 6-, ~- S]f 0
0; i:. ;: ~> . . ~ 1
~i:1!";~ . ."-i- p-g~~8o
~ - .;; ;;; .11 .
o:'j ii.!! -= !' ~il =:i~ 0 Hif:o~=
to E:
!L ,Sgn=.s ~ 'a
"i~11i1:: :." 0 '" jil;~s~.i . ~!i i1l.g
~.~ . u 'E to i~1 ~';'! ~
'5 ~~ fj b. ~ e ~~.: :/H
r.I) 'i . ~
:: = IS so!! ~! 8
.... M ; Ii:'! ti
~h i~-Ei 0 ~ c 1~~.1I fj ~
Z: .
.ro-o .. s > l1~f:i;st ::: .I:i~
~H -5.. ,. 50 .... s
r-I 'Ii .f~ coJ!
I~ij ~ . ..
. J. "" 0 ~.! 'b. ~ 8 S<
:;E ~; E ~ ~ r:*" .. Do,
o ! . . ~ >IIi 8"'"" i -ill ~ .'p"
~ ~~ "8... i! ;
:;; ti s . i' ~ Ji .[.5.~;; n . r II J'i
DU3 3t]oe~ b !! ~~i:-n'''' ::t ~-=A:"&.i
0 VI ~ fI; .. ~ :; .; e.~ .. !-5~ .-f)'
< ;:..... ::J ! ~ ~ ~'2 = . " ~ . ~ u'"
U i~ . . Io..t-~..s;o..i~ ~ 0\. >OJ'''
15 ~ ~.. &:!<~ 0 '0 :I c 51 .. "Q ~ ~ .;; ~ ~ ~ > . ~ c..
-= a 0 Ii>
~i! z 8 Q ~..!~ 5 ..:::~ . :; ~cf o 1'" 1>~,s
",'" I~ ~ ~ii .;; .~._ - .Jj,s ~
~ Ii z . ~ ,s 1 ~i! ~ " ,~ F .g .51!~~
~DZ"g~~ 0 ~ - f"" tI
- ~ . :. ~-= -"1:.:1 1J = . i C2 i:' ~
~ O~:3 ".01 ~ .- "i .. D..=e . '~~
5 ;1 .
~ ~ o ...!- z :;-~=t8'~f = Qj;-i-;~'u
I-~= :-5. f- '! 11 . i ~ ~ E o .,
:: I . "~~ ., - ::3 i5 ~iqS
"-.E~';;~ !!: ~ .;; .'" ~ it j ::~lJi !:: ~ ~ -....
II '" q ., U t-ts
;Si n ~ ~ -~
t 0.-5 n~ = ~I II ,,~ 9>t-5",. -;
~ <J5o "" ~ = ~ ,s-
~ ~50 i~ .. ~ _1j,s1!~~ '" ~ 'tIo Z . O'1J CI '*
>~ ::> :s ,.8 O!i I! -Q =:Ij
~ . .- iu 00 ~ i
~'n= ~ ~l ~ .. ~6 '" . .EC"~i"l~ ~ 5 :1 C"~l"'=
~~ i< ! ~1ilu ,~ ~ B gE. 'ij ...
o. ~ ~ ; 0 g . = ~ J
_ 0 !@ :3r~i8h~
\C:i:i: u>ou=~V! 0 "'.. '" ~ -S.5 .s.s
]L36
'J)
,-,
-
'Jj
z
o
~
'J)
,-,
-
'"
-
- . v. _ _
~ ~ -;;:; ~ E
-.;, .:: c :,.. :,..
.E~~~~
tJ '" == ~ c::
t: 6 '~i
:;:;o~~
t.lV:C~'=
~~.!::=:~
~ E'~ ~ I
~ 0 ~ '::; >
.- U - tJ ,;
~>>.~t;
A;: --g ~ -=;::
E Vi E r:; '(..1
.~ttl2-=~
~5.=~;:
:';"E~-=~
... '" ""::I U -
~ ~ I :: E
~-:~B=
..,.,.- c..::::::: t)
ffi::::::::;E3-=
- ~ -
=::wo~-=
e c::: E 0...::
.a as u >
UO-=2~~
~-5~:o':~~
- ..... "" ........
So~~~~
.~ ~ ~ E E:..;:
E=--2ti=:
~.,..; :: = ~ ~
:: 2 -;;;'x:-
"Q ~:::.: E ~
_ ~ f.) - -
;:: =-== ~ -;;..s
...J
;n
~
Z
~
:;;
:;;
o
u
~
~
~
..
~
!!;
o
-=
"
"
11
.0
.
>
-'"
..
.
:z;
.s
-
c
..
>
o
!;.
r
o
~
~
o
U
c
o
'0
.
b
:'!
8
II
g
~
1:
~
o
u .
.~
- .
~ -~
E :;
,q
;,; -
~o
,"wi
u~
",!i?
~ ,-
::O:>J
::I ;
. "
::;~
~
e
E
8
...
o
-i
o
=
.s
~
~
1i
'f.
~
~
G
~ .
,.0-
i'~
"",
~ .
11
oi
t=.Q
u u
~ >
~ .'"
=~
~z
6,5
-.g .e
E~
~=
g t!
~-5
< 'i
~
~
..,
.
'"
~ ;.:.
s ;a.
:.-: ~.,
. =-=
.;:"
1 ~.~
: g €-
:;: .!:
;- "'C I:ICI
~ ;~
E 11.5. ~
~ ~.Bg .8~
f 'i1~ ;~
i.1]~
~~.:]~~
"O:g.:e: ,0
~ a:::.. _'5
... 8:: T:
!I:; CIOO >.G
";:!.s~~.S'
~1i~u:I s...
~ a _u &>
:ios~-=;::
;: fi -- 0
Jao.s~
~ ~]. i1-~
'~h!j
..
..c u
=
Q
"f:
E'
.:
'E
..,
~
B
~
."
.c
,
~
.. ;,
.~ :i
E':;
.;.;
g=
.~~ t
-- Ii!
Be: ....
~::; 1!
;J~ 0
.~~. ""
~l ~
~~ g- ~
'i;
o ~
u.=-
;;'
.= 0
~.~
1I"1! ;3
]R:;
o u :!
~ as.. c
u; =: 'ii
J! . r
i~-5
:'--5
:!~ i3
- 1
.~ ~."
;;-~~
~:;~
~.a !
.m'p
Jiai
f.~:i
~ ~ ~
.- ~u
1J~U
-0- ~ ~
6.~ ,s
u.J5 "
-=..~
th:
~ . 0
" _-5
.:.s~..
;:!J'! ~
~j f~
~ I( <i ~
!j
.::
D ~ ~
.5 -5 I<
"2:! 8 ~
ji 1 i
.i:;1 CI.#:
~I j 1
~~ 5 ~
.!-u-~ II
D{i' .; 1-
j <;: _-= 11.)
. ... V 4J
D ~ ~ E
1 !:~ ~.g -a
,,- "1.... i
~~ i-:;:! -;: 1
S~!!-!!'~ !f€-
.~:i:~'~!~E
1~ jf~~-H
HjP~
.~E~...~~~
":'~-s~r.:.::::
.. ... Q." .. -5 &)
:fI- p =' WI:,! :r
~~r~~~~
8 ~
3 f-a
_'5.ui
ij:2!...,;
i1! Is g ~
~Ui~
c~1! ,r~
~r!]1
&iJ~ !
i! ~ i!.:! ~
;-"J"~ g
Ii J:>. ~
::~ "'i.
J tj 8
8 "",
~i]-H
I !il!i:" Q D
:S5-::
"D~.aO .
-:;r oS ... u
>f~gi:Sj
:r~BI~-
_:!'6'~1!iI
~~~1~1
f ."S ~ ,;'11
WI A. II ...
Ii "'0 Q.. 'C
;:;: c. Ii !! -= ~
!I~i5WOC1'H..c;
21i~-.!~n
:::I~..~"'-:s
I I
~ ,i
~iu i!.1:
:.= u 0
< - II:!'-
..;"i]
II: = Vol 02
;;~ ...
~ @ ri' z
='.. ~ ~
~~]]o
D _...
-=~..
.,~~
~"ii A
1",~~
.8';.:! Ii
U-::a~~
~ .S .! ~
01 S! ~ -
o ~ ;::
i-~~;;;
=-..8 "C .;- VJ
.S"':iI 0 8
C~"5"-"
!If" -.;;
. . \:S, po
~. "'0.. c>
.i1> ]!>~
.... .s _
c"'O c:: ...-
0':: " >-!
~] n"
... .~ :!! 0
~:;;a G "'C
U c. Ii
jO:;z,g.s5
. -.=: c: lJ
J!!5o"
~'!il1!3 ::1
.... ;; .E .g -;;;
....)
'ii
.
~
-
2
:::
5
o
-Ii
:
"
n
_5
'"
~
"5
~
u
i
&
"
~
-"
=
'J<
!!
<:
'5
5
]
~
<
0.,
~
,
i:;;
"
-0
iii
]4-37
'J)
,~,
-
'J)
z
o
~
-
'J)
!oJ
"'"
-
~!j
;;: QL.-=--
- - -
f ~ .;
~~g
E..-= Co.
~ ~ 0
~=~
~E-~
:; ... C.J
... V ...
~~.::
-=E2
t) - :::
-= ~ 3
v.=:'=:
] ~ ~
:J-t::
.= g u-:
fi~=~
=<:::.0
S = 8 ~
:::: = = -=
:;.0::- ';:.:
:E~~~
-=6'5=
"'5 :; 0
-=<2 ::-
~ E;;;'; eo
o .<> U
-~~oo
-.:: "'0 -= Q(j
:::> ="'0 0
.... C.J G.J '"
E'E"E~
C.J '::':::.::
;::~~5
v,~-;:;-=;...=-=
, . .... - r::; :;: =-
~:~ ~.~
v."'O=~g2~
~"g8"B..;~='=~
:::...=~"E=--
- - ;;. o1.:.J If; CJ
C:-::':~C:::~E
:i~~~EE.E
::-::u~.::-~==
::';:?:;;:!.E~
~ = ~ .~ ;: ~~
.....~=-:,~o::=
-E~E=:b::E2
_e"5~.,.;~:
;<~2~'=:.=
'=':~~E..g=
'Eg:5~=~~
:~ ~~.; (J-E
8ti:'E~-gE
...:::=~c:=-:
5<>5:~g
r; ~ I....., tJ < r.=.=
"::O~.9 . ".a 5
E ~,... r; Cj QO
::~c~:=320
.:::- ""...' "" -::::
:: VJ II) - _ "" ...
G.Ju'==gg::~
~: E~.~;~
--0-__2
.~~ ~~~~~:::
c....:E=....::::;...._
r;. CJ tel 0 ~ J....:;,:
t)-gt='i:I.;;..~~t.I
E...= ~ :J ~ ~ c::
.:ti gE..E E.2.E
:!
.:3
= "'0 -;:; ;... "". v,
l~l~~~
13:J~~t;~
;;;;;;.g~~
2--.---=
~5~itEo
~ -=..,:: t) ~
.=~;~~t;
:= - ~ V :.. ....
~~~~g=
i~ijf!
~t:=;='E
:: :: -;:; = ...
Q[J '" rc:'=.; ~
I.- G.J c:-...
O-==~(,}=
::: = ~ aL:E ~
I: ~ Iii ~ -v. t,)
~-::aE==
....o""'-E'-
~ II) 6 0 v.- 0
o.B::~EQO
15 .~ ~ g,~ ~
~ Q. t:... ...
r: f 8 E.= ~
~E:UCl:::.~
t; = CD: c "'0
-=~~"'.B"E
U~CIl,!~>E=
E2'.5-g-="";j~
~ VJ ::; ~ :; ~ fa
c.,-cc--u"t:;:
oc..uDuu
~ ~ >.~,-~-g
r--_.&:J_;u~
~ ~
~~-=
:= ~ :,..
- - ~
.~~ ~
~ ~~.
'";:: E :::
gi.~
u ::-=
~ ;. :::
QLj ... ~
< - -
jiI
=- c..:::
U v. ~
f/)'- -'
::2:=g
-= t: u
<.> - "
" - -
tOU;':
:::::: ~:.:
;:........u
.::!~tr.
O~~
-L
~~~
~:-E
" .-
VJ =- ::
- U ~
:: f/) ::
~~B
5:? u CiJ
1==<
~ ~ ~ "" i ',d D iD'2
D 1 .s8
4 ::I ~ 0 1\ ii ~ IL ~ '"
... ~~1-~ !.f 'I> u ~ ~n
<< -- 0 E g .,s a~
-.. "5 :: ~ 0 0,," .,s~i
=.5~:a Co. =~ gH ~ > u 0 ~ s
:i > I .""
~-=..oBO -= ~ '! 'i 00<> ;"5~
N _.8 S II ~ ~ ;; g u ~~
at ~ . i3 ... - .
i~.; go] u'l>c5 " .. -;; g ... i_ t'~.~
..~ .,s-=J! -" '= ! .: i'- """Ii II'
-:JrH u II ~ 1! 3
.5'~ l~= .0 ~ I ~ i~ ~111
~.si1i ~ ]~1 I;; 0 ~ ~ ;;- <
I!~-J g D c5 ~ ::~ . ~ <'E
11 J I; =~'" ~'L i! -5 g . ~i "dB
a gg a 1) ..e 0<> i.3 g
rrJ _ a 4 ~ 'i'r u j" 11 i ~ O. '::i!1'
:; t ~~ _ J:!. ~ 5 ~ ~ .f;! gg:O! .. g~
~ 00-5 - Ii- = 0 "'" .~ --Ii .:i.a..i
i-8 ~ :: ~ ." . ~!
z .j~ ,h.: ~ '8 .5 ] .05 '!!~~ 0 l=! [
E...z i! iI fj- i:J 0 =
~ ::i .e,5 ,. .. . ! 2 0<>-5.5 .a .Ii
0== D"II :Iii. . '0 > bS1 ~1~~
" ~ ii.s t 1i --'" -'2 Ii j ~ ~
:;; ii'" :I I ~l~ a ...
~,pf'."'U 1!'~ 51' ~ ~ i '2i " -
~ ~ --e- o. :II ,h] ] 1! ~=3 1~11
..... A. 0 0
:; ~ji~]~ !Oil' a It ~ ill
.si ....e--,. ~ ~ 5' 0 6; 0 aa' c. ]
0 Ii. - -; ~_. . 0 lH1
5'- ,g . . . -I~~'8 ...1i~ \I]
:d:!~;:;~ " '" ~. ... 'i! .r U
U " ~LE ~. E jj ~
0 -5.-1= . Ii ...-.tol- ,,:I ~ a ~ .
';; H~ it - a Ii 11 ~ 0 ~~ 'a j I ~'S f ·
.~ .~11 ]- ~3 Ii.. ~ -! ; ,II
:I ., "io! ".
..g:~:~<~ ~J;,'" -s ~ .. u li~] ~~ .>;- ~:P -
"'Q=:;~ ~ !-8 .~ i'~t ~ ~ .,s .n .. _t'
U ~e'g>~- ~]j ~ g
~ - 0- g~ ~ c t'fJ.H it... i~ ~"1~
.J;! P~';-1 en -i . 0 i .~ -i! e ~. ii
& a _M IS .1 :a i 110. ~.~ ." '! ~ 11..: - ~ 1! & 0 ~I]:E
:=::.,g-=s :;;:: 0 ~~. n g ~ ~1!~6i.~ ~.~
1'1 1 j~.Bi'~ . t . ~~<.,,~z ~ 1\ -
8 I! - 0 :,>=.1 -'6 ;.. 8 ~ if .~~,5]
OU'" D
:::;'2iigs "'~ "7~ !:i 'i =
. -=u""' !L~ 'i i ~ Ii '8...
u '" . '" Hi I
;; .. - G 0 ~ .11 h. & , " .. .b ,;... !I!=
-zfilS 0-- .~ ~
Ii S b' i 5.45 '$.. 'C'1i' ~
.:! > .8, li-li = ~~ C)'O Z u U ,,-5
U U
'"j ,...,
...:i
14-38
'J)
'-'
-
'J)
z:
o
~
-
'J)
[;oJ
"""
-
-:i~lil~~
~~U~CJC.::;"...
=--t:5~-~:
J:--VJuc::J:
;E5~=5~~
~toc..<~="5":::
~~~o~~:g~~
~:::~~;aEc:~
~ == ~,=-g~ ~=E
mmm
--~o=""::I=-=-'
"B~'5~B~?~-g
~.-=::::;~o:C)c
~~~~~ ~~~S
=-.=::E !?'~ II) 2N~
"5:::5 =-\0"::
';~~B~::g~>
uC:-05!:EE=..E
~"E:.:~E:!=oU')
~~~'~~~Eg~~
== ~::::: ~ 0 r- E rIJ = c..
!~~~.ED~j~i
=-=::::::.=;;[I)=~8VJ
::: - ~~iii::E......__
c==uC)C)~..;:ER
Z;:~::;=:-~2o
-
'"
JIll
~ t; 5 E
-= .:: 'v. ..:!
-..... v, C)
'o...;G-::::
_ v; U
- _ -_ u
~:: ~ ~
- <:: ~ t.)
U :: :J c:
;~~~~
~~ [~
-:::: "'7' ;;: ~
'" r-, .:~ ._~
i%""; - ~
B.E =- U')
11;.1:; v, U
~ ~~'H
.~.: B ~
~~~.~
~~~!
....oo;;c.>":!
-g:;-=E
a;==BD
o ::: 0 ...
-=sZ=a
.. .c..:::."U
~ E c...,
:: -=.=-=
E u 0 t>
o -: :: U
5:! -5 2 E
- E~ ~
_ OJ v. uu~~-=::.
It ~ j ~! ii ~ i ! ;~ i
~t;;= S ~5 v,:::=~ 5 f'=-Z
E.~ ~ .E :: ~ ~ -; :..:.. ~ := ,c ~-=
O-"'c!:!= >"':Iuu"""'-=,-
;: ~ .:= v, :: I.;:: .-::'; ::.D 0L0~ ~ :::
.:.~r:;c. ::;...:-=:""::I.$=~-=
OCU~v.~5';u~c:iL::;~
g~~ ~~ ~~.~~~~~~~
.- t.:; t ~"i:i CL.Er- ~"E~:::::: E-
:: ,0 8 u :: ~ < :: ~ ~ '0 t.I ?.:::
ijjll!!i!Hiii
~ w g -Cti~ t E. "5 8 -;; ~ ~ ~-=
::"'':'= CItIo-;:: ::"=-='-:'===::
-c..uOo--""I;.jt:..-I;.j__1;.j
u=t.)::"'_~<.:""I....o...::::~u
-= ~ E = tJ is . - = : g"E ~-;
I....ol;Jo-aou_"':ItJul:__~
0- 1.1= ="';1- - t:..u U = =:;:_
.11,) ~...:w: _ U c 0 = _ 1.1 U -=
:=r-12 u_: S E =c: ur.E.::;
. "';I ;; "';1- "';I u 0 ... :::s ::I "" :.. =
'"1 is =.= = ~ ~ ~ 0 8"1.:.. ~ E.=
""'I""OU=""a(.J=:;:-':VJ .....co..
C)c~ 5-f:~<U:C S_E'=~~
~~ 'U u ff-:i = ~ a: I,) ~ ~:- ~ ..;
t:.._ 00>.... = f::: Q{.I...C; i)~I",,-g
==I;J~=V)=oo,:::ao""O~",=
oO~.3V)~,=,~l,;;,ii<...Q=t:..2
"';I~...VJ=-J5G.1u=u_"::r,c.
I\) ....._... -00-1.1;::-=
ii] ~.g E..g:.. ~ g S = ~ g ~ r;-
;;; = c_::: --.::U-=.=.: 0 t) :::;:...::::::
V,lO~"'''E ;::VJ..E u::: ~ C(I.=?~-
<..!!:=8=u~u~u:::::::;'..=::::!5
~'~ < ~
r=. .:;;
~~.~~
= e:;,,::.:::
~~~]
:.:.. C ;! ~
~ C - I;J
~~E"=;
... v._
U -= ~ :> c..i
u :::: u toO ::I
"t: .:; c ::: C;
:E : ,... v.- >
:;";::: E E
5b~=%"~
~ = = :; Oli
_c::___
>~~-=:~
_: -av=:: ti
~^~E=~
u _ c:: ="_
Ca=E:':
';:: -- C(I;::: ~
u ~ (.J (.J =
I=I,)-C,:-=
E.5"':1~=
..E c~ o-~
~ ~ ~!:: ;;
II) 10.., - . u
~o~r:J::
Co VI U V"I"_
U en -= u:':"
2fJ.E ~g>~
a ~ III': c.. iC:i
"5=E==
x 11) to) C u
or;)C::"E~
~t:~c==
I-ONv.:-
-"- -= ~
t~
ti ... ._
~~E
2 1.1 r;
:E -= .~
e ~.~
.... - u
g V3 t
~ v.
~ "d .~
t)~-=:
~'o~
-- or, __
~ ~= t
UJJ
.b.,ga=
t) _.... ....
~1;~2
0'" 11) 1:'"'0
~""2s~
=:I C'I:I I/) t)
-~-g~ ~
,." "
ov;.,g"';l
~8:=a
c. = -';: "C
I/) ~ ~ ~
~::b~
c.~ =- Co
g-~=u
~c.8;.
11;"';1- t)
e==="E
ao =:I or, ::I
~a~tf
':"""" - - "';I
r- c... = c=
~ -5~"-~j -f u
u ~H';t ; "ig ~ ] ~ - c ~-- ~
- ~~~1 0 - 1 ~~ if
Co 1I --5:; .!! I
.s~-5"1!J!;;:piI~ ... ~"Z~ -
i! ~ " - " = a
;0., 'O:.e j: 1: g '"B - -/1. ~ f:o. ~"j ~ ,g I!'.!! ~
~"'i!!~ j;-E!S-'''~o -a :~Wcl ::~ . ~ . ~ - - ...
1!!I j 1.11.::1$ 0 . O.S01i_ :So " -5 .5 o5~
CI"" "0 "It ~ " E-g~;~ ~~- ~ '0 ~'! "
~~ ! ~ - ~ -8 ~ :h. . ~ -<i if' ~ u
~c 1i~ I -;I .!'
- 5E tOil . l~
.r!lt~ 0 B1!1_.s i: ii ii"~~1! .$U ~ "
~~.i~ :;~ l -
i] 1i_P-ii~j~ '6 fjj-~.lJ~ ';;ii 0 'fi
.....2 = 5 .w= .s -5~ ' ]- 0 ~ ~ ~I "
i -5;j! B.5 ~ ; . jj -!! ~... . -fi gW--.f; U 2,2B': ~i .!! ~
jf oi.il~ ~-si1~ :i ~
'J) -;lL!!8r.i'=]:.s ! ~- .~ II- !if <f .r1l i:i!
i c i _... _05 ~
...1i1i;~ ~ .s;! i'a . iI'I! -....:::i Co "
... s 1j~"iI:j 5 oS _.. ." g ~ 0"", "
~ o"B'"g ~ _ - ~ .q '1 -g ,1I;g 11 - - " "
~ a.] F: i:H ... . .f '~IS!!-l; ~:f '" ~-a
:q . 1:- c.. q- ::Ii 0 o'!! ii
~ 'E~i '''{f.s1aJ1lu .... ~
o;i~:::-i- 0-2.1 - tlB ..
50 o S'1I ~ '\'1' ~ 1 ~
:E 0 !B'o1!1 'i"i. :i
11 ~I ::~~-! ';; - 8 ~~ -
-"'..~ c!S . ~ 1i0D h ,8~j", 'if ~ u~
:E -s".g-'O..;o'U'~ 11 ?> i-~~c.s -. "'Ii
""II - !pJ! " 1 :!
B U - II. ~.~ ~ 'E"j!
0 'i11u6_]~[_- -g~ . " e.s-p-~ 1 :Iii ,,~ a ~
~~-~B ="i~-s - J: ~ -so ~ t... 02
U e-;;,,-]];--5 ;..so~ .R j :::q 8-; ~ Q;'2 "'if"! g 0
.~ 805_~ ~ B:,,]j;-~:Bii! :~! "Z ;;"'-.; 18: p.;~ "-!;' .15 'j! .s,! ~
f:. '3 if ~ .. [
.~ 8 E-g.ctt u.! :: ;.. 6 ~ 0 . !. iJl~ii I! i!:la E. ~ --:fa
- e'n --28-1$0 . ~ s o " 8 Hti f~
<3 ,I". g~:2~1"€]'~ ' --1 !1 ~.DJ- :!!~ 11
.. J!", !!
0 ~'::5 0"-.;' ]~ Ii i '.h !~ ! ! ~ ~ l~.d eo. if -s;-sil~
0 ~"S. .i, .sii c.u '2 ~B
.~ -Li 11 . =-
:3!~1! G -iI [1~~-s !t: t :i~t~h ..;;13 :;5 !li-~ ~ ~
.3 ':;:!!' - i!"!-5~'''1I~f ' II c- !!~ 1 ~'! II.!! " 11!'''' n. -.g g
:-i- 'a ~~~.=t ~~ c l' ~ E~
o~-! i!:p ! ~tes -8 ~.r eM ~I!,
~ 1].!!i'6i6]1~ ;;]J ::i! "If'. -li 0 .n .. ..; u
! 1!-.s !i~ ]~e~ 8 ~
~ 1; .. :-5
u d h.s ~= 1~-f~'6 ;8 ; B H ~11 . S ~ e.u <-,
'" < ~
I I I U LLlJ
"., ~ t"- oo '" 0
:s ~ ...J ...J ...J ...J
,
]4-39
Zi
r_;
-
rJj
Z
o
~
-
'J)
r.:I
""
-
,
~
;: ;
~ -=
i; ~
~ !::_-
V3 t: ~
j~~
:;: ~ ......
~-~
v.
~_:-o
....:,);,,) VJ
t:.IJ ~:::? ~
.~ -=-~-~
o "
or. _ VJ
--t~~
~
_~_ =- V u
- ~ i:::
~.E~~
~~
or.'::::; ~
~.... - ~
"E ~ -' -::I Cj
::"::J:t; ~ 0
or. - --
c) ~ [) _~-::I
> ~~ ~ E
-v.~:E -::I g
~~~=~
ti g. E ;,) ~
~:::: tI) It!
"5 c~::: ~
=5,go
t::t):-tI)
-- '? -= :E
i:ti_:EF
-~~::::::-"
- ~
~-
;:::: ;,::,.
-"-=~ -
'~E <=
~ ~ ~
~~
~
"
~
o
u
v.
"
'u ~ c:
~ =-::: ::J
11:>.= or. v.
U ::,. v.
_-=~ 0
~
~ - ;....
'E': ~
..::: u ::=
.; *.J
~ ;:
u "
'0==
c.g:E
;0., v.
C)-c;;=
'E -:::;
2. ~ 0
Qj~
"':I 1:.1 v.
C=c;:.E
~~~
"'0 . v.-
-= ~ (.J_
o = ~ ~
~:""-=:.J
v:
c _
o
o
C '!)
:s~~
- ~
ti-=
E -: _
v ~ ::::: ~ ~
---v: ::- "C
;-;:: ~'~ ~ ~-
g'2-"'~
E.":--::_-=~
o = ~ - r;
~ 0 :::..= _ ~_
0.- - C
"':I -E _ ~.:
Q(j C t:: ::...!" ...
.::: ..EE~
c.. Co. :.,.. v. - '"
2 ~ E. - ;"':1 or.
u::..:t:.21:.1
~ ~.- v, Q{! _ ~
"':I-~ -:~5
._~ EE;~
"'5 v. _ ~
E~ t:__;-;;.
~ -5
~~....~~.s
~=c::Z-",o
u- :E=
~~-- O~
o -....: < s:
=.:;- ...
.~ u U u ev.;:g
~~~~8-E~
E> 2>._VJ
>,...-OCSOu
.!!!uc::;:5....&~
.... c:: u -'
~ E3 ~~-g~
~E:O~2~..!
o cs 1:.1 v.: c.."':I
u-:8"':1Eu
~c::; =~.=~
2~=~'-~g.
;::U5r:~ ;;c:
~
-'
v. u
:~ :.,..
,
o v,
~U
_ 0
u':
v. -
~.-
~
i
~
'"
-2
.~ ~
.~ ..2
"5 .~
""-=
:E~ii
.~ ~"E
2 'E
_ If; ~
o u
:J ~ f.)
v.-=
r; < E
C_:~-
0-;;
is >. ...
u a 15
Eu-o
u....-.::
~ -00
o ~ u
~-o ~
u ___
.... a:;:;
.= "Qb:::
-0 CiI 3:
~ :E ~
" "
.~ B]
"':I ~ ti
<] :
~
-'
'-'= r:; ~~ ,,_::- -:_~.E
- - -y
f~~ - ~ i.=_~_'
~~~~~~--
c: c: z:;
~~v,u:gEc~
:'B:5B;;~v.
-=~_-="_ ~C'" __"..
....;;; ::: ~.2 .::
_0 ~ ~ '-1 ::? _-2~
E -Eo~~u
~.~ ~~ E-~~
.;;;=~ -=~-o-'
_~ :~.....;~u
U .... "E '" u _" -v~.
oo.~~;;
:::::uuo;~t=
c~~]__~~g.~
c:_o=-=~ =t)~
.5E'~ EI>:-E
-- U \,." t) > .-
~~uO:::l'Qoo~
....c:E="':I-o....co
~ - > : ~g rs.!?
'" 0 I:'Vi U U _
VJeI 0-.:::::: =.c..o2
~r1;E~=-d
-o_';)o.=.E=
E~~~UIt!>t:=
C::ii~-~'ti::~=
c5i=c;:E~2~~
-~~~Eg .~=a
0= !:! ::I ~"'B cs' i;
-0 Cl()U u u._
3_=e~:Eo~.2f:
_.2 ~ -=.= _ ~ CIt.-o --v;
~"5~c~~~~E
::.. v. ~
~.~ ..:::. - ~
E ~ ~.... ~. i:
OO'"::"CLUV)t)
~c;.~_~;: r;~'~
5>-_ u
a ~ E..c: ~
>.= u =
g=t)~_CLE
.~ = ~ 2 VJ
c: ~_' it _ __
~ 5l. - ~ ~
"0 '0 "'U CI)
~~--_=-c:..c ~ ~
::I ~ _'~ I: ::I
2 E c.. 5;
It! ~ >. t;I
_ol....~~-="E...
- -~ .... "':"'"_"
....U_.~~i;
.~ ~~.--~~'~-~--
i'EZ ~ oo_~:.-.
:: .C'~ ... .- ~ :E'~ ~ ~
'Ec..~~~=~t --'
- 1:.1_-= u-
e u x u - ~ ~ ~ .b__::
'oo=t)uE.;;;~:::c...
.eelV, 2=C':S-='"
oc:::- -- E=S t:o
-->..5_E.c..
~It!=uv, .."C" ~2
~o 8 a a7~;;:E.!?g;
'Eu=r;~=-5uC::::u.
~-t)_~-u__~tf
.g....:;~;;2o ~VJ
...~=u-u.c..E'~t:
~ u g E -= >.-0 :. g
O::~-~~-u-::
Eo VJ O~ U u - u v.
u-uc:::::~-::'!::!t= ~
U UQf,.>--;:uOD_
= u a 012:';;; r; u:
8 5C:E:: c..u~:E~
-
-
v. .-
."
"
"-.
v. .!::
-- t;
~-c-
~~t.
~ E..-=
g 7: :..
~ = :..
.:=' - ~
:E v.
....
-'
rr.J
r-
z
r.:I
~
~
o
u
J4-40
if.!
;;oJ
rr;
z
o
~
-
if.!
;;oJ
"'"
-
...:: ~ or ;: :-. CIl!
0; ~;-: f ~~ E ~]
::: ~~. ;;.E r:: - - ~ ::;- c..>
"- ::;.~ I/': -=.":: ==.......g ""::I
:.> -v,_~-::;~~~=...
_p~.,,-=~=.gcu__ c..>
-:'-:";;;:';"i::-:ce>
-"':::;,,~uU)~==Er::O
~ ~ ~-5:; e ~ ~ ~ t E t
~ --=g=:;:::;g
~B~"~S;u:..__~o
.~::: c=~u=-~t)u
~fl~lji H~i~
cc~-.=?O :v.OO..::o
;fii~i1!!I;i
~E=~~olo"J~E~c-B
.:.=,~u-;:::~_=:::;.:::~
'::'"~c~;~"s!=-5~.~
=.Io"J=U)E5B~Eu-=
::"'~C:";2=Eu-==~=i)
:Eo<=':~~=<==[
=.; .~ iJ2.2 E.o~ u.E
:!~~:=~.=E::~=~
-= u'"5_.:: === ?~= ~ U
.uuc:I_'-U -c:::?
,:-c:'=:=-.2!!r...-:::::: .0_
-=;::v.uc..>_=o__~~
j i~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ! 1 i
u:::u,:CI'>~ c::--vu_s:::
~~~]~].g~ [] E EB
, .""= -~ ':' '"= =-
:,.. r: ::J :. = or,
:,..J51:j~~;::-g
~.~'~~.2t1ti~C
v. u ::: U) c..> c..> :: ""="
"'-=>--v;
=C~::...~=<~
~.~'E~E~~~
"'" - c:::.. e to> '-" _
: o tI.IIorn::<_=
--:E:-: r-' < ;;;.. u;
u'-~.......'"' v._"':.'
"::O"::'..::u;=:;v;~
-~~~-E"'E"E
=-2::~fit~.5
:;....: ~"E:;.~
.g"E~vOE:!
U'--O-II'J_e,.
=::oo.g.;~~
.2.~]-5~~ "''E
1; ~ e 15 ",""2 ~ tJ
-=.ECI..;;.~,g.....c..
~ 'E~ ;:""'.!:! 1'1= ~
:Et~t2~g:.:.J=
=~"Ooo:::""':::"ii6:::::
v.~=..::::>.=_ _
UE..:!.:E:=E;?~:;J
"'.... v.o_u 0-.--
~8EG)'::~gE
-v.ot:=":::::~r-_i::
3-:5!Qor-c. ;~
~-5EE.,;~'ri~-=
__-;;"s::...<2 I:Cic....
"'" .... cOCo. ':: - _ c
EV;~I::Cf);nEuu
~2':.2=.==~x
_==c-t:c~cc.:..U')_
!: ~ e-g.~~~E
~E~:::::~~r:::.~g,
']2G)~.cCi~uQ.
::: ~=.ij ~Q.-=-=<
~
.,;
= ~
"'~
~~
~t
":: c
o "
.~ "Qi;
~~
C~
~ :~
-; ~
- -
"~ ~
~ >.
~~
::-Ci
= ~
o :or
~1:
v, =:
~E'
--
tJ 5:
....... c-
o !::!
:;:>=
G) .=
~~
~~
v, a
j-fi
.:.-.
- "'.
.: 2:";-
~~~
r: =- :,..
"'i:jv;,
=.=:. v:
~ :..> ~
= c
8 ~ 1:
.= c::
~=
;;.v,;: ::;
o ~
~u
= ~
50
"0:0 :::::
~iJ
~~
:g ~
- ~
t: 0 v.::'.
E~.~~~=_
~~ ? ~ -
r;~=-=;c'
""C .t5 "E _
eoN,_C-
~ ~ :..:~
Cii V) ...0 ~ :::
Q..VJ--c::
X~C6:5:::
~=..:->.
~c.-;E'.E
<lJS..g5::>
U'"t:I = 0 :::
E:~~-=~
u~Bo~
"."
> "t:I ~ ~ ~
~m:,.:~_
,,_ ~ c.:
:; >-. ~ ~ B
U~~tt
$:E~~,"€
!"""".c 0 ... _
u '-'
II; ~
~~
0_
- -
2 ~ ~_
-= = -
~ -=...
.~f~
::'
2 -'_'
~
.Qi;~
00-
~~
"
~:::
c ~
- ';"
~ ~
co""
t) ~
-
~ c
~~
f; ~
~ t
.E :g
~ .!!
= ~
~ 0.>
" "
u :;
~ S;
" ~
" '"
.~ u
="00
-= "
g~
" "
"~
-= '"
- '"
-
-
-
...:B
"E u ::
5:!~~
- - >
:: f.,I
"~ 8 B
.. c
-.E~
j~]
~;'v.:-
- " 0.>
o=:; 2=
G) .2
.=:. II;
:::~.:;
-0.>.
~= ~
>. -
~ ~
~~~
-==:;~
Co. = -= ci
<<r.:-~
fue~:::
._ v_
t gL,: V)
= .E .:::...=:.
;; c ~ ~
:.;..:5 E.u
=
2
0.,
:~
1:
-
.-
~
"
~
f
"
""
o
u
"
.0' .
c..:::
S:!::5
=",
~ ::
V.8
u "
~-=
,,~
" "
.::. ::::>
~"7
-=0<>
~ ~
~ c
u'"
if.!
...
Z
;;oJ
:;;
:;;
o
u
5
'"
...)
14-41
'J)
'-'
-
'J)
z
~
~
-
'JJ
""
...
-
-
o
;:;
-
-
-
"
.E
-
o
f
.-
"
..
~
-
V- t>
~ c
~ ~
~
"'::: t:
~ =
~~
u ~
~ ?
'"
.=
'JJ
f-<
;z:
""
:;
~
~
U
14-12
-."-...-.....-
rJ)
~
rJ)
z
o
c.
rJ)
~
....
-
~ ~
=--
- -
- -
~ g
.2 --=
i~
:2::
~
~~
- =-
"':::;
== :
~]
..:~
E' ~ .: E E.
~ E ~ e~
r.=,?~~
>:L~;;"'O
:J < ~ _ 0
~~~~~
, - 1:.1_
"E5~~~
E- :: :::.E: c..
- -= - CIi. II)
f:j = ;;:' '" -
,:r; E ... v
.g:-5=Eg-
~ z;: = t t)
=::E-: b-5
~~~~2
1::.5 ~.,:!::
~~.~ ~ ~
>:;:cE
tJ _ >_
"':I~..!:ttJ
5-;~E~
~:Hi~
:;~~E=
2"5~~=~
- ---"'0_
'o~=]~6
t:c;O..R~<
o ~-;; ..';;; c..
!JJ~ U
~ ; ~
~ ~ ~
~ .:. :;>-"
: ; 11
~~.~
~ E c
2 ~-=
ir.'~-o
:J = Co)
- u -:::
- :> ii
-=v;=
- = ii
~~~
~ ~ .::
~ ...: It)
~~~
<: 8-~
N
..J
-= ;-
:=: :..0
~~
a. ~
.: ==
5 ~
v.=
-;::: ...
"Z :
:=c
-; ":
- 0
=c
.E".~
~ ~~
v. c:; ~
.....~ 'E .!!?
- '" =
~]:;
~ B ~
;;"'0"::
=- - 0
- - =
o U)_
~:: .~
~~ .E
~:;s
-= :! E
"Ec~
tEE'::
o _ _
~ ~ e
- - ~
<~E
~
....;
c
~ 0
~ c_ ~
C .~
. e
.. c g ..
"- e
~ t 3=
=
.
. '2 .
. {
-. "-
.0
'5 1
"- ~
E ~
! J: ~
i: _..~ .!
~].r ,,09
I~ .a ~:s 1
rJ) ~~j i~
Eo-< ~ 6 81
- -'a c.
Z ".g .:.
-" !., ~
~ ::::'1 2:
:.; st~H
E 005'0
:.; ~.~ It.
0 -;;:S';~
Ii ! ~~ :
U -~~ E]
.~ . 'a 0
;c..... :.C
E - ~:a] ~
a ~...g = :.e..
" ~ . -1~ ..
0 ~~go E
-
.
~ F~1!11!e;
" a::58"Dz.~
0
u
~ ~ " ...
a
. ]4~3
'" LliJ
N ,..,
, ....J
ATTACHMENT 5
ADDE,\1)UM TO E....VIRO'\l\1E'\'TAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-97-03
PROJECT ....AME: Change in circumstances regarding tl1e designation of the Otay
Tarplant (Hemizonia Conjugens) under the Federal Endangered
Species Act.
PROJECT WCATION: South of Telegraph Canyon Road, to the west of La Media Road
(an extension of Otay lakes Road). See Figure 1.
PROJECT APPLICA..1',T: The Otay Ranch Company
CASE NO:
EIR-97-03
DATE:
October 30, 1998
1. INTRODUCTION
A. When an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared
for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence in tl1e light of tl1e whole record, one or more of tl1e following:
1.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the EIR due to tl1e involvement of new significant
environnJental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
~
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR 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 tl1e time
tl1e EIR was prepared.
B. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes
available after preparation of an EIR, the lead agency shall prepare <I subsequent
EIR if required under subsection A. Otherwise, the le<id agency shall determine
whether to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum or no further
documentation.
EIR-97-03 Addendum
Page 1
,~:s addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional infonnation and ay;"'ysis
:':J:1:.:erning impazrs as a result of the change in designation of Otay Tarplam Wemi:onia
COl1Jugens) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) 10 threatened from a species that
is 2. candidate for listing. As a result of this analysis. the basic conclusions of the Environmental
Impact Repon have not changed.
Tnerefore, in =rdance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the
foliowing addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR.97-
O~
II. PROJECT LOCATION
Tne project sire is located to the south of Telegraph Canyon Road and west of La Media Road.
(See attached locator map as Figure 1.)
Tne Otay Ranch GDP defines Village One as tl1e land area both east and west of Paseo Ranchero
beIWeen Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway. The SPA One Plan includes all of
Village Fjve and the portion of Village One east of Paseo Ranchero. The area west of Paseo
Ranchero includes Village One and Two West. Also included is the high school site east of Paseo
Ranchero, south of Olympic Parkway.
III. ANALYSIS
Tne EIR nores that the Otay Tarplant is on this site and that it is a Stare listed species as
endangered and is a candidate species for listing at a Federal level. Subsequent to the preparation
of the EIR, the Department of the Interior listed the Otay Tarplant as a threatened species. This
is a change in circumstances under which the project is being proposed. The primary issue is if
this change would require a major revision to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant
or substantial increase in the severity of significant enviromnental effects.
The Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) calls for the preservation of 71 % of the major
population of the Otay Tarplant in the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). The Otay Ranch
Resource Management Plan calls for the preservation of 80% of the species as does the Draft
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. This 80% standard is also identified in the Oray Ranch CEQA
Fmdings of Fact.
As is noted in the SPA One EIR with the expanded development area in Poggi Canyon, tl1e 80%
s=dard is maintained and tl1e project is in compliance with tl1e Otay Ranch Findings of Fact.
Tnerefore, no major revisions to tl1e EIR are required.
Because of the involvement of the Federal Government, it is important that the applicant
coordinate with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and obtain a letter from the Service for the City
indicating tha1 all of their requirements have been met.
Page 2
EIR-97-03 Addendum
-- ---_... '~-'--"-"--_.""""-'------ .-----...---- -."^. -- ...._.----
I". CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sesrion 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above dissussion.
1 hereby find thaI the project revisions to the proposed projeCl will result in only minor 1eshnisa]
changes or additions which are necessary to make the Enviromnental 1mpaCl Report adequate
under CEQA.
(I~
EnvIron tal Review Coordinator
References: General Plan, City of Chula Vista
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
City of Chula Vista Enviromnental Review Procedures
Otay Ranch General Development Plan
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendments
(A:\lIbUnitialstuwcs&negdccs\eir9703.add)
EIR-97-03 Addendum
Page 3
:r:-:- ?2'~{3 :: ::=;~.,.; LETT:~r-=-r1c.IrH(2t::: (. HSS':J~:~It:::~,
~'.2/~
ATTACHMENT 6
Ot!~ h"i::.t, sPA One mu:: G:JPISRP ~cimmts EIR
Biolo(:ical ~ar..c::
Impact!;
Tne analysis of biologlcal impacts is focused en the proposed changes in 1k SPA One
Am=ndmcnt Area as well as Villages Thirteen and Fifteen. The SPA One Amendment Area
wollid expand the development area and result in an in=ase in the amount of biologi=1
resources which would be impacted by development. Conve:rscly. the project would reduce the
biological impacts in Villages Thirteen and Fifte..'"Il by converting planned residential uses to
opeD space. Biological impacts associa.tc:d with proposed changes to planned land uses in
Villages Two, Six and Seven or general land use policies are net addressed because there would
be ro net change in the biological resource impacts as one development type would be
substituted for anDther.
Direct Impacts
Direct impacts were estimated by overlaying the anticipated limits of grading on the biological
resomccs map and quantifying impacts, For the SPA One Arn","nm"llt Area. it was assumed that
the entire site would be: graded. For the Village Thirteen Spec:i2l Resource Study areas, it was
assmned that the ~ area r:.ould be subject to future development.
SF A, One Amemmnent Area
Vegctation Communities. The proposed expansion of the development areas in the SPA One
A. m"'DrlTT\ent Area would mcrease the amount of DB1uJ:al vegetation communities which would be
impacted by development under the existing Otay Ranch GDP. Table 5.3-5 identifies the total
am01IIJt of vegetation which would be impac:1cd by the proposed development as well as a
comparison of the amount of natural vegetation which '\VOuld be impacted under the current Otay
Ranch GDP. .
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct and eomplete loss of the
vegetation community acreages presented in Table 5.3-5. Losses would oc= as the result of
grading and brush management. As illustrated in Table 5.3-5, development in the SPA One
p. mP.T1rlTnent Area would impact three sensitive vegetation rommunities including coastal sage
s=b (235.9 acres), maritime succulent sage scrub (29.6 acres) and valley needlegrass grassland
( 16.0 acres). In addition, the development would impact tl1e M2 and M5+ vema! pools identified
on the subject }'J-ul^"rty. The expansion of the development area which wou1d be allowed with
the proposed project would inr:.rease the impacts to roastal sage scrub by 26 % over that which
would occur un&r the cuxrent Otay Ranr:.h GDP; impacts to maritime succulent scrub and valley
necdlegrass gr:o~~],mn would increase by 228% and 43%, respectively.. The vema1 pools would
be impacted under ei'lher plan. These impacts '\VOuld be considered signifiC!lI1t.
Plants.. Five ~sitive nlant snecics inc.luriin[J the Otav tar:plant San Die20 barrel ca.ctu~ ~ake
cholla. 2"i1V !mike moss 2nd San Die!1o County vi=ra would be imnacted bv deveJnnment of
the SPA One Amendment Area. No other "enshive nlant spec;ie< have been documented on-F:1te
Juh 3, 1998
53~:l!!
0:--;- 321 '93 1:: ~:~!"" LETT:I::f:=-~Clr-!r(RE:: (., ~SSCJC=riTES
= -:. /=-
.-"...-.
o~ kmdl SPA One L,,:d GPP/SRP Amendmenu EIR
BjD!~~j::;a1 Jt.es:ourcc:.
Mitigation Measure 5.3-5: Prior tD issuance of grading prnnrt(s) which wallie impact wetlan:k
the applicant shall furnish th: City with copies of the appropriate permits from the stare and
fed.."'IIIl wildlife agencies, or shalJ provide evidence dcmonstraring that no pcnnits arc required.
M'rtigaJion MI!RSUN! 53-6: Prior to isswmce of grading p=it(s) which would impact co,"stal
sage scrub, the applicant shalJ furnish the City with copies of th: appropriate permits from the
stB."tf: and federal wildlife agencies, or shall provide evide:nce: d:::mDnsttating that no pc:=its are
required.
Mitiption MeaIID"e 5.3-7: Prior to issuance of I717Idinp' ne:nnit(s) whicn would imnact the Otav
tamlant the: arm!;,""",,"t shall "CTOvide evid<:nce that thev have cmrmlicd with aJJ reauiTements and
re<YIJlatinns of the: USFWS re!!8rdini the Borin" oltne Otav t"",lant.
Level of Signml!lln"" After Mitieation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.3-1 through 5.3-6 will reduce the biological impacts to
a level less than sigxrificant.
I July S, 1998
53~21
r~Ci 5:.2: '33 ::::::.2;:"..., LETTIL:::'::-:1CINTiPt:: & HSSCJClrl--;-~S
::.-.:>::-
SP. )]\IE AND GDP AMENDMENT FIN......NGS
--
required in. o~ i=orporated into. the Projm whic:h wilJ avoid or mitiga1: tht: significant
eJCvi:-D1Jl!lental e5"::::1 identified in the Final EIR to below a Jeve) 0: significan:::e.
Mitigation Measures: The folJowing mitigation mt:nsures art: feasibie, art: required as
condirions of approval, and are made binding on ~ Applkant through these Finclings. [FEIR..
Voiume I, pp. 53-26 through 53-27]
. MitiD"arion Measure 5.'.1: Prior to recordation of final map(s), tht: applicant shall "ither
convey land within the Otay R;mch RMP Resource Preserve at a ratio of 1.1 Eg acres for =h
a..--re of devdopmcnt area, or shall pay in-lieu-of-conveyance f=s.
. Mjti~ation Measure 5 '-2. Prior to recordation of final map(s) impacting maritime suceulcnt
sage scrub, the applicant shall assure pcrfonnance of restmation acti~ identified in the
Maritime Sncculcnt Scrob Habitat Replacement Plan. of the Otay Ranch RMP (Appendix FE).
Jf the total !III1Ount of uncompensated impacts to maritime sua;uJent scrub within Otay Ranch
does not exceed 25 acres with the proposed project, the applicantsball provide financial or
other assurance that the project loss would be restored once the loss rcachc:s the 25-acre
threshold established by the RMP.
. Mitip'ation Mca.<mrt: 5.3-3' Prior to recordation of final maps(s) impacting vcmal pools. the
applicant shall assure perlormance of vernal pool restoration acrivities in accordance with
Vernal Pool fuscrvaiion and Management Plan. of the Otay.Ranch RMP (Appendix F6).
. M"rti!!ation Measure 5 3-4: Prior to issuance of grading pemrit(s) which would allow grading
adjacent to coastal or maritime succulent sage scrob. the gr3ding permit shall be conditioned
to limit the use of heavy construction equipment between March 1 and August 1. Heavy
equipment resulting in a noise level higher than 65 dB(A) L.., in nearby sage scrub shall not
~ operated during the specified breeding season unless it can be: demonstrated to the
satisfaction of state and federal wildlife agencies that the oJ"'I1Uion would not significantly.
impact state or federally-list:d bird species.
. Mitigation Measure 5 3-5: Prior to issuance of grading pcrmit(s) which would impact
wetlands, the applicant shall furnish the City with copies of the appropriate: Jl=its :&om the
st:aIe and federal wildlife agencies, or shall provide evidence demonstrating. that no pcrmits
arc required.
. Mitip"atlon Mea,=" 5 '1-6' Prior to issuance: of gxading pemUt(s) which would impact coastal
". sage scrubr.the ~plicant shal) furnish the City with copies of the appropriate: permits from
the state and federal wildlife agencies, or shall provide evidence demonstrating thJI1 no
permits arc requiIed.
. M"rtie:a!ion MeI!SUre 53-7' Prior to issuance of Erradinp" Dermit(S) whicb WDuld im'Dact the .
Otav tarolmt the mmH""nt .h,,)1 Drovide evidence that theY have cnmnlied with all
TCCIUiT'emcnts and TCIruJatlons of the USFWS rel!ardinlt the ]istinlt ot the Otav tam1ant
",
11
...
'"
'"
..
i!
~
~
9 a
...
'" -
z....~
o Ii ~ =
gj;;>~
=""~'"
,;.. ..
!:Ie! "
::1;;;0:0:
",,"...0iI
~e:!og
~~i=iZ
o~l:i~
:;8 2:
!11= 0
~:G e:
'" ...
~ :=
'" ..
>- ~
...
..
o
R
~..:
.-
u ft
-..
~'i
>
-j
0-
.JI
- '"
c~
c...
1:
~ .2 ;'rJ .
oS! = ..
. " I:' '"
~i !i
= ~
r a =
s> .:: 11 '" of
!- . ....
:c
. .!! .
J;"C"~ ';
. . tJ
g...5 ... ..
. - . 's
===... .~.~ €.s
0> --
~ "1 >:
::I &c;
.
5
-
... :r~
... "C - >: :<
. &8
j
d
. ><
~ .=.~
..
;!~B...
!.q~
.-a:..
=-rn~
~
. ~ i
.:~
"": ] ~ ... a:
,,_~-::ra '"'::I
~ .er~..9 ~_';'-.
'" ':, , ." .
"S8'UJii =tt'01:
,.'uh ~!i~
:~-:~t _5]~
~e:';?j:; q~
H~,gjj'!E- ~!~
=. - _ ~ o!:.....
~ ;c...:: .: e 10:: .. .. .3
: ~l~:1'~ :p c
;<.z.e~= ._~.i
~~'~Q!;g 5~Q,
... ~! =-.$3.3 ~-~
-".-~:;JQ..:!"
~ .r~-a.~;!-.2'5:i
... ~ a..! ~.:] ': g 'i
~ .2 'i'".2 ~;; ..,g.i .
'-.s1l-;;.. S" KI;
,n.Jl1~Ef;~
~'=---.... ~-.~
'Ooor(I<I!;tQ_ S..'Go)
...~-sii. -3. ~
",~Ii.s:;;] ..;:s!ilf.;
-D~
J ~ ~
~ ! ";:
_ 0 .
.~ ~ 8
a:%_
.,
...; '"
L .
..
tJ
....
.
..-"
.-=.:.
0>
XI
:><
- - i:'... - f ~
Q~i~ 2 ~ ~ ~_
'~.'i>I'3- Ai ~'@e ;.x 11 e
,:i:.tIOo5~ ~"'-'iiu€~>,. :sq!
.fo~."'aeQ ~~...!iilo=
a Z~'5~..i'!1.".a~.1Iel!i!
_ _;10 . 111'... _fII
9...~,,!! ,.....:!:.i!!t5,s--",-
~u~~~a~~~~so. ~~~o
..... . " iO'a "-c . g It -:: '" :; g '" ~.",
~'aEg.~SI.:.to"li~='i$~.! ~
';J "'!!P-= c:...3 Q" . - :i"'a 1'1 ..s
.s.~::: a i ~.~ 1 ~ Iib-! ~ !.it ~ ~~ ~
~ ,s ~ "... '..;;; ~ ~ ~. ~ .. ~ i;'i if ... '" ~
:r: '2 ~ Q~ ~ ~ ~ ..5 _ < E II -= ::
~4o~o.~ a'S ~ _>_;
J~I!~J!"'~aJl~~~~ii~
IF -3 ; H Go; H ~.; S j l~ ~ i.~
og a'.G.-~!J =.-]!:e!...=.';/
.. :i-'i3.a"':l'.;r.s'-;-~C-~Q..=:.i:'.~
f~J~-~~~t.~&.e~!~i9;
a "2 -1' e it ~ ~ ~ G1.a ~ 1 i:'': ~ = g ...
agj e~]n~S.I;,,;'~"~ish'::;
..... - ~ .~.:! ji .5 ~ r]i" 11 . 1 ~ .,. i .9 1! ,a
"' - :;;::::I:.a :a --e ~ .. ~ EI- Q,,~ ~. 5"
~ .2 3o~' -;Uv~g.og~ ~:1
li e._ ..... '" 1:.=:::, g !"':I'.: ~~ ...~ ti.:;.:;:-c::~
~
.~
1 ~ ~
:. ~-~
a ~ 1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 2
Meeting Date: fO/1S:gS
f/-'"/- '1~
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: GPA 97-04 & PCM 97-10: Consideration of
amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan/Subregional Plan in Villages One, Two, Six,
Seven, 13 and 15.
The Otay Ranch Company has submitted an application to amend the City's General Plan and the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) to modify land uses in the
Otay Ranch including Village One, Village Two, Villages One and Two west of Paseo Ranchero,
Village Six, Village Seven, Village 13 and Village 15.
The proposed General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP amendments fall into four categories:
amendments to implement the Otay Landfill Agreement with the County of San Diego,
amendments to implement the Otay Ranch Company's tentative MSCP agreement with the wildlife
agencies, amendments required by the SPA One tentative map conditions and amendments to the
transit village core densities. The amendments are discussed in detail in the body of the report and
are depicted in Attachment 3. Staff has reviewed the amendments and is recommending changes
to the requests as summarized in Attachment 6.
Under the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Enviromnental Review
Coordinator prepared an Initial Study (IS-98-24) for this application and concluded that additional
adverse enviromnental impacts would result from the project. A Second Tier Enviromnental
Impact Report (EIR) containing an enviromnental analysis was prepared to measure impacts
associated with the implementation of the proposed modifications. The Second Tier EIR
incorporates, by reference, the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program EIR (EIR-90-01) as well as the
Second Tier EIR-97-03 for the Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the resolution amending
the City of Chula Vista General Plan to implement the Otay Landfill Agreement and to
implement the Otay Ranch Company's tentative MSCP agreement with the wildlife
agencies as indicated in Attachment 6.
2. That the Plaooing Commission recommend the City Council adopt the resolution amending
the Otay Ranch GDP to: implement the Landfill Agreement in Village Two West;
implement the tentative Otay Ranch Company MSCP Agreement by expanding
development areas in Villages One and Two in exchange for Open Space in Village 13 and
Page 2, Item: ~
Meeting Date: HI '19.'1'9
1/ .' '/ . ? g
Village 15; relocate a high school site from Village Seven to Village Two replacing it with
Low-Medium Village and provide flexibility in the required number of dwelling units in
the transit village core as indicated in Attachment 6.
ISSUES:
* Can the loss of Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat in Poggi Canyon
be adequately mitigated?
* Should land in Village Two west of Paseo Ranchero be designated Limited Industrial and Low-
Medium Residential or entirely Limited Industrial?
DISCUSSION:
I. Back!!round
In 1993, the City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors jointly adopted the Otay
Ranch GDP/SRP for the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch (see Attachment I and 2). The GDP/SRP set
the policies and goals for the eventual development of the Otay Ranch. The Otay Ranch Sectional
Plaffiling Area (SPA) One Plan was adopted in 1996. SPA One includes Village One and Village
Five of the Otay Ranch Parcel and implements the goals and policies of the GDP/SRP. Otay
Ranch SPA One set broad policies for the development of the area west of Paseo Ranchero in
Village One.
In May 1996, the City and County of San Diego entered into an agreement to de-affilex the
western portion of the Otay Landfill from the City in exchange for County support of the 9, 100-
acre Otay Valley Parcel affilexation. The agreement established a 1,000-foot "buffer" around the
landfill site, and requires the City to amend its General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP and other
applicable zoning measures to replace current residential land use designation in the buffer zone
with land uses designations that are more compatible with the landfill. The landfill is located
adjacent to the south of Village Two West. The buffer area effects approximately half of Village
Two West.
The agreement also provided for County staff to review the City's Gener al Plan designations and
determine which designations were most compatible with the landfill. After reviewing the City's
designations, County staff found only the Open Space and Limited Industrial designations were
compatible with the landfill. The agreement limits the land uses within the buffer area to these
designations.
Subsequent to the approval of the GDP/SRP, The Otay Ranch Company began negotiations with
the California Department of Fish & Game and US Fish & Wildlife Service regarding the
Page 3, Item: ~
Meeting Date: 16;18;98
1/-'(-7'3
implementation of the MSCP. In 1995, The Otay Ranch Company reached an agreement with the
wildlife agencies concerning future amendments proposed for the GDP/SRP to be incorporated
into the MSCP (the City has not yet entered into a similar agreement). These amendments involve
land use modifications to the GDP. To begin the process of implementing this agreement, The
Otay Ranch Company has submitted the application for an amendment to the City of Chula Vista
General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. The City is limited by State law to four General Plan
amendments per calendar year. These amendments will be the third set for Chula Vista's General
Plan this year. No other amendments are pending this year.
The Enviromnental Impact Report (ElR-97-03) covers the General Plan amendments and Otay
Ranch General Development Plan amendments as well as the proposed amendments to SPA One
Plan. Because of the time constraints of the Otay Landfill Agreement, the General Plan and Otay
Ranch GDP amendments are being brought forward for City Council consideration at this time.
The proposed SPA One amendments are under review by staff and will be scheduled for public
hearings in the near future.
When considered in relationship to the entire 23,000-acre Otay Ranch GDP, these amendments
have a minor impact on the original Otay Ranch Project, although additional development has
been proposed within the City in exchange for additional open space within the County's
jurisdiction. The overall goals and concept of the Otay Ranch Project remain intact.
II. Applicant Proposal
The Otay Ranch Company proposes to amend the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP
and meet the requirements of the Tentative Map (C.V.T. 96-04) conditions by:
1. Replacing the Low-Medium residential designation within the Otay Landfill buffer with
the Industrial designation;
2. Implementing the tentative MSCP Subarea Plan Agreement with the wildlife agencies by
expanding development areas in Village One and Two West and eliminating development
areas in portions of Village 13 and Village IS and replacing them with Open Space;
3. Relocating the high school site in Village Seven to a site in Village Two and replac ing the
site in Village Seven with single-family homes;
4. Relocating the Village Two community park to a location in either Village One west of
Paseo Ranchero or in Village Two;
5. Amending the transit village core density policies to provide more flexibility at the SPA
and tentative map level.
Page 4, Item: --1-
Meeting Date: 111:281'11
I,-L/- cpt!
General Plan Amendment: The amendment to tl1e General Plan proposes to remove the existing
residential land use designation within the Otay Landfill buffer in Village Two west of Paseo
Ranchero. Residential land uses were plaffiled for this area in the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP in 1993.
However, in 1996, the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego entered in an agreement to
de-annex the City's portion of the Otay Landfill to San Diego County in exchange for the
County's support of the annexation of the Otay Valley Parcel. The agreement included the
creation of a new I,OOO-foot buffer around the landfill, as well as a condition requiring the City
to remove residential land use designations within this buffer zone.
The Otay Ranch Company proposes to comply with the requirements of the landfill agreement by
removing the Low Medium residential land use designation within the buffer in Village Two
West. The Otay Ranch Company has requested the area within the 1,000-foot buffer be
designated Industrial. They propose leaving the remaining area in Village Two West outside the
landfill buffer as Low-Medium density residential with 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre as indicated
in Alternative B of EIR-97-03.
In addition, the applicant proposes to amend the City's General Plan to implement th eir tentative
MSCP agreement with the wildlife agencies. This agreement allows for expansion of development
areas into sensitive habitat in Village One and One West adjacent to Poggi Canyon in exchange
for elimination of development areas in Villages 13 and 15 as indicated in Attachments 4 and 5.
The amendment would convert 139 acres of Low Density residential land uses in Village 13 in
the Proctor Valley Parcel and 98 acres of Low-Medium Village residential land in Village 15 in
the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel to Open Space. Development areas and units are recovered in
Village One West and Village Two West.
Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Amendment: The proposed Otay Ranch GDP amendments reflect the
previously discussed General Plan amendments and would also:
1. Fulfill the tentative map condition of C. V. T. 96-04 requiring the applicant to identify a
relocation site for the Village Two community park. However, after further consideration,
City staff at the Executive Committee has determined that the 25-acre community park
plaffi1ed in Village Two is in tl1e appropriate location and should not move as required by
the tentative map condition (the tentative map conditions provided for this flexibility);
2. Fulfill the tentative map condition in C.V.T. 96-04 requiring the relocation of the Village
Seven high school site to a site in either Village One west of Paseo Ranchero or in Village
Two;
3. Reduce the transit village core densities in Villages One and Six from 18 dwelling units
per acre to 14.5 dwelling units per acre
Page 5, Item: ....l....
Meeting Date: _19'111198
/f-if'<Y8
These amendments are indicated in Attachment 3. More specific modifications proposed in the
amendments are as follows:
Villa~e One
* Increase the overall land development area in Village One located in the Purple Phase
depicted in SPA One and the Public Facilities Financing Plan by approximately 23 acres;
* Decrease the open space area in Village One south of East Palomar Street adjacent to
Olympic Parkway in Poggi Canyon;
* Allow flexibility at SPA and Tentative Map levels for Village One Core density.
Villa\1e One - West of Paseo Ranchero
* Increase the overall density in Village One west of Paseo Ranchero to 4 dus per acre;
* Increase residential land use area by 39 acres;
* Expand the development area adjacent to Poggi Canyon.
Villa\1e Two
* Relocate high school site from Village Seven to Village Two;
* Amend GDP/SRP to relocate 25-acre community park out of Village Two and into
Village Two West. As indicated earlier, the Executive Committee has determined that the
25-acre community park plaffi1ed in Village Two is in the appropriate location and should
not moved.
* Redesignate community park area to single-family residential, thereby increasing single-
family residential units by 88 (fTom 1,742 to 1,830). Since the community park will remain
in Village Two this will not be redesignated residential.
Village Two - West of Pas eo Ranchero
* Delete Low-Medium residential uses within the landfill buffer;
* Add 25-acre community park (relocated from Village Two) within landfill buffer area;
* Designate area within landfill buffer as Industrial;
* Relocate the Village Seven high school site to the southwest corner of Pas eo Ranchero and
Olympic Parkway. However, the Sweetwater Union High School District prefers to move
the high school site away from the landfill buffer and place it in Village Two south of
Olympic Parkway. The applicant and City staff concurs with this location.
V illalle Six
* Allow flexibility at SPA and Tentative Map levels for Village Six core density.
Villa\1e Seven
* Relocate high school site to Village Two.
* Replace the high school site with 250 single-family homes.
Page 6, Item: -L
Meeting Date: 19.'2S.'!J8
/ /'~"?;/
Village 13
* Remove 372 single-family residential units (from 1,030 dus to 658 dus);
* Convert area (139 acres) from Low Density residential to Open Space.
Village 15
* Remove 33 single-family residential units (from 516 to 483);
* Convert area (98 acres) from Low-Medium Village residential to Open Space.
ANALYSIS:
As indicated earlier, the proposed General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP amendments fall into four
categories: amendments to implement the Otay Landfill Agreement with the County of San Diego,
amendments to implement the Otay Ranch Companies tentative MSCP agreement with the wildlife
agencies, amendments required by the SPA One tentative map conditions and amendments to the
transit village core densities. The applicant's proposed amendments are depicted in Attachment
3. Staff has reviewed the amendments and is recommending the following changes to the requests
as summarized in Attachment 6 as discussed below.
General Plan Amendments: Only two unresolved General Plan issues remain with the proposed
applicant: the land use designation of the balance of Village Two West outside the landfill buffer
and the loss of habitat in Poggi Canyon.
Village Two West
Issue: Should land in Village Two west of Paseo Ranchero be designated Limited Industrial and
Low-Medium Residential or entirely Limited Industrial?
The Otay Ranch Company proposes to change the Low-Medium residential land use designation
within the buffer in Village Two West to Limited Industrial. The applicant proposes leaving the
remaining area in Village Two West outside the landfill buffer as Low-Medium density residential
with 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre as indicated in Attachment 3. These two areas would be
separated by a local street. Staff believes there would be land use compatibility problems between
industrial land uses inside tl1e buffer and residential designation on the otl1er side of the buffer in
terms of traffic, noise and other impacts. Therefore, staff caffilot recommend approval of this
alternative by the City.
The Executive Committee determined that the most appropriate designation for all Village Two
West is Industrial as indicated in Attachment 6. This alternative is consistent within County-
approved land use designations under the Landfill Agreement. Designating all of Village Two
West as Limited Industrial is also supported by the City's Economic Development Commission
(EDC) in their recent overall industrial land use policy recommendations the City Council. EDC
Page 7, Item: ~
Meeting Date: to:..Ifi:'S
II - 7"'. '1 g'
is concerned about the lack of industrial designated land within the City. The Limited Industrial
land use designation would be consistent with EDC's recommendations. The addition of 102 acres
of industrial land within Village Two West will address the needs identified by EDC.
The Industrial designation for this area of Village Two would be consistent with other General
Plan industrial designations surrounding the landfill on the south, east and partially on the north.
Village Three and Plaffiling Area 18-B east and south of the Landfill are designated Industrial on
the Otay Ranch GDP. The remaining area south of the Landfill along Otay Valley Road is
designated Limited Industrial on the General Plan, and the Sunbow GDP north of the Landfill is
also designated Industrial.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Limited Industrial General Plan designation and th e
Otay Ranch GDP Industrial be placed on all of Village Two West. Staff believes the Industrial
land use designation is consistent with the General Plan policies and complies with the Otay
Landfill Agreement. Therefore, staffrecommends all of Village Two West be designated Limited
Industrial on the General Plan and Industrial of the Otay Ranch GDP (see Attachment 6).
Village One-West and Villages 13 and 15
Issue: Can the loss of Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat in Poggi
Canyon be adequately mitigated?
In 1995, The Otay Ranch Company reached an agreement with the wildlife agencies concerning
expanding development into areas designated as Open Space in Village One West. Elimination of
development areas in Villages 13 and 15 was proposed in exchange for expanding development
areas in Villages One, One West and Two West. The proposed amendments are to be incorporated
into the City's Subarea MSCP agreement.
The loss of habitat in Villages One and Two West was an issue for the Resource Conservation
Commission. Habitat(s) will be taken by the development of Olympic Parkway and the expanded
development areas in Villages One and Two west of Paseo Ranchero. Adequate mitigation
identified in the Final EIR consists of off-site preservation and re storation within the Otay Ranch
Preserve plus conversion of development areas in Villages 13 and 15 to Open Space. However,
the City does not currently have the authority to permit the loss of habitat. This issue will be
resolved either by approval of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan, Federal lOA Permit, or Section 7
Consultation prior to issuance of grading permits.
In Village One west of Paseo Ranchero, the development area will increase by 54 acres with a
proposed overall residential density of 4.0 units per acre where the original plan allowed 3.0 and
4.5 dwelling units per acre. Open Space, which is lost to development in this portion of Village
One, will be recovered in Villages 13 and 15.
Page 8, Item: ~
Meeting Date: 11l/...1I1'J1I
1/-~/.7'i1
Recommendation: Staff believes that adequate measures to conserve and restore habitat are
contained in EIR-97-03 to mitigate the biological impact associated with the project. The wildlife
agencies have agreed to exchange the habitat in Poggi Canyon with habitat in Villages 13 and 15.
The GDP amendments create Open Space in Villages 13 and 15 for habitat that is viewed as more
valuable by the wildlife agencies. Staff supports the amendment to expand development areas in
Village One and Villages One and Two West and convert the residential designations in Villages
13 and 15 to Open Space.
Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments: The applicant has also submitted Otay
Ranch GDP amendments to reflect the proposed General Plan amendments. Additional Otay
Ranch GDP amendments were required by the SPA One tentative map conditions and the applicant
has proposed amendments to the transit village core densities.
Village Two
Village Two is affected as a result of the tentative map (C.V.T. 96-04) condition requiring the
applicant to replace the Village Seven high school site to a site in either Village One west of Pase 0
Ranchero or in Village Two. After review of the alternative sites, the Sweetwater Union High
School District concluded that a site in Village Two, a quarter of a mile from the landfill, was
preferred. Staff supports the relocation of the high school site to Village Two.
Another SPA One tentative map condition required the applicant to amend the GDP/SRP to
relocate the 25-acre community park out of Village Two and into Village Two West, if required
by the City. However, after further consideration, the Executive Committee determined that a site
in Village Two is more appropriate. The community park relocation requirement has been
dropped from consideration by City staff as provided for by the tentative map condition.
Recommendation: Approve the preferred high school site in Village Two, a quarter of a mile
from the landfill, as indicated in the EIR Alternatives.
Village Seven
Village Seven is proposed to be modified by relocating the high school site to Village Two. The
acreage left over from the vacated high school site will be converted to single-family residential
of an additional 250 units. As provided for in the GDP policies, the 50-acre high school site has
been replaced with the appropriate residential densities. In this case, 250 single-family homes at
3.5 dwelling units per acre replace the high school site.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the relocation of the high school site on the Otay Ranch
GDP from Village Seven to Village Two and replaced with 250 single-family units in Village
Seven.
Page 9, Item: ~
Meeting Date: 10il!!:98
II - '/.. ? S'"
Village One and Six
The applicant originally proposed to decrease the multi-family units in the Village Core from 18
to 14.5 dwelling units per acre in Villages One and Six. The Otay Ranch GDP Village One core
policies indicate the number of units identified in the core is a minimum, and may not be reduced.
The proposed reduction was identified as an issue early in the review of the project, and, after
discussions on the EIR Alternatives, the Otay Ranch Company and City staff agreed that the
reduction in Core density was not necessary but a change in the GDP policy prohibiting the
reduction of the density was the appropriate solution. The Village One Core contains sufficient
densities to support a future trolley stop as established by the Metropolitan Transit Development
Board (MTDB). Staff is currently reviewing the SPA Plan application for Village Six and will
coordinate with MTDB to ensure sufficient densities are provide in the village core to support th e
light rail transit.
Recommendation: In order to provide the same flexibility in village core densities, as approved
for McMillin in the Village Five Core, staff recommends the policy prohibiting a reduction in
density be amended. The transit policies for Villages One and Six should be amended to read:
liThe fltl1.'f16er af ftSffie3 idCfitif.'kd fef the -/ilIB.~e cere i3 fl fl1iniffttlftl and may 001 be reatleea.. The
number of homes identified for the villa~e core represents an urban plaffiling goal. Reductions in
the number of multi-family units may be approved as lon~ as sufficient densities are provided to
support bus and li~ht rail transit. ..
CONCLUSION:
The proposed amendments to the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan will implement the requirements of the Otay Landfill Agreement with the County of San
Diego; implement the tentative MSCP agreement between The Otay Ranch Company and the
wildlife agencies; and implement the conditions required by the tentative subdivision map for SP A
One. The amendments to the transit village policies are consistent with the recently approved
amendments for Village Five. When considered in relationship to the entire 23,000-acre Otay
Ranch Project, these proposed amendments do not change the fundamental concepts of the GDP.
Although additional development has been proposed within the City in exchange for additional
open space within the County's jurisdiction, the overall goals and concept of the Otay Ranch
Project remain intact.
ATTACHMENTS:
I: Approved Land Use Plan, Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
2: GDP/SRP Otay Valley Parcel, Approved Land Use Plan
3: GDP/SRP Otay Valley Parcel, The Otay Ranch Company Proposed Land Use Plan
4: GDP/SRP Village Thirteen, Proposed Land Use Plan
5: GDP/SRP Village Fifteen, Proposed Land Use Plan
Page 10, Item: ~
Meeting Date: 10.'211.'~8
If'Y-??
6: GDP/SRP Otay Valley Parcel, City's Proposed Land Use Plan
H:\HOME\PLANNING\RlCK\PCORCAM.WPD 1.
----87"1
- ----~,...>~ k, :
Ar' ",;".;J/d;!",,/ I
'- ~,,".,;;:" -....,.,'--
,-";~,(-(,, ,'?'-;~- :
q~j~~--~
, - "I :~: J
:~!I~ II;.? Uli!l(~': l;(~I..JiLS
~IV'"
.. , ~~~ 6
:.~ '-----I
"" :
.' I
/
\
::
GJ
\.~
~,""";a,
.....~~
. , .:-.gj;'~..
-'\:~'~.'~~7. -....'1
. 1111" ';,"':,,0-"_-~.
P?J
..;! ~~~~_:'-~--:J
~ .J:. . . .
- Ih,~: i-'
. ,. ~~ f;'T7 ~:"-11 '
!II, ~;...
"--.~ :'1:" j
~',,, . '0-
,il .: U
. .--X
... .~. ... ';:.'\
'"~;.'..",,)I"'\,,/.
,- ", "... ,>,,'
';-'~:i (3 -
~
i
-= ~:f~
;:::;1:f
~~~i
fmj
-;;~~z:
1~~~!
i~~~
-
-
j
.
~
<
':- ~
~ ~
! ~ -
i': _ 1 ?;
~ 5:: :;;
[I][ID@w @
~ .. ~
].:.;: .-:
'?, ~ !Ej E
(2) ~~ i;::
,
~ ~ ~
. ='. .
~ ;;. ~.-, ;
~ j: ~ i ; ~
~o'"~i~~,!o
. G] 11, ;., 'D'" [J~ ~ r;@@@
"-'. IPi I' t51. "~ u
~ 1- 6 LJ E;' ,
~
:il~l
~,. !!P'
,
,
.
"
t:
Q)
t))
Q)
.....
~.i
~.-, -, - ~ !."... "
~ - ~" -.'
Z~o;_~o~ ~
~ 1 ~
-;~;~g~;;:;~!]
;;~~-~~:<
~. Q~~ [;] ,: ~;;] ~ ~
Y'I>I 0 -"" :.=; o...-J
;: -
-~[!J
iu !I:' i;f
~~'
~r""
~U
~~
"
.1':
i:
n
.f6
~{
~H
~
~
=>
12
;;
-'
~
m
"D
c
g
~
en
--::e;
-rt:~
~ c: is::
;: 0
EC!il)
C,) U') ~
ro..... _
-..J u
<"0 ~
,..0::
; ~
..J ~
o
"0
C!i
>
o
I..
Cl.
Cl.
<C
~ ~
~ ~
=>:>
"D"D
c C
jj
~~
m m
E"D
-:::6
"'"u
~~
"en
s~
0:
""
~~!
.
:
'"
'"
~
.. ii.
~~~~} ,0
:,f' ~ "I" "I
<" ... Q ... =
c' . ,CI
...: !i: :3 ~
"r--,
~~i~
C~
~S
o
<
LldH
EJ€'OC~;';~
~
~ ~ ~
-E :>..!:
~ ~ !
"." !o
";;. ... ~
~ ~ ~
~ -- ~ ~ ~
;; ~ 1 ~ ~
C)c--"'"
..~I>lIEF
...J ""B~~
~
<
"
<
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 3
~~~
,
~
t
<
~~
-
-
"
~
~~~J;
;]~!~
~ B@Om
c.
..
::;;
...
'"
'"
,
.'
'Q)=N
oa;
ceil:
Coli>
~
='0
~r:
co
~-I
-'0
011>
Co>
c:E
wCo
_Co
CoC:::
C
'"
"E
Q)
s:
13
.!!!
~
...... '
!~.I!
x
(jj
'"
C>
di!
;;
~ c
~~~
c<=
,c <
oro-=-C::
~iii~~
. -
~
~
"i:i
!'2
B
'"
C>
di!
;;
u
0..
" ~;
-=:: 5=
D.._ --"j'
~~ :i;-;
~~ ~~I
;;;~ ~ 5 ~
~~~~
]~ [~t
:;;::~ wE~
.
.
~
.
o .c5
:;: .2'E
r-':::::: 0
Q).,!!!':
0; ~i5 c
~ E~~
_ fVUII>
> !::::Q)U)
.
0;
~ Qj g:l''E
92 ;,_~ ~5E
......... :::"i::
o :;.;!& ...J~o.
IV L.'t:f/.I ::-<
0) _a>_ ......a.
~ :g e~ ~~~
:; ~ ~CI ..s 8~
.
E
e
~ ';;.!! :i
~ ~] ~ ;>--
.!!!=:J Iii.!'
~ f~ ~ ~]
I- :!211U - .g~
en ~~ ~ --g
~.!!!~ 1ij5:::.!!!
:; ~~ :g~ ~~
> o~cd!ttj
. .
.
"0 .
o ::>
cii C
,"00 0
>..I:O~
Q) R>:r; .s
en ~';; ~
Q)_oGl
g> g4!1l1!
="i;5 Co
5D::.9 &.
.
1
LhiH
~ ~ ... ..!" ~ .. ~
Q,;::'<:;;:l;
D~ '!..., (;':; Iri ~
,
-= ~ -
~ ~ i
~ f t
. , .
~'i f
~ ~ ~
"C < l' '= :;
~~ji~
3 ~~~~
.
~ E
~ ;..;
~ } ~
i ;
...J;;: f
:: ::: '
gooj
,
.1
:s -
, .
" i. i -
~~~1i
~B@D:)o
~ &
'"'
!::t:J
C.
m
:E
>-
::!
~
E
D
tJ
U
c
..
II:
-
1
..
-
o
..... .
!., ell
.,-
-'N
~t-
.., -
...... ~Q>
(1) !2"E v.>
C";c;lI>=>
t'C;;:E"02
= "u,!::?
>C~.s:5
;; r---,
~['-]
s~
1
=
~ E ~
.
= CS !;.
~
~ .
~ " l.
"
>
,
]
f
o
c
c
~<
;~
.~
CO
~a;
;:~
co
>g
..
0-"
"':; ~ ~
"O~ 1~"E ~ ~
&~j~l~~ ~i~~]
!1 ~ B@][~B~ ~ D8~[jj
Co
'"
::E
,.,
'"
:.::
~!~- "
"',1i!; ~
\\~!'. CJ ,J.~/;~,
'"f ... . c.-c-
"--'-C~
f;
__m____.____.
... ...
Giiii
01-
-a.
...
.~ C1>
-II)
1-;:)
01"
~C
=m
-...J
>"
a. 01
Cl:1II
WO
-Co
a.O
c...
"a.
~
c:
Q)
E
u
..'!J
<(
JIll"""" "
;~ -Ii
.
.
=~
~DS~
~
'"
C
, .
<: ~
~ e ]' 1i
0: ::r ;;; L
~ ~. ~ l
~ - '11 ....
~~~ iij !
-g:::.s~ ""=~c
Q)~f]--~J:5:::~
~ ~~8 ~D~ISJ8@
.
.
'I'
CD
~O
>"
.
.
Q.
'"
:;;
>.
'"
""
~
,..~...-:.'~
I:.,,:=--
(
.\'.~
s.--'--
f.~1
\.>;- I
~~ i
c-
,
~
==
0>'"
0>-
_Cl.
=0>
IJ...rn
O>::J
CI'C
..!!!t:
=",
>...1
Cl.'C
IJ:0>
C/)rn
......0
Cl.o.
Co
CJ~
~
,..... .
~~ ell
~
x
U5
"
'"
g
:>
"
c
o
"
'"
g
:>
u
~.
~"
~~~
D o_
X II>~_
II> C G.I::
~ ~g;~
>. :=> or> ~
~ :d~~
a..~~
1i> ~~t
ffi ~itia:
~ wc..~
. .
~
u
~~
U>~
n
o.
+=;:;:
.
;;;
Q.J V)G.I~
~ II> ::~11
:5 ~::;!::
Q)~.E ::!:j:t
c:: Z"'1l.. ...."Eo.
o ....!!.o::: ~a><
~:5I~ ::{j~
Jg ! KfL~ efi
:>. .
"'~
w . .
~ ~!
o 'E Iii
;: {: ~
~ Wi ~
Q.J ~ 11.1
Fj-!
;; l!!J/P.
. .
"
"5 ~
E <>
_ u 0
Q)~ ~
iV.2'o ~
Cf.)I;t it
.... .
~~&l;1
~QjJ!1 g.
=0:5 c:::
>. .
.
~
0.=5
~ f~
CD ~.:.
OJ rro c
~ ~-5~
5c::.cnoo
.
,
,
~
.
.i. ~ g i
] f ~. ~ ;0 ""
~lHiH
EI ~', 4:~. (;) (!!) CD
. -
'.~f~
~ ,;;.
"' :' f
~ =: ~
~ ~
"D~~~~
~ ~.5.! ~
II> ;;;1>11;11-."
...J '" ~t;L.J
IF: '6
~'.. u
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ '" ~
g~1ID
.~
,
u
<'~5!i
~lJ.f~
iB@DD
<
I@
""
m
""
-
::!
Gi
t>
-
as
t\.iji
~c::
- "
- w
g;=>
,..-g
.!3
0-0
t\.:g
a: 8-
me
C:"-
c."
c.?~
()
to
"E
.,
E
t>
'"
,
~
5
~
,......
Ilel!
RESOLUTION NO. GPA 97-04
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO
THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ON THE OT A Y RANCH PROJECT.
WHEREAS, on January 17, 1997 the Otay Project LLC ("Applicant") filed an
application with the City ofChula Vista for a General Plan Amendment and a General
Development Plan Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, applicant proposes that the Chula Vista General Plan be amended as
set forth in the documents attached as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP include several changes
involving Village One, Village Two, Village Six, Village Seven, Village 13, Village 15,
the Resource Management Plan 2, and 473.1 acres west of Pas eo Ranchero; and,
WHEREAS, in May 1996, the City ofChula Vista and San Diego County entered
into an agreement concerning the Otay Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the agreement contains a condition requiring the City to amend its
General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, and other applicable zoning measures to
establish a 1,000 foot buffer around the landfill site and replace current residential land
uses in the buffer zone with other land uses that are more compatible with the landfill;
and,
WHEREAS, the Enviromnental Review Coordinator has conducted a Second-tier
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 97-03, a Recirculated Second-tier Final
EIR, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have
been issued to address environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the
Project; and
WHEREAS, this Final EIR incorporates, by reference, three prior EIRs: the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01; the Chula
Vista Sphere oflnfluence Update ElR 94-03; and the SPA One FEIR 95-01. Program
EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board
of Supervisors on October 28,1993; the Sphere oflnfluence Update EIR 94-03 was
certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 21,1995; and the SPA One FEIR
95-01 was certified by the City ofChula Vista City Council on June 4,1996; and,
Planning Commission
General Plan Amendment
1
B:\PC\GP-RES.QRC
WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation
measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded
or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its
successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely
informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts the Project implementing this General Plan Amendment.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other
requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of
implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached draft City
Council Resolution (Exhibit B) approving the proposed General Plan amendments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to
the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California
this 21st day of October, 1998 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Patty Davis
Chair - Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas
Secretary - Planning Commission
Exhibits
Exhibit A - Proposed General Plan Amendments
Exhibit B - Draft City Council Resolution
Planning Commission
General Plan Amendment Resolution
B:\PC\GP-RES.ORC
2
"
[ij
"
0>
~
:>
~ ~
E::: ~
.p :::
~,ot: eo
~<:=
~.c...E_
ow -"
<:iD!~
.
~
'"
...
~
U
9-11>
;;.=
~ DE
.t..._ ~~
~~ ~i;~
!E ~i ;:~~
6 ~:: ~5:;
~~~~
~~ E~t
<::- ~l~
.
"
0>
~
;;
;;;
"
;;:
]~
U) ~.!! IV
(IJ .._ II)
> =>::>., =>....
:> m~;: fti.!!
~ f~] ~]
to-~.!I ~ -ge
~~~~~";;!
~]~;~8.:&
:> C:'i ~B,t~
.
. .-
~ :::5~
OJ - ::>::5E
::~.B ::'}::
o :Z~Q... -'''Eo
(p .!'E[( ::.!?<
CI-~ ~..!'r..
1!! ::geo I:I~~
> :c.CI.E8::
.
(5 ~
e 0
='D
Q.1Cf) ~
>.rol'<l
II) B>i: ..r:
w:;+;i
12)-OIttO
g~JgJi:
=:a;> ~
>!:::.9c::
.
.
o
.
0=5
~ gr;
r--6
II' .9-=
::DEer:
~.g-5~
> :::'UHI)
.
.
!
;; -; ~ ~
_ _ ~:3.1i!
oS -i]; ~ ~
t. ~"';: ~ ii:
~l~-ii"2~
Q <=-""
~E"4::t'~ct>!D
~ ~
~ '" l'
t f ~
"" ~.,
fif
!i ~ ~
E ~ -;
!iB!
"' ,,1>1(;1'"
-J "" E1~~
.
.
;."
.!
~!.;;
:; 1 ;
~ :;;: !:.
g~~
.,
~
~ .f
; ~
~@
;::: =0::' .... , -
:~ji~
~B@Dt
C.
m
::;;
~
..
""
...-----"
.1
a; =
" II
m::
n. II
".. II
..;:)
='"'
~i
>-'
III~
- II
o II
n. "
c: "
U) -
-..
n.
c
t:j
-
;;
t)
3
"2
iii
=
~
~
-
II
5
,......
;~.I!
Exhibit A
Page I
-,~
.i:-
.., -
_ c
-e
aJ"-:::",
:Ioii~I1'
~J;~~
>-......-'-'
;;; r-"\
-"~ .J
- ,
S~
.
c
c
., ~
~ ~
~
~>
- ~ -~~, -~
~i :1i
:>>E.J..3,:t::~ :;:
~ ~B~~8~
.
c.
><
=~
~]
em
'"
~~
o.
~:
COO
-
"
~
if.
4'
~
"
J
~
""
t~
~ -
~08~[]
%""'% '~
\-!~T ,,;,
1:'_'\::/ .. _ - 0 ::-~:.0)
l "::, ,":,
-L~
1:,
I.J
Co
CD
::E
>-
II)
~
~ ~
OIm
gJ-
-c..
:01
-III
f-~
QI'1j
01..-
m-
=m
-....I
>'1j
D.QI
a;:CI>
WO
""'.0.
D.O
C~
Cjc..
,.... ;
!~ .!
Exhibit A
Page 2
A
~
=~
~~
S~
~
.
.<: ]
-= .. 1 i
.. -;: '" ~
f € ~ !
~ i r; ~ ~
~~~i ;7.:;..:. ~
~~3~_J]~~~
! i03 Hj~~~
c.
m
:;;
>.
..
'"
:(~:-:.:~
r:-.'--
~-
<"
\...:- -
~-:--=
L.'~ '1
~.~ !
~:'
tT
I
'I"
".
~~
,
z::;
<
..
~
==
0)",
0)-
-D..
-
-0)
IL",
O):J
tI)-g
111-
=iii
>....1
D..-g
1%:111
rn.Q)
0:[
Co
CJ~
........
~~ IIi
Exhibit A
Page 3
~
"
[ij
"
0>
~
:>
!"
6
CD
0>
~
;;
u
0..
~=
j~!
x .-
~ ;;~~
:>,.""-.;::
t.> :.....c.
= ~5,..
t. ....u5,
='~~
'" c 3'<-
~ ~2~
~ wt:...~
. .
~
c
::i
on::;
iijx
-"
...~
.
.
o
.
0-5
3" gE
~-o
CD ~.:c
g ggij
=: ~ii~
> t::.UHI>
.
;;;
CD
;;:
..
..~
., . .
CD . "
~ ~]
0==
?; ~ m
~:EE
IZ);: it
g;~
=~~
> ""'
. .
..-
~ ::=~
C!) c.. :t:=:E
~ <E ~'i::
o z:c. .....et;.
CD ~:r:J:: ::~<
OI-"~ m"c..
~ ~~g; ~~~
;; :p.C) .E8~
.
.B
,
~
.. ~ .
i f]; ~ j
J~~':;~<tS
:::~.:~]~~
Ej0ti'Z.€; C">ID
o .
~ 5
~~ g
i>~D~
CO::::t'i
Q).J:!I- III
gg~..!!
_-.I c.
5~> ~
.
,
~~!
::; ~ ::;
{Ii
~ :; ~
:E f ~
l;iH
~ ~~~~
.
~ ~
< <.'
~ ~ -
~ ] ~
~~j
~
...J .f
<
~ "
~~
r:t::)
;, ;-t::.
~jffi
~B@oill
C.
m
::;;
~
,:!
ijj
"
...
CD
Il."
"...!!!
..n.
=~
CD=:>
>."
".."
III ..
- -'
0."
c..~
c:"
mE-
- ~
c..n.
C !"
,,~
(.)
;!
:5
~
~
JIIII""'"'
;l-II
Exhibit A
Page 4
RESOLUTION PCM 97-10
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, an application for amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
(GDP) was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on January 17, 1998 by the Otay
Project, LLC ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP include several changes involving
Village One, Village Two, Village Six, Village Seven, Village 13, Village 15, the Resource
Management Plan 2, and 473.1 acres west of Pas eo Ranchero; and,
WHEREAS, applicant proposes that the Chula Vista General Plan be amended as set forth in the
documents attached as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Second-tier Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 97-03, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Second-tier Final EIR, incorporates by reference three prior EIRs: the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01; the Chula Vista Sphere of
Influence Update EIR 94-03; and SPA One EIR 95-01, as well as their associated Findings of Fact and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula Vista
City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993; the Sphere of Influence
Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 21,1995; and the SPA One
EIR 95-0 I was certified by the City Council on June 4, 1996; and,
WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of
Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those
measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of
obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the Project. The
adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be
effectuated through the process of implementing the Project.
Planning Commission
General Development Plan Amendments
B:\PC\GDP-RES.ORC
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving the
proposed amendments in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA this 21 st day of October, 1998 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Patty Davis
Chair - Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas
Planning Commission Secretary
Exhibits
Exhibit A - Proposed Amendments
Exhibit B - Draft City Council Resolution
Planning Commission
General Development Plan Amendments
B:IPCIGDP-RES,ORC
2
. '''.'--''-'-" -.---,', _.~,.".-
~
" ~
u.; ~
g 1:3
~ ~i;.~~
;; ~.:l-
.
~
is
II>
'"
~
;;
u
"-.
-tI =.-=
< '52
"- d
~~ ~
m ~ .::.E'=
~i !~~
-=-~~DC
~~;~
l~ .~i~
. .
m
II>
;;:
e
.In -;.. ...
G) ..= ...
>~::>., =>...
>~::!: -m.!'
[) _1::"\:1 10'3
~ ~~ j ;:~
'; ~~ 3 ]~
CI;:= ct::.i
m "iiiJ; 11:10' DC;
= "'ii'=-OGl 0.-::::
5 Qj:"5 ~~
. . '.
~.-
~ .::=;
m ~ - =>= E
::: <E :E"i::
D 2~D..""''Ec.
lEI ~'i::i.i :..!!<
'01-11>"" QI".c..
~ :g ~ b~~
;; <o.C! E.E:::.:
. .
.
o
"
~~~
~-6
I:IE.:::.
~ gg~
;~-5~
>:::00
.
g ::;
=-5 0
(tICD g
>~ON
G)~1t:~
tf):;'; j
G)-D"
01111l1li ....
~~5~
>r::;E~
.
~ "
, :=
1i _ $ ~
~ {]~l~
~11ijI~
@F<i:I'[,~It'ID
.
~=-=
~ ~ ~
.. ~ ..
. , .
iif
~~::.
-g ~~J~
~ ~.s 1 ~
G> ,,;>1(;1=-
....J c:d..:::!!.
~
~
<
r "
, .'
51 -
.... "" ~
- . -
E l:;t@:
v ::J~
1
~
c; :-
:; 1
~@
-
;.lJfi
~Oi"oU'='",
- D~' ,.,
C.
m
::;;
~
..
""
" "..-.-..-.
.'
a; =
".=;
iii~
Ll. ..
".. II
..::2
='"'
111=
> II
>-1
III~
- ..
0..
n. "
c: "
UJ -
-~
n.
C
"
;;
to
.,
-
"2
a
:::
1
-
.J:
o
~.
;~ eli
Exhibit A
Page I
;:: "E
c;!?~:
-~a,~
f~;~]
>~---I
-.~
.i::-
= r-"\
]1.. .J
- .
S!
~
.
e ':.
~
. Ji! ~
" ~
- >-
.
.
~<
=~
.~
c~
~iij
;~
c=
I~
<c"
~ s ;t
~ ~ "~I:
aiEt~~:fl
::7J.::-l_"=;"",,,,,,
II> ~ B@IEi;J;=;
-J ~ B~u~
-
ii
~
-
~
~
u
~
"'
e
.' ~ ~ ~ -
~D8[IJ!1J
~}~ ~
~.~ :::J ;,..~\
~., .': - :~5;:(
-~
~')
lJ
Q.
CD
::E
:;...
..
~
~ ~
II>m
11>-
~!:l.
-=:11>
~U)
~::I
II>"C
C>....
m-
=IC
-....J
>"
tl..Q)'
!!:tI)
WO
-:.c..
tl..O
C...
~tI..
,.....- '-
; '- -Ii
Exhibit A
Page 2
- -.--:....
.~
=~
~L.J
S~
~
o
H
. .
~ ,
~ ~~i
'Cn=-....
IV !": .....;;!
....J ~~~
-< 11
<
i' ..
v. "
~ g
, ~
t ~ ~ ~
~ ~ :: ~ '1
~!J.~~~
~D@!SJ.8@
$
==
"''''
"'-
-:..
-
-'"
IJ...",
"'~
C1't1
CC_
--
=CC
>...1
no"
.11:111
U)...,
e:&.
Co
CJii:.
-
c~:_ :=-
r:-'..:..=-
.~;-
,
Co (
~ "~
~ ~::--,
~ f,-' :l
\.;;- I
~'J
L
,.......
!~ -ji
Exhibit A
Page 3
~
" ~
U5 4'
i if
> ;r:..
.
u
[I
j~!
,; ~6=
~ ~ :;~~
6 g ;E;:
f. ~~5.
~lG
~ IoU':::::':;:
. .
m
0>
~
;;
.
D
.
<> ~
.:;.. :s>
"> R-_
~=6
0:':::'
g~~~
>~~~
.
;;;
m
~ 111 !i~~
~ ~E ~j~
D ::z:...c.......-&
CD ~~i =~<
i'':;; tc: :~5
= ~pc D'=D:I
>: <Q.CI.EE~
. .
;;;
It.I ...:s
CD :: ;-
~.= ~
.-
0==
~ ::: 1(1
t-~:5
CD :;}:
~;~
=~i
> 00:
. .
.E
-.; :OJ
E to
ii~ ~
~~c~
UJ-;i"'i
m-+- ..
~g~~
=_~ Co.
>~5 ;:;
w .
~
~
..". ~ ~
LfitH
El0~~.E:~1D
,
." =-=
fH
~~~
-gg;~~
~ g J i ~
Q) Z3~Iii-=:
......I "'t:.~~
.
~ ~
< ,
~g~
~1!
t@~
~
-J ~
~
; ~ ~
~tif~
~]1f~
"B@--
E _ It!' I,";
- ... LJ8
~ !
< Pu
t::t:J
c.
..
:;;
-
..
""
..
E
'"
n.=
"...!!!
..tL
=:
~=>
>1;!
III;;;
--'
0."
n.~
c::O
cng-
- -
n."-
.Q .m
o~
D
.,
~
,
,...-'
;l .~!
Exhibit A
Page 4
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO
THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ON THE OTA Y RANCH PROJECT.
WHEREAS, on January 17, 1997 the Otay Project LLC ("Applicant") filed an
application with the City ofChula Vista for a General Plan Amendment and a General
Development Plan Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, applicant proposes that the City ofChula Vista General Plan be
amended as set forth in the documents attached as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP include several changes
involving Village One, Village Two, Village Six, Village Seven, Village 13, Village 15,
the Resource Management Plan 2, and 473.1 acres west of Pas eo Ranchero, and;
WHEREAS, in May 1996, the City ofChula Vista and San Diego County
entered into an agreement concerning the Otay Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the agreement contains a condition requiring the City to amend its
General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, and other applicable zoning measures to
establish a 1,000 foot buffer around the landfill site and replace current residential land
uses in the buffer zone with other land uses that are more compatible with the landfill;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said General Plan amendments, and notice of hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and mailed 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 advertised, October 21,
1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission;
and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Second-tier
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 97-03, and Findings of Fact and a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been issued to address
environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the amendments; and,
City Council
General Plan Amendment
1
B:\CC\GP-RES.ORC
/Ei</.H@IT ~
WHEREAS, this Second-tier FEIR incorporates by reference three prior EIRs:
the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01; the
Chula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03; and the SPA One EIR 95-01, as
well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program. Program EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council and San
Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993, and the Sphere of Influence
Update ErR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 21,1995;
and the SPA One EIR was certified by the City Council on June 4, 1996, and;
WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation
measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded
or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its
successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely
informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts the Project implementing this General Plan Amendment.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other
requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of
implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
That the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on the Final EIR 97-03 held on August 26,
1998 , and their public hearing held on this Project on October 21, 1998, and the
minutes and resolutions resulting thererrom, 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
That the City Council hereby approves the resolution amending the General Plan
of the City ofChula Vista on the Otay Ranch Project.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California
this 27th day of October, 1998 by the following vote, to wit:
City Council
General Plan Amendment
2
B:\CC\GP-RES.ORC
G:I<H (BIT 8
P(}.j l' ~
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
Exhibits
Exhibit A - Proposed General Plan Amendments
Exhibit B - Draft City Council Resolution
Planning Commission
General Plan Amendment Resolution
3
Shirley Horton, Mayor
B:\CC\GP-RES.ORC
eXftl61T f)
f"je 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
1, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City ofChula Vista, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance No.~ was duly passed, approved, and adopted
by the City Council at a City Council meeting held on the day of
,1998.
Executed this ~ day of
,1998.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
Planning Commission
General Plan Amendment Resolution
A:\CC\GP-RES.ORC
4
(2/<1+1 ~/T f3
P<<j -e 'f
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY
RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM 97-10)
WHEREAS, an application for amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
(GDP) was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on January 17, 1998 by the Otay
Project LLC ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP include several changes involving
Village One, Village Two, Village Six, Village Seven, Village 13, Village 15, the Resource
Management Plan 2, and 473.1 acres west of Pas eo Ranchero; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said GDP
amendments, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and mailed 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 advertised, October 21, 1998 in the
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Second-tier Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 97-03, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, this Second-tier FEIR incorporates by reference three prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01; the Chula Vista Sphere of
Influence Update EIR 94-03; and the SPA One EIR 95-01, as well as their associated Findings of Fact
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula
Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993, and the Sphere of
Influence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 21,1995; and the
SPA One EIR was certified by the City Council on June 4, 1996; and,
WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or
withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest to
City Council
General Development Plan Amendments
BICCIGDP-RES.oRC
I
~'7<f-\(r3IT r?
implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but constitute a
binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the
Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are
referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these
Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City ofChula
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
That the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on the Final EIR 97-03 held on August 26, 1998 , and their public hearing held
on this Project on October 21,1998, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, 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.
11. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
That the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan was found consistent with the Chula Vista
General Plan when it was approved on October 23, 1993. These amendments will still
advance the goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP. The City ofChula Vista
General Plan has been amended and the General Development Plan amendments are
consistent with the approved General Plan Amendments.
B. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS WILL
PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA One Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain provisions and
requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The Public
Facilities Financing Plan has been updated to include 473.1 acres west of Paseo
Ranchero, and specifies the public facilities required by the Otay Ranch, and also the
City Council
General Development Plan Amendments
RICCIGDP-RES.oRC
2
et<H/l3IT ~
fA," :L
regional facilities needed to serve it. The proposed amendments to the Village One core
and the area west of Paseo Ranchero will not have an impact on the sequential
development of SPA One.
C. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS WILL
NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The villages within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer adjacent to other
existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay Ranch Planning
Area One. A neighborhood park will be located within the Village One West area to
serve the project residents, and the project will provide housing types compatible with
Sunbow, as required by the General Development Plan. A comprehensive street
network serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The
proposed plan follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid
unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in
the Otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report. The proposed GDP amendments will
not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation or
environmental quality.
N. ATTACHMENTS
All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 27th day of October, 1998 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
City Council
General Development Plan Amendments
B:\CC\GDP-RES,ORC
3
t::1"1111.3/T 13
f":J~ 3>
. -......-....-...-
Exhibits
Exhibit A- GDP Amendments
Exhibit B- Findings of Fact and Statement ofOveniding Considerations
Exhibit C- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City Council
General Development Plan Amendments
4
R\CC\GDP-RES.oRC
61-1t 16 IT 6
f'4~ e tf
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certifY that the
foregoing Resolution No. ~ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a City
Council meeting held on the 27th day of October, 1998.
day of
,1998.
Executed this
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
City Council
General Development Plan Amendments
RICCIGOP-RES,ORC
5
~~flI81T 1.3
f'Aj-e. S
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 3
Meeting Date: 1AI18/~8
//- .1/.. '18
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-98-02 & PCM-98-26: Consideration of an
amendment to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan/Subregional Plan to remove residential land uses
in Village Two of the Otay Ranch within one thousand (1,000) feet of the
Otay Landfill.
The City of Chula Vista proposes to amend the General Plan and the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (GDP) on Village Two located east of the Otay Landfill as required by the
conditions of the Otay Landfill Tax Sharing Agreement between the City and the County. The
agreement requires the City to remove residential land uses (Low-Medium) within a one thousand
(1,000) foot "buffer" of the Otay Landfill's eastern property line located in Village Two of the Otay
Ranch.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Environmental Review
Coordinator prepared an Initial Study (IS-98-24) for these applications and concluded that the project
would not have an adverse environmental impact. Therefore, a negative declaration was issued.
RECOMMENDATION:
I. That the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration
(IS 98-24).
2. That the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the resolution amending
the City of Chula Vista General Plan to remove the Low Medium-Village residential land use
designation within one thousand (1,000) feet of the Otay Landfill in Village Two, changing the area
to Limited Industrial and Open Space per Attachment 3.
3. That City Council adopt the resolution amending the Otay Ranch GDP to remove Low
Medium Density Residential and Open Space land uses within one thousand (1,000) feet of the Otay
Landfill in Village Two changing the area to Industrial and adding the area to Village Three, and re-
establishing the Open Space buffer between Village Two and Village Three per Attachment 3.
Page 2, Item: 3
Meeting Date: tOil~:t;lR
//-0/"7>15
DISCUSSION:
I. Background
In 1993, the City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors jointly adopted the Otay
Ranch GDP/SRP for the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch. The GDP/SRP set the policies and goals for the
eventual development of Otay Ranch. In May 1996, the City and County of San Diego entered into
an agreement to de-annex the western portion of the Otay Landfill from the City in exchange for
County support ofthe 9,100-acre Otay Valley Parcel annexation. The agreement established a 1,000
foot "buffer" around the landfill site, and requires the City to amend its General Plan, the Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP and other applicable zoning measures to replace current residential land uses in the buffer
zone with other land uses that are more compatible with the landfill. The landfill is located adjacent
to the southwestern portion of Village Two across Paseo Ranchero.
The agreement also provided for County staff to review the City's General Plan designations and
determine which designations were most compatible with the landfill. After reviewing the City's
designations, County staff found only the Open Space and Limited Industrial designations were
compatible with the landfill. The agreement limits the land uses within the buffer area to these
designations.
Initially, the Landfill Agreement was to be fully enforced by April 15, 1998, At the request of the
City, the date for enforcing the agreement was extended to November 15, 1998 so the City's
application could be processed concurrently with the Otay Ranch Company application for the
amended SPA One project in Villages One and Two West.
This portion of Village Two is owned by the Stephen and Mary Birch Foundation. The City initiated
the application because the Foundation does not have an active project within the Otay Ranch.
II. City Proposal
The City ofChula Vista proposes to amend the City ofChula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch
GDP to meet the requirements of the Otay Landfill Tax Sharing Agreement by removing residential
land uses within a one thousand (1,000) foot buffer around the active areas of the Otay Landfill.
General Plan Amendment: The City proposes to amend the General Plan to remove the Low
Medium -Village residential land use designation in the Otay Landfill buffer within Village Two
changing the area to Limited Industrial and Open Space. The Open Space designation reestablishes
the existing open space buffer between the existing residential and industrial land use designations.
Otav Ranch General Develovment Plan/Countv Subre'{ional Plan Amendment: This GDP
amendment proposes a change to the Otay Ranch GDP to reflect the General Plan amendment with
the removal of residential land uses located within the buffer adjacent to Village Two. The
Page 3, Item: 3
Meeting Date: 10'20'98
// - ~ - '7 g
amendment would remove Low Medium-Village Density Residential and Open Space land uses
within the Otay Landfill buffer in Village Two, changing the area to Industrial and would add the
area to Village Three changing the boundary between Villages Two and Three, and re-establish the
Open Space buffer between Village Two and Village Three,
ANALYSIS:
The proposed General Plan amendment implements the requirements of the Landfill Agreement.
The General Plan Low Medium-Village (3 to 6 du/ac) designation in Village Two, within the buffer,
is deleted and replaced with the County-approved land use designations of Limited Industrial. The
new Limited Industrial area within the buffer is approximately 25 acres. An additional 20 acres of
Open Space outside the buffer area is proposed to separate the residential land uses from the new
industrial designation. The total General Plan amendment area within Village Two is 45 acres.
A corresponding amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP is also proposed. Within the amendment area,
the existing GDP designation is Low Medium residential allowing 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The
45 acre GDP amendment to Industrial and Open Space would reduce the Village Two single family
units by 158 units, from 1,156 units to 998 units.
Staff proposes the new Industrial area in Village Two transferred to Village Three changing the
boundary between Villages Two and Three since Village Three is entirely Industrial and there is no
other industrial land in Village Two.
In addition, staff proposes that 10 acres of existing Open Space at the top of Wolf Canyon between
Villages Two and Three also be changed to Industrial. These 10 acres were designated as part of the
Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve but included in the original Otay Ranch Company tentative MSCP
agreement with the wildlife agencies. This tentative agreement allows for the 10-acre area to be
developed. This 10 acre area plus the 25 acres from Village Two would increase Village Three
Industrial area by 35 acres.
This proposal was discussed with representatives of the Foundation in the spring of this year. This
amendment was selected by the Foundation's representatives out of two alternatives proposed by
staff that effected this portion of Village Two. The other alternative proposed all Open Space within
the buffer area as provided for in the other County-approved land use designation for the buffer area.
CONCLUSION:
The City is required to amend the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP by the Landfill Agreement.
This proposal implements the requirements of the Otay Landfill Tax Sharing Agreement by
changing the designations within the buffer to Limited Industrial and Open Space on the General
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date:
Plan and Industrial and Open Space on the Otay Ranch GDP.
ATTACHMENTS:
I: Otay Ranch Location Map with Otay Landfill Buffer
2: Proposed Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment Map
H:\HOME\PLANNING\RlCK\PCCITY AM. WPD
3
IO::Z~:~~
11- -/- 7'5'
..-----.'
----~
,
,
,
I
VILLAGE ONE
"
,
"
"
"
"
,
,
,
I
.
.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/"I
I
I
VILLAGE 1WO~
PROJECT
LOCATI
SUNBOW
OTAY
RANCH
--
.........
OPEN SPACE
,
,
,
,
,
,
"
"
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
--'
~
/
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT C'Iy I Ch I V' I PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: IOU a IS a GPA-9S-02, PCM-9S-2&
PROJECT OIay Ranch Request: Proposal to remove lI1e residential General Plan designation
ADDRESS: wnhin the 1000' landfill buffer zone and replace n with Limned Industrial
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: and Open Space.
NORTH No Scale Related Cases: 15-98-24
h:\home\planning\carlos~oGators\is9824.Gdr 10/16/98
Key Map
Legend
North
rU~Ll ED
l'O\1MLRCJAL
~fr,'e""jlyC"mm,,,,:;,,1
CEJ Vill~gl. Entries
^;'} Park
(co) C<>mn1l"'hyp,,..k
C9 H;j;hSd'l(J(']
(I') tuoi"rljjghSdk><'[
<FiJ Kimlcrgartcn.OmJc (, Eleo"',,',,",,,
e P"rk&Ridcl'acility
REsmE~T!AL
~LA"~.-\1ediu",Lkn,il)'R,,,idcntiJI
~ [J'w-\1cdium ViII;,!,,, 1'h'nsil)' R",;dent;"t
[M8] .\k,Jium-Wgh ]}"nsi!y R~,;de!lti,,1
INDUSTRIAl
[iJlndUS!rial
IiQJ 1'ot>JidQu""j-I'\,!'>lk F,,~jIiIY
DOl'cnSl'aw
BI.i"IUllaiITrm"i([jnc
SPECIAL I'LA.'" ,'REAS
[jill \1hedUse
~ "a~l<:ml.lmanC\::Ol\'r
4.'20/118
GDP/SRP Otay Valley Parcel
City Amendment
Attachment 1
';~
DD<IGA_
..._----,.._~._--.
Industrial!
Open Space Option
" ft~
\~
~
.1 ~""i"
// ." ""
.---t' 1(";;\ ,,_..
(( ~'S4~
\\
" ,
...."
' . - -,---, ~ . 'C " ~ _
~:~~ .~~
- - - ., Ea"", ~2 ~
-- . "\-
~ c.:..-: ::, ~ ,,'. <-
. - '! . i . ~ . 0 ^J
~ ,,- 1..'__'' '_ ._' -' \......~,'
/- /-' ~ /: \.
'-c. . /.....~. c ~./" ~'J01'
.... . - - ..... ::----.-' -.,I. C'J:
'" ' N....
--,~
. - h
~_:,' Te1egJ2P
~~r
,-~
UIV.4_~
1.2<0 Du
\
:1
~ il ___
T .~
:V --'" '~IJ
' ... \./
..:.' ..
,... . '\
"i.!
--,
0<.... - "J ~c. ~
- --
d -'"'''' >". _.'
X. . ......~~
/ .- - :\;>0- - -"3".
--.~ ~p ~
~/ ,'.
. . . ~
: 1:.~ :' ~
- ..'.." DU. __ ~~
3..." /.'.::/'01....0.
.. ^,.~
"~ .
/ ", .. i'
::---: r\ '"
"2-/ ~~ . _,
-v,~.,... - Sunbo'W .. '",
" I.,
+~^ ~ ~~ ;(~.....CLandIill ":::0
' ., \. ~. "'-'-1-""1 v----- '---- =
:~..r"~ f h.'V-J! . ( i
. "i ~ !~~ ) 8'\J r-": '"
.....,~ : \ ( - d --W " ~ ~.~
--~"~J' f : -\-'/ /
ct-J r (_~ '"
. I '. I ~. \. '"
""\ : j- 'b, ,/e,) . r. . /.'/' '"
"T- b:~~/
\c
:.
VIL
. '1- J.'-;_~
. ...,
" P"'j,
'.. ... J ...... 2()
1....CJ _ _. ~__-_,.,__ _____
..... -----y---:-... C::)jt~u: .
,57 -----WDU:= I
'!"V'::.:._...... ~~_ 1 4. .
~J~P ._~.__ ..0
fWHJ
~ ~"'J
-'CO~".,.;.(,.::k.
~",,'-I.;""-"''-
l
RESOLUTION NO. GP A 98-02
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ON
THE OT A Y RANCH PROJECT.
WHEREAS, on January 30, 1998 the City ofChula Vista ("Applicant") filed an
application with the City of Chula Vista for a General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, in May 1996, the City ofChula Vista and San Diego County entered
into an agreement concerning the Otay Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the agreement contains a condition requiring the City to amend its
General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, and other applicable zoning measures to
establish a 1,000 foot buffer around the landfill site and replace current residential land
uses in the buffer zone with other land uses that are more compatible with the landfill;
and,
WHEREAS, applicant proposes that the Chula Vista General Plan be amended as
set forth in the document attached as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an initial study of
the proposed project and concluded that there would be no significant environmental
impacts, and recommended the adoption of a Negative Declaration (Exhibit B).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council:
1. Adopt Negative Declaration IS 98-24; and
II. Adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution (Exhibit C) approving the
proposed General Plan amendment to change the residential land use designation
within the lOOO-foot landfill buffer from Medium Low Density to Limited
Industrial; to add the area to Village 3; and to create a new open space buffer in
Village Two.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
Planning Commission
General Plan Amendment
1
B:\PC\GP-RES.CCV
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA this 21st day of October, 1998 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Patty Davis
Chair - Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas
Secretary - Planning Commission
Exhibits
Exhibit A - Proposed General Plan Amendments
Exhibit B - Negative Declaration
Exhibit C - Draft City Council Resolution
Planning Commission
General Plan Amendment Resolution
B:IPCIGP.RES.CCV
2
...' .,...
.. ..'
. J
. ~. ,~ ~
.c. ,....... . "1~'" ,....-
:J .,;._, ". ; _ --; ~!,,"
'- ----. ----. 0 . . . ~ <,- __,j;)..
/- -'. ------. . \ .
.---: / ~-:;~. - . -'
J,.. ..".. ..../~ <11)1\
'. ~;;.~ 0 ",0 c~1\.
-"":'" -~~-- ;..,....
~_:.. Tdegr.aPh
~
'~r-
J 'r-......:... ...."\
~\II !-'~'/~i~; - ~ .
I I ~ It: ~
T -i / - ..._ .1___,;. 1'"
;L/ ...... ....~"...__
\: ..' .
1 Jt.J W
-'~-- -
--- ......----:..
.1 :\..... I :
/, ,- "aru ..
.----: -.- f j \
(l~~
<!t::(;\/
.','......///
'~
L),I\(.0I.3
~
, .
: ? ,
"--../
'-V"f ~.#. ~
~,~ DCJ
(
\~.
,-
-
-"
,.//
\-
'1..JIV - 5J
~
~; \ ~.' If\ ___....J
:~,' ~" \J..... r.'- Landfill
I ~ ~ r) (\
:z~~:::,~~,..!-'-'-'::1')r~~ J C ,~
, . ,-J r~_ . 1\.- ' (
..-":-:i : \,- ;':;A' -=f'\J -7 r:
' '..r.. 1 ;.rv _ .I
--~" .. , J ~ - ... ,.. _ ...,. .._
0)--.-) ,t' ~ \ \-': /'
: - ,l : (,J(
-\ ~~':. Pi f ;,. N --i . ..yo - ~
'I,) ,rVv. . .r
=-'7 . ....1"--\ 'I '1.'/' ~
..>, .,1, . ~
,~ .~L~<b
~
t!'^'" ".
~ ! .J.,.:~
.'....0 !. 1>'" - ~ .. ""
....... , -.. .. L'-J
.57 ________..;:_-=__~-----..-. ___._
-v"'::.:.-----~ DI.c::.D . .. CO.x.~.LT1:
-....~ , --~
~ J<;p ::.;,.'-____-1 ~ .. .
...-.-
-"-..
"..
,
0,
......
Industrial!
Open Space Option
Special Study Overlay
P:tJiIi:t
II II
r:e:<.z~1
:., h;:::::: .~ ..;
~;;'i7~ VaIley~ --->15-
~:~."~-;; - ~" - ~'--" r__
..h....___ ---..=:> -<..:...- _, .
~~~.,
--:".- # L... ",J1- "
. - ../ ...~-~
<t '____N- ...., "'-._ .~~~ ,
~~~~~. ,.-~(;~~~~/~
r.,,;,rt,J:'~.~ :.--~~.. -.'"-.;..\-~.,,-~ );-"
~~r~KG?Xl-I-lerr A-
, I
, I
\j
\.
negative declaration
'\
PROJECT !\IA..ME:
Landfill Buffer
PROJECT LOCATION:
Otay Ranch Plann~d Communit\', Portions of
- ~
VilJage2 and Vil1age 2 West
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL ~O:
644-030-06, 64L-030-07
PROJECT APPLICANT:
City-Initiated
CASE NO:
1S-98-24
DATE:
March 16, 1998
A. Proiect S~tting
The project site is located within the Otay Ranch Plann~d Community and consists of
portions of those planning areas !mown as Village 2 and Village 2 West which are located
within a 1000' buffer zone around the Otay Landfill (see attached graphic). One of the
properties within this buffer zone is owned by Otay Project LLC, and the other is owned
by SNMB Ltd. P:lrtnership.
B. Proiect D~scriDtion
The project consists of an amendment to the City's General Plan as well as an
amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan in order to remove residential
land uses from within the area !mown as the Landfill Buffer Zone (1000' from the
working area of the landfilJ where residential uses are currently designated). The City is
required to remove the existing residential land use designations in accordance with an
agreement between the City and the County of San Diego.
A special study overlay is proposed to be used with any land use designations approved
to replace the residential designations. The special study overlay will, in accordance with
the provisions of the City's General Plan for special study areas, indicate that these
designations are interim and that the areas so designated are subject to additional, future
planning and studies prior to determining the ultimate land uses to be applied to these
areas. Tnerefore, any land designations approved as a part of the project General Plan
amendment and General Development Plan amendment would be recognized as interim
land use designations only. [::XH-( (3 rr f>
~\~
-,-
.......... -........0:
- -
city 01 chula vista planning department CTtY OF
environmental review ..ctlon. QiULA VISrA
...... .-"-..""". ------..
,-
J) a limited industria] option which would convert aU of the residential land within :rJe
buff:':T area, as welJ as certain areas north of the buffer. south of future Olympic Pari:v:2Y,
to lirrrited industria] and would also convert a smalJ portion ofJand east of the buffer to
open space (see attachment I);
2) an open space option which wil] convert alJ of the area within the buffer and a smalJ
area ofland north of the buffer to open space (see attachment 2);
3) a mixed-use option which would include parks, public and quasi-public, open space
both within, and in an area outside, of the buffer, and limited industria] uses (see
attachment 3).
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
Tne subject areas are zoned P-C, Planned Community, and as such, a Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) plan will be developed to identify specific land use districts and other development
parameters. However, at this point in time there is no SPA plan governing the subject properties.
The General Plan amendment and the General Development Plan amendment will be coordinated
to ensure compatibility between these two documents.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached
Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a
significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
E. Consultation
I. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Patty Nevins, Planning
Doug Reid, Planning
Rick Rosaler, Planning
Samir Nuhaily, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Doug Perry, Fire Marshal
MaryJane Diosdado, Crime Prevention
Mary Hofmockel, Parks & Recreation Department
Attorney's Department
Lowen Billings, Chula Vista Elementary School District
Katie Wright, Sweetwater Union High School District
~Xltf 6fT e>
p~ ~ 2-
., :)ocuments
Chula Vista General Plan (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Otay Ranch General Development Plan
3, Initial Study
TIlls environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any
comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the
public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the
independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding
the environmental review of this project is availible from the Chula Vista
Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, ChuJa Vista, CA 91910.
{L~amJ
ENvrRO AL REVIEW COORDINATOR
Douglas D. Reid
eXftl6tT 13
f' a.~t' ~
" -
~~.o
67
~--~ ::: .;-~
.~.". ...
;-:'. '.: (: .:~. j
.' .
--' ,:.- i: ;____r~ .~ "',-
. ,. ~ .' - \'~
. /- ~.'. .....
- ,,~ / ,.. --'
0.- _r~_ . ' - 4\ _
- . --..' . .:'../~"'l""
: ~ --------., r..~'
" ' - 6-......,...-
-":" ~~_N..
~_.:. Tdcgt2ph \,(''-
~ ,....~~...,.
......~r '("_..... ~ ~-"'
---..: - -.1 _..
~ J'~./~iT
I - - . .-
! J .." ;::-~II
\" \~
"" .
i'\.1 !"
-I.
........ :""j"
. .-
-.
L 11'0' . "" ~
~
\
\
IiOA::Ii
~
\
~
r-
I .r--h-(
I ]-----~:."..,
.- -<-'-'
~ -
-------
,
Open Space Option/
Special Study Overlay
~r.-~~t~~~~<
---.<'C{.
;;("~t'~'~F~;'
~9l~2~~,:.'
. ..
- ~. ",' ,~
/. - . .~. -.-JlIIIII~:
......~ -~~. :""'" 1-.
~- /.::"'......-, .II (
,"" ,''', ! I j, '" \
/,--'''' ---- .-J...........)
- /. -. .-/'. .' . \ .:P .
-.....-....-' /. -~.' - .. \ .."
- .... . _...J- ~ _ .- - i'(\
...... .. .......r._/" ~~o
- --...J - C~...
" ,.-- - - .,,)-
-...;.. -~ -......
- .' h-
~~.... TekgT2P {''-
-.... - ~
::-,...~ -'"~ ........
~r '-' :"- ~
.r-\_o", /...~~-~,~.;-",
;) ji -, _-~ ~'
"
! I ____ .
;1.1 -.-.~
-../ _ ''''K~''
... : .-- ,.;
~ "".
i'1 J
_4:- ) -! I
~
~.---~-
..-
,~.--t'~l~i
VIII 'r-~" \.
-'-""__ I \~ (.?)
\\~
l Wy . 4 ..
'.1'U ~
VILLAGE 2
G?
V
1...W"f-" ;
""::1'" DU
!Ii.'Oi
-
/1
v
UN.SJ
::ii7DU
o
'- f:itv
Multi-Use Option:
Parks/
Public & Quasi-Public/
Open Space/
Industrial
Special Study Overlay
.....
. -
=' ....'4r.
'>'~ .- ~,,~
. ~ . ,- no. .a..tI A'
~----"!-_':- ~Wfy Van..,. '.'''---u--
,,:... .. ~ ey...." _-:- --... r___
~.-;:::"'-::-- - .~ '.,
II I I lit
~~"~~""'--"~~
,~:-;~-~~,.
I' I! i I! U
Case No. 15-98-24
E!\\1R01\TME~'T AL CHECKLIST FORM
1.
Name of Proponent:
City of Chu12 Vista
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3.
Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 919]0
(619) 69]-5101
4.
Name of Proposal:
Landfill Buffer Zone
5.
Date of Checklist:
March 16, 1998
Potentially
- SigDIf- '-than
-- UnIoo ~cant ~o
- ......... Impact -
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 0 0 ~
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 ~
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 ~
impacts !O soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 ~
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
Comments: The proposed amendments to the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan are being coordinated to ensure compatibility.
II, POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
o
o
o
~
W"':'C l':'.HDM!:.'\PJ.ANNlNG\.t>ATTI'\LANDFILL.!S
e;<rtl~rr~
p~",,,,
-----._,""._--
__,____._,Pag~ 1
POlentiaJ~
........., SiJnjrJCIm Les.~ thill"
_.... Unls.\ SIJ,'nlrlcm! ,,<
''''''''' Mitil'-ilteC lmpOlc! Im(1i1C::
b) ]ndu:~ substamial growth in an ar~a eith~r 0 0 0 0
dir~:rJy or indire:rJy (e.g., througb projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especiaI1y affordable 0 0 0 0
housing?
Comments: Th~ proposed proj~ct would eliminate certain future resid~ntial development, but wilJ hav~
no impact on existing housing.
m. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to po/emial impaCTs involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 [gJ
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 [gJ
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 [gJ
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any 0 0 0 [gJ
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 [gJ
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, 0 0 0 [gJ
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
scream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or
lak~?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 [gJ
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The project will not cause significant geophysical impaCts on the site.
IV. WATER. Woulii the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff?
o
o
o
[gJ
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge 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
wat~r body?
D
o
D
l8J
o
o
o
[gJ
o
o
o
[gJ
to) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of
water movements, in either marine or fresh
warers?
o
o
o
I8i
e;(I"H 13 IT B
P~"I
WP: f:\;-!DY..E\PU.~~r\Jr.:G\?A1TY\l..ANDFrLL.IS
Pag~ 2
l'ote:n1ial~'
f'~ SignlrlClnl Leslilhan
~1C2I%I Un'- Sl~nirlcant 1>olJ
I"""" Mitipted ImpotCI Jmpac;
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 fZ1
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by curs or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 fZ1
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 fZ1
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? 0 0 0 fZ1
j) Substantia! reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 fZ1
oth~e available for public water supplies?
Comments: AJ; an interim land use designation, the project will not have any effect on drainage patterns.
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non-
stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: As an interim land use designation. the project will not have any effect on air quality.
V. AIR QUAI.JTY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
patterns .
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design feamres (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.. farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) 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 mrnouts,
bicycie racks)?
o
o
o
fZ1
o
o
o
[81
o
o
o
[81
o
o
o
[81
o
o
o
[81
o
o
o
[81
o
o
o
[81
0 0 0 [81
0 0 0 [81
0 0 0 [81
0 0 0 [81
ern/6fT (j
P1t.,9 -e. 'b
Page 3
WPC F:\ROME\Pl.ANNIt\G\!'ATrY\LANDFILL.IS
hunbally
S_....
I_a
PlMmlialJ:.
Si~r.lCa1J!
Un'"
MiticaltG
Leal; than
Si$!)1iric.ant
ImpilCI
'c,
Imp:.c:<
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impam?
o
o
o
~
h) A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or
more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more
r..ak-hour vehicle trips,)
Comments: .-\5 an interim land use designation, the project will not have adverse impacts on traffic or
transportation.
o
o
o
~
vn. BIOWGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern 0 0 0 !21
or species that are candidates for listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 ~
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, oak 0 0 0 !21
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 !21
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corri;;"rs? 0 0 0 181
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181
effons?
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not have adverse impacts on biological
resources,
,'III. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 0 0 181
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comment.: The project will not have an adverse impact on energy and mineral resources.
GOI<HI61T e>
f'ye .,
WP:::: :';\HOME\PLAN1\"!,.;G\.I>.....n"'Y\LANDPILl..J:;
Page 4
Potential~
,.~ SipUrJaJII. Le.thatJ
Sipir.au:. lJn~ SlpJificanl ~f'
I"""" Mit~leC lmpac1 Impat1
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal Involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 ~
hazardous substances (including. but not limited
to: petroleum producTS, pesticides. chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response 0 0 0 ~
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 ~
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 ~
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 ~
bnEh,~s,ortr~?
Comments: AI; an interim land nse designation, the project will not create any health or other hazards.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal resu/J in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 [81
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 [81
Comments: AI; an interim land use designation, the project will not result in increased noise impacTS.
XI. PUBUC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect lI[Jon, or result in a need for new or altered
govemmem services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 [81
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 [81
c) Schools? 0 0 0 [81
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 [81
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 [gI
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not impact public sen;ces,
-~.._---_.._--_.,._--_._-----
""N-I16.T ~
fAje If)
'.'"~'~' ?:' 1] :JME\?LA'-1;,,~NG:'!' ,1.::'1"'1' LA,,"TIFTLL.IS
Page 5
----.-.-,--
XII. Thresholds. Will/he proposal adversely Impact/he
CiTY'S Tnreshold S/andardJ'
Potentialh
Po''''''1Iy SiJ!nmcam Leas than
SipJiflClDl: Un"" Si;'nlncanl
1-- Mitiptnj Impact
0 0 0
1'\(,
ImlUlr1
o
As describ~ below, the proposed project does not adverseJy impact any of the Threshold
Standards.
a) FirefEMS
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medicaJ uniTS must be able to respond to calls
within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the
cas~s.
Comments: This project will not affect Fire Department operations.
b) Pofu:e
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standards require that police uniTS must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 calls
witirin 7 minntes or less and maintain an average response rime to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5
nrimnes or less. Police units must respond to 10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less
and maintain an average response rime to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: This project will not affect Police Department Operations.
c) Traffic
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "Cn or bener, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during
the r...ak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 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 anerials with freeway ramps are
exempted from this Srandard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Comments: This project will not affect Traffic threshold standards.
d) ParkslRecreation
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acresll,OOO population. The proposed
project will comply with this Threshold Srandard.
Comments: This project will not affect Parks threshold standards,
e) Drainage
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Srandards. Individual projecTS will provide necessary
improvemenTS consistent with the Drainage Master PlanCs) and City Engineering
Srandards, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: This project will not affect drainage capacities.
W?C_ F-\H::1.\iE\PLANNTNG\!',;ITY\LANDFlLL.JS
extl/6lT 13
r' ofje II
m ~_~__~~"~_
Potenti:all:>
- Si~ntr.lCll1! i..a:!> than
S~.a.m UnlcsJ. Sl~nmc.ant .,"
'-- Mlt~led Jmp:.oC1 Imp;'d
f) S~W~ 0 0 0 !&
'[h" Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects wilJ provide =essary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plane s) and City Engineering Standards. The
proposed project will compJy with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: Tnis project will not affect sewer capacities.
g) War..-r
o
o
o
121
Tne Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities
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.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set
program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments: This project will not affect water capacities
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substanIial alteraIions 10 the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 121
b) Communications sys=s? 0 0 0 121
c) Lo::al or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 121
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 121
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 121
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 121
Comments: This project will not result in a need for new systems.
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
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?
o
o
o
121
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic
route?
o
o
o
121
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
o
o
o 121
eJ<.f1 16 n !3
P<je /2-
Pa!!e 7
WPC F.'....:-IOME\!'LANNrl"G\PATIT\LANDFILLIS
d) Create added light or glare sources that could
in...,.ease the level of sky glow in an area or cause
this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
..otentia.....
- SiltDiflOlrrt Les.~ than
SipUfllC2lll U.... Sij!nir":lInl :--.if>
I"""" Mnjzata:: Irnp:.ilct Impilc1
0 0 0 0
e) Reduce an additionaJ amount of spill light?
o
o
o
o
Comments: The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic view.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the 0 0 0 0
destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 0
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 0
physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 0
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 ~
EIR as an area of high potential for archeological
resources?
Comments: AI, an interim land use designation, the project will have no impact on cultural resources.
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal resuIJ in the alleration of or the destruction
of pale0111010gical resources?
Comments: The project will not result in the alteration or destruction of paleontological resources.
o
o
o
o
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 0
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreationaJ opportunities? 0 0 0 0
c) lnterfere with recreation parks & recreation plans 0 0 0 0
or programs?
Comments: AI, an interim land use designation, the project will not affect increase demand for
recreational facilities.
IZ;<f1 t6 IT e.
P~j~ I ~
WPC 'f:\HOME\PLANNIJ'\G..PA1TY\:...A:....'DFlU.lS
Page 8
.,--'---.-
)",'IIl. MM\DATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
See Negative Declnration for mandalOry findings of
signifiamce. If an EIR is needed, this section should
be comple1ed.
a) Does the 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 10 drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or resnict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods or California history or prehistory?
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not create unhealthful conditions.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: The project is an interim land use designation and is intended to provide for better analvsis
of long term goals prior to finalizing land uses on the project site
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not create cumulative impacts.
d) Does the project have environmental effect which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: As an imerim land use designation, the project will not adversely effect human beings,
-~_.
_ _ _.__..,_.__ Page 2~_
WPC ?:'..4aM3PLANN11','(;':P,..T;f\.Lo\"'::)::-J~.LJS
POU:DtiaIIy
Si:t::tdr1CaJJl
J""..o
Potential!)-
SiJRlflClm
Un....
Mjl.ipl~
'c,
Imp..1:"!
1...aEUUII
Siplificant
Imp.lct
o
o
o
[gj
o
o
o
[gj
o
o
o
[gj
o
o
o
[gj
/:;:::XfflelT f3
f <!j (' /LI
E!\"'VIRONMENTAL F, ,'ORS POTEJ'I.'TIALLY AFFECTED:
Tne environmental factors checked below would be potentially affect;:(! by this project. ;nvolvinQ at least ont
impact that is a .Pot::ntially Significant Impact" or "Potent;ally Significant Unless Mitigated," as-indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems
0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significaru:e
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT bave a significant effect on the enviroD1I!.."tlt, and a IIJI
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 0
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation IDe== described:::::; an
attacbed sheet have been added to the project. A MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY bave a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least 0
one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
~oJf~/
SIgnature
~//..? /'78
, I
Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
',','PC F:i.HOME\PLAN"'II\'G'~ATTY\!....A"''DFILL.lS
E:(<tt I 6 IT f3>
f'~~ (~
Page 10
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO
THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ON THE OTA Y RANCH PROJECT.
WHEREAS, on January 30,1998 the City ofChula Vista ("Applicant") filed an
application with the City ofChula Vista for a General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, in May 1996, the City ofChula Vista and San Diego County entered
into an agreement concerning the Otay Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the agreement contains a condition requiring the City to amend its
General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, and other applicable zoning measures to
establish a 1,000 foot buffer around the landfill site and replace current residential land
uses in the buffer zone with other land uses that are more compatible with the landfill;
and,
WHEREAS, applicant proposes that the City of Chula Vista General Plan be
amended as set forth in the document attached as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an initial study of
the proposed project and concluded that there would be no significant environmental
impacts, and recommended the adoption of a Negative Declaration (Exhibit B); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on October 21, 1998 and voted to approve Planning Commission
Resolution No. GP A 98-02, recommending to the City Council approval of the
amendment to the City ofChula Vista General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said
amendment to the City of Chula Vista General Plan 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
October 27,1998 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
City Council, and said hearing was thereafter closed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the amendment to the City ofChula Vista General
C::Xft ( 13 IT c....
City Council
General Plan Amendment
1
B,ICCIGP-RES,CCV
Plan introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this matter
held on October 21, 1998 and the minutes and resolution resulting thererrom, are hereby
incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby order as follows:
I. Adopt Negative Declaration IS 98-24;
II. Approve the proposed City ofChula Vista General Plan Amendment as set forth
in Exhibit A; and
III. Direct the Environmental Review Coordinator to file a Notice of Determination
with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 27th day of October, 1998 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
Exhibits
Exhibit A - Proposed General Plan Amendments
Exhibit B - Negative Declaration
Exhibit C - Draft City Council Resolution
City Council
General Plan Amendment
2
eXff r~IT c.
P<lj 1!' ;z-
O,ICCIGP-RES.CCV
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City ofChula Vista, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance No,_ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the
City Council at a City Council meeting held on the day of , 1998.
Executed this _ day of
,1998.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
Planning Commission
General Plan Amendment Resolution
e?<1f161T C-
f<jt" 3-
B,\CC\GP-RES.CCV
3
RESOLUTION PCM 98-26
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, an application for amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
(GDP) was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on January 30, 1998 by the City of
Chula Vista ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, in May 1996, the City of Chula Vista and San Diego County entered into an
agreement concerning the Otay Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the agreement contains a condition requiring the City to amend its General Plan,
the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, and other applicable zoning measures to establish a 1,000 foot buffer around
the landfill site and replace current residential land uses in the buffer zone with other land uses that are
more compatible with the landfill; and,
WHEREAS, applicant proposes that the Chula Vista General Development Plan be amended as
set forth in the document attached as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an initial study of the proposed
project and concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommended the
adoption of a Negative Declaration (Exhibit B).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
does hereby recommend that the City Council:
I. Adopt Negative Declaration IS 98-24; and
II. Adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution (Exhibit C) approving the proposed Otay
Ranch General Development Plan amendment to change the residential land use designation
within the IOOO-foot landfill buffer ftom Medium Low Density to Limited Industrial; to add the
area to Village 3; and to create a new open space buffer in Village Two.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
Planning Commission
General Development Plan Amendments
B,IPCIGDP-RES.CCV
I
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA this 21st day of October, 1998 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Patty Davis
Chair - Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas
Planning Commission Secretary
Exhibits
Exhibit A - Proposed Amendments
Exhibit B - Negative Declaration
Exhibit C - Draft City Council Resolution
Planning Commission
General Development Plan Amendments
BoIPCIGDP-RES.CCV
2
::~-~<c~""'~~'. ..
'. . ..' ---""",
- ~ ~ ~
C' /. ",'. ,:>---0
:.) .. ,..\ . -'1~" ~2
- /,; 1\ f'-'] ~j"
/' ;. _____ "--- ~ J" ...)
-L' ._.J - /- . ~.., -: \"-..,p
T ' r-':;':;;:" . .. ...
.;-. / - .. ~
'. , :..../'~ O~
...." - _---...J..." C~~'J
.. ~~ ~...
~~:., Telegr2Ph
~
~r
,
~ J"<O'/
Ii
y :vI
UIV.~_.5
1.2(.J DU
\.
."
J
d
VIL
l.1IY-'5.D
~ou
,
\,.t...o
Industrial!
Open Space Option
Special Study Overlay
m:ttm
I"C'<" ~j
!'i:.....t.;-....."..,.
.........
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Landfill Buffer
PROJECT LOCATION: Otay Ranch Planned Community, Portions of
Village2 and Village 2 West
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:
644-030-06, 644-030-07
PROJECT APPLICANT:
City-Initiated
CASE NO:
IS-98-24
DATE:
March 16, 1998
A. Proiect Setting
The project site is located within the Otay Ranch Planned Community and consists of
portions of those planning areas known as Village 2 and Village 2 West which are located
within a 1000' buffer zone around the Otay Landfill (see attached graphic). One of the
properties within this buffer zone is owned by Otay Project LLC, and the other is owned
by SNMB Ltd. Pirrtnership.
B. Proiect Description
The project consists of an amendment to the City's General Plan as well as an
amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan in order to remove residential
land uses trom within the area known as the Landfill Buffer Zone (1000' tram the
working area of the landfill where residential uses are currently designated). The City is
required to remove the existing residential land use designations in accordance with an
agreement between the City and the County of San Diego.
A special study overlay is proposed to be used with any land use designations approved
to replace the residential designations. The special study overlay will, in accordance with
the provisions of the City's General Plan for special study areas, indicate that these
designations are interim and that the areas so designated are subject to additional, future
planning and studies prior to determining the ultimate land uses to be applied to these
areas. Therefore, any land designations approved as a part of the project General Plan
amendment and General Development Plan amendment would be recognized as interim
land use designations only. ~Xl-\ I ~ rf ~
~{f?
-.-
.~~~
city 01 chula vista planning department em Of
environmental review .ectlon. QiULA VISTA
I) a limited industrial option which would convert alJ of the residential land within the
buffer area, as welJ as certain areas north of the buffer, south of future Olympic Parkway,
to limited industrial and would also convert a small portion ofland east of the buffer to
open space (see attachment I);
2) an open space option which will convert al1 of the area within the buffer and a smal1
area ofland north of the buffer to open space (see attachment 2);
3) a mixed-use option which would include parks, public and quasi-public, open space
both within, and in an area outside, ofthe buffer, and limited industrial uses (see
attachment 3).
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The subject areas are zoned P-C, Planned Community, and as such, a Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) plan will be developed to identifY specific land use districts and other development
parameters. However, at this point in time there is no SPA plan governing the subject properties.
The General Plan amendment and the General Development Plan amendment wil1 be coordinated
to ensure compatibility between these two documents.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached
Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a
significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines.
E. Consultation
I. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Patty Nevins, Planning
Doug Reid, Planning
Rick Rosaler, Planning
Samir Nuhaily, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Doug Perry, Fire Marshal
MaryJane Diosdado, Crime Prevention
Mary Hofmockel, Parks & Recreation Department
Attorney's Department
Lowell Billings, Chula Vista Elementary School District
Katie Wright, Sweetwater Union High School District
~XHll3\T B
Pltj~ ~
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Otay Ranch General Development Plan
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any
comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the
public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the
independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further infoI1llation regarding
the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista
Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
17~_HL~
~NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
Douglas D. Reid
ex 1-1-1 !3 IT .B
P"j~ ?
"
~."'O
67
~.";;--i.:-..-_-=-.J::'::.~- -,,-"0. s..-...~..~
n . .~~ ~ ~;:-~
--:"~ " .'" "'1'. .:. ~!.. So;2
...... '-.:.-... I" 4'~
~- ...... 141 "'......-, i
" /: '-.-J '---- ...:J ",,-~
-- /' -, ~. . \ ..
-' ~-' j. -~... .'" ~ .-
-..... T / r->-' - _.... '^ ....
,', '-~.,O"
...... ;- ;~ -/' :-'-'-'/~~-O"J
~ -,,~-~...
, '-
,"",--.' Telegnph ,,(''\.
~~- 11...-' \~J: .....,.
r .---. '1"-'
.1 '-'~'r:-
, - .
: II .-J
.. 'I / . -~___
;..../ -- ,,)"
. . I"'
\ : ,.' "".
;.) _ 1 I ~ -
-~. -
(j_oI....
-n""
'\
lWV. 4~
~
:.
d.
Vlt
Open Space Option/
Special Study Overlay
- -- .t' <~., ,
':~;"':\i_'-;<"::--''''-_'''''''
0" '-"<("'"
..,,~-:,I;.~':'.i~Q-~
f~ii;4~*:'::
, .,.-.
~ , - -...:...:r _ <- ... .
'L:..::.'~o. ~~ ,....
"".'.....---: ...I
,;; _.co _' J::>--
............~--# :/\ .- -.....!""So:I2
~~../:'I - . ;, j
~ I,,\!~ il ^
- " ;''---'~..,..J\''_,
. /'" _4 _. __.
- .-----' /' .."... \ ..
L- T. r-->-: .:; ... " _' ~
~. " . .../'../ ~.,o
;'" !"':-""'-" -.I: C$
",,";"--"'\~b"'.."
---, ....... Te\egraP
'-
~;
""\J
" II r''<o,/
.,1 --'
lWV.4.~
'.2Q !>U
.-.....
V!LLAGE 1
8
LWV." ~
v'''' DU
-
d
VIL
'. ritv
Multi-Use Option:
Parks/
Public & Quasi-Public/
Open Space/
Industrial
Special Study Overlay
r// / / 11
Iamm
,
. / . ~ <.-r.~'_
~'-- .......!.f.~.~..~. ..---::;
.'{;,,~~--:_~. . :~
. "". "'-" .
- .-~ ..' " ,", - '---
~.._ "h '__' .,. . .
~Xf{ 1131T 13
P4:J<'. 5
Case No. IS-98-24
Er-..'VIRONMEr-..'T AL CHECKLIST FORM
1.
Name of Proponent:
City of Chula Vista
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3.
Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5101
4.
Name of Proposal:
Landfill Buffer Zone
5.
Date of Checklist:
March 16, 1998
Potentially
PoteD1iaDy Significant Less:tl:t.an
Si~~ u.... Significam No
,- Mitigated Impact I....a
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 0 0 r8I
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 r8I
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 r8I
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 r8I
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
Comments: The proposed amendments to the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan are being coordinated to ensure compatibility.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
o
o
o
r8I
V/PC r;,HOMI:\i'I...A NNTNG\PA TTY\LANDFILLJS
~~1t(6IT B
f4.je lP
Page 1
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
Potential!)
PotaJti:aD} Si~nmcant Less than
Signif"K2nt Unless Si;mlficant ]'IO[)
I"""" MitiJated Impact impact
0 0 0 [gI
o
D
D
[gI
Comments: The proposed project would eliminate cenain future residential development, but will have
no impact on existing housing.
m. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic D D D [gI
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or D D D [gI
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief D D D [gI
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any D D D [gI
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 D [gI
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, 0 0 0 I8i
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
lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 D 0 [gI
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The project will not cause significant geophysical impacts on the site.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or D D D [gI
the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 [gI
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 [gI
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any D D D [gI
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of D D D [gI
water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters? ~1<rt161T 8
f'c,~ 7
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\PA ITY\LANDFILL.JS Page 2
POCenlially
PotmtiaUy SiJr1lficant Less than
Signirrcant Un,,", Significant ,.
Impact Mitij!:3led Impact Impact
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 181
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? 0 0 0 181
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: As an interim land use designation. the project will not have any effect on drainage patterns.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 181
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 0 0 0 181
cause any change in climate. either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non- 0 0 0 181
stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not have any effect on air quality.
patterns.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 181
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.. 0 0 0 181
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 0 0 0 181
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 181
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? eXi+(I:nr 8
f"3e ~
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\PA TIJ\LANDFILLIS Page 3
--._.__..
Potentia]ly
Sipllrx:arrt
,,,,,,,,ct
Potentially
SignifICant
Un....
Milii:ated
l.esf;than
Sii:nificant
Impact
'"
Impact
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
o
o
o
r8I
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: As an interim land use designation, the project will not have adverse impacts on traffic or
transportation.
o
o
o
r8I
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern 0 0 0 r8I
or species that are candidates for listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g.. heritage trees)? 0 0 0 r8I
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, oak 0 0 0 r8I
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) WetJand habitat (e. g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 r8I
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 r8I
t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 L.J ~ r8I
L.J
efforts?
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not have adverse impacts on biological
resources.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 0 0 r8I
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 r8I
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 r8I
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: The project will not have an adverse impact on energy and mineral resources.
eXftl6tT 13
P~-jof!' q
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\PATTY\LANDFILL.lS
Page 4
Potentially
Potentially Sii!nirlcant Lcssthall
SignirCUJI U""" Si~lficant No
1"",,0 Mitii!ated Impact Impact
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 181
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response 0 0 0 181
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 181
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not create any health or other hazards.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 LJ 1211
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not result in increased noise impacts.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES, Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181
b) Police protection? 0 0 D 181
c) Schools? D D D 181
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 181
e) Other governmental services? D D D 181
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not impact public services.
eX-HIt! rr ~
"itje. 10
WPC !'";\HOME\PLANNING\PATTY\LANDFILLIS
Page 5
xn. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the
City's Threshold Standnrds?
Potential!)
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant VDless SiR:nlficant '0
Impact MitiJ:ated impact impact
D D D r8I
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the Threshold
Standards .
a) FirefEMS
D
D
D
r8I
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls
within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the
cases.
Comments: This project will not affect Fire Department operations.
b) Police
D
o
D
r8I
The Threshold Standards require that police nnits must respond to 84 % of Priority I calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5
minutes or less. Police nnits must respond to 10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less
and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: This project will not affect Police Department Operations.
c) Traffic
D
CJ
D
~
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during
the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 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 Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Comments: This project will not affect Traffic threshold standards.
d) ParkslRecreation
D
o
o
181
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1 ,000 population. The proposed
project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: This project will not affect Parks threshold standards.
e) Drainage
D
D
D
r8I
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: This project will not affect drainage capacities.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\PA1TY\LANDFlLL.IS
e-AA(I!IIT ~
l'4.j" II
Page 6
PotentialJ)'
PotmtiaDy Signirlcant Las than
Si~iflClnt Unless Sij::niricant No
'''- MiliJt8ted Impact Impact
f) Sewer 0 0 0 181
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: This project will not affect sewer capacities.
g) Water
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treannent, and transmission facilities
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.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set
program the City of ChuIa Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments: This project will not affect water capacities
xm. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181
c) Local or regional water treannent or distribution 0 0 0 181
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
Comments: This project will not result in a need for new systems.
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
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?
o
o
o
181
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic
route?
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
exl-l-IBrr ~
f6.~~ (2-
Page 7
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
WPC F;\HOME\PLANNlNG\PA TTY\LANDFILL.lS
Potentially
Potentially Sir;nlficam Lesstban
S~iflCant Un... Sil!:nificant No
'mp>ct Mitil!:atrd Impact Impact
d) Create added light or glare sources that could D 0 D 181
increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause
this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? D D D 181
Comments: The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic view.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the D D D 181
destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or D D D 181
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a D 0 0 181
physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or fJ " " .vi
~ ~ ~
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan D D D 181
EIR as an area of high potential for archeological
resources?
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will have no impact on cultural resources.
A"'VI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction
of paleonJological resources?
Comments: The project will not result in the alteration or destruction of paleontological resources.
D
D
D
181
xvn. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or D D D 181
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? D D D 181
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans D D D 181
or programs?
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not affect increase demand for
r~creationaI facilities.
&21<1\1811 B
f'..,c I~
WPC F:\HOME\PLAN!'JJNG\PAITY\LAN~)FlLL.JS
Page 8
X'VITI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
See NegaJive Declaration for mandatory findings of
significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should
be completed.
a) Does the 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 resnict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods or California history or prehistory?
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not create unhealthfuI conditions.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: The project is an interim land use designation and is intended to provid~ for better analysis
of long term goals prior to finalizing land uses on the project site.
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
conslderabie when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not create cumulative impacts.
d) Does the project have environmental effect which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: As an interim land use designation, the project will not adversely effect human heings.
p-
SignifICant
'---
Potentially
Significant
Un""
Mitigated
,,,
Impact
Less than
Sij!;lLificant
Impact
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
~)<H IBIT ~
f"jo!' 1'-/
WPC F:\HOM<:\PLANNfNG\PATIY\LANDFlLL.IS
Page 9
EJI.'VIRONMEJl.lAL FACTuRS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmemal factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
D Land Use and Planning D Transportation/Circulation D Public Services
D Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service Systems
D Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
D Water D Hazards D Culrural Resources
D Air Quality D Noise D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
iii
D
D
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect: I) has heen adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has heen addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to he addressed.
o
i2 Jt,~
Sjgnaru~
3,/I.~/ 7: 8
Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
elCI-I l61T e
fA" e. I:)
w~y~ F:iHOME\PLANNING\PA'ITY\LA~1)FILL.JS Page 10
DRAFT RESOLUTION
--
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY
RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, an application for amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
(GDP) was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on January 30, 1998 by the City of
Chula Vista ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, in May 1996, the City of Chula Vista and San Diego County entered into an
agreement concerning the Otay Landfill; and,
WHEREAS, the agreement contains a condition requiring the City to amend its General Plan,
the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, and other applicable zoning measures to establish a 1,000 foot buffer around
the landfill site and replace current residential land uses in the buffer zone with other land uses that are
more compatible with the landfill; and,
WHEREAS, applicant proposes that the Chula Vista General Development Plan be amended as
set forth in the document attached as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on the said GDP
amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and mailed 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 advertised, October 21, 1998 in the
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was previously adopted by the City Council, Resolution
No. ; no further action is necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on
October 21, 1998 and voted to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. GP A 98-
26, recommending to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment to the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan, 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
Planning Commission
General Development Plan Amendments
B,ICCIGDP-RES.CCV
I
eXHI61T C-
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 October 27, 1998
at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council, and said hearing
was thereafter closed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this matter held on October 21,
1998 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does
hereby approve the proposed Otay Ranch General Development Plan amendment to change the
residential land use designation within the 1000-foot landfill buffer from Medium Low Density to
Limited Industrial; to add the area to Village 3; and to create a new open space buffer in Village Two;
and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
That the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan was found consistent with the Chula Vista
General Plan when it was approved on October 23, 1993. These amendments will still
advance the goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP. The City ofChula Vista
General Plan has been amended and the General Development Plan amendments are
consistent with the approved General Plan Amendments.
B. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS WILL
PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA One Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain provisions and
Planning Commission
General Development Plan Amendments
B,ICCIGDP-RES.CCV
2
~X'~ 113 IT C
P"'j~ :;)...
requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The Public
Facilities Financing Plan has been updated to include 473.1 acres west of Paseo
Ranchero, and specifies the public facilities required by the Otay Ranch, and also the
regional facilities needed to serve it. The proposed amendments to the Village One core
and the area west of Paseo Ranchero will not have an impact on the sequential
development of SPA One.
C. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS WILL
NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The villages within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer adjacent to other
existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay Ranch Planning
Area One. A neighborhood park will be located within the Village One West area to
serve the project residents, and the project will provide housing types compatible with
Sunbow, as required by the General Development Plan. A comprehensive street
network serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The
proposed plan follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid
unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in
the Otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report. The proposed GDP amendments will
not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation or
environmental quality.
III. ATTACHMENTS
All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council ofthe City ofChula Vista, California,
this 27th day of October, 1998 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
Planning Commission
General Development Plan Amendments
a\CC\GDp.RES.CCV
3
e;o~1 e,IT C
(1fJ.~-L ~
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. _ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a City
Council meeting held on the 27th day of October, 1998.
Executed this
day of
,1998.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
Exhibits
Exhibit A- Proposed GDP Amendments
Exhibit B- Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Planning Commission
General Development Plan Amendments
B:\CC\GDP-RES.CCV
4
B)<IfI~I" C.
f/J.j~ '+