Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1998/05/13 ':0, AGENDA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Chula Vista, California 7:00 p,m, Wednesday, May 13, 1998 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL/MOTlONS 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. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 98-15; An amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan to add additional lands in the Proctor Valley Parcel to the area currently designated as the first conveyance, 2, PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-21; Consideration of an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) to allow reduction in Village Core densities, PCM 98-16; Consideration of an amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan on property generally located on 1,110 acres south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future SR-125 alignment. PCS 98-04; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map for 101.4 acres of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 98-04, generally located off the southern extension of Otay Lakes Road, south of Telegraph Canyon Road, Agenda -2 - May 13, 1998 3, PUBLIC HEARING: DRC 98-16; Appeal of the decision made by the Design Review Committee - HyunJJVP, Ltd.lAutoplex, Appellant. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS 98-04; Request to Operate a Public/Quasi-Public Institutional Use at 691 Oxford Street in the CO-P (Office Commercial - Precise Plan) Zone - Palomar Station, LLC, DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to the Workshop Meeting of May 20,1998 COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. H:\HOME\PLANNING\DIANA\PCAGENDADV PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item -----L- Meeting Date: May 13.1998 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 98-15: An amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan to add additional lands in the Proctor Valley Parcel to the area currently designated as the first conveyance, The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the conveyance schedule in the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP 2) to add open space and preserve land they currently own in the central Proctor Valley Parcel to the first conveyance for SPA One, The applicant is proposing that this land be conveyed to the Preserve Owner/Manager (paM) with their first final "B" Map which is anticipated to be approved in June, 1998, The proposed amendment to the RMP 2 Conveyance Schedule was heard by the Planning Commission at the March II and 25 meetings and continued to the May 13, 1998 meeting in order to complete an addendum to the SPA One EIR, The Environmental Review Coordinator detennined that revisions to the SPA One EIR Findings of Fact where necessary in order to amend the Conveyance Schedule, Staff has prepared an Addendum to the SPA One EIR in order to revise the Findings to approve the Conveyance Schedule amendment. All of the ''Keystone'' parcels are of high biological value, and it will be to the public's benefit to have these parcels conveyed as early as possible in the development process, The Addendum and Findings are attached for Planning Commission consideration, Approval by the Planning Commission at the May 13th meeting will enable staff to forward the amendment to the City Council within the time fi:ames for approval of the SPA One Final Maps. ISSUES: . Should the conveyance requirement for SPA One be expanded to include lands in the Proctor Valley Parcel? . Should the Conveyance Schedule be amended to include the "Keystone" parcel of the first priority conveyance? . Should land that is not within the City or the City's current Sphere of Influence be added to the first conveyance priority? RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 98-15 reco=ending that the City Council approve the amendment to the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan adding the "Keystone" parcels to the Conveyance Schedule for SPA One. Page 2, Item: ...1- Meeting Date: 5/13/98 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None BACKGROUND: The Phase 1 Resource Management Plan (RMP 1) was approved concurrently with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) inOctober, 1993, The goal of the RMP 1 is the establishment of an open space system that will become a pennanent management preserve dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the multiple resources present on Otay Ranch, The RMP 1 identifies the conceptual Open Space Preserve boundaries and required further refinement of those boundaries in the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP 2), The RMP 2 implements the RMP 1 and was approved concurrently with the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan for development of the first 1,000 acres located within Villages One and Five. The GDP/SRP required the County of San Diego to approve three sections of the RMP 2, which included the Conveyance Schedule, the Funding Plan and the establishment of the POM, These sections were approved by Minute Order of the Board of Supervisors on March 6,1996. BothRMP 1 and 2 contain policies which require a total ofll,375 acres of private open space land to be conveyed to the POM for preservation, The conveyance of open space land is required by the GDP to mitigate the approximately 9,500 acres of development. The Conveyance Schedule outlined in the RMP 2 provides for the orderly conveyance of open space land to the POM in compliance with the conveyance criteria established in the GDP/SRP (page 376) and the RMPl (pages 97-98 and 125), RMP 1 (page 126) indicates that the goal of the conveyance schedule is to "maintain long-term biological diversity and assure the survival and recovery of native species and habitats within the Preserve", The RMP I also indicates that "protection and enhancement of biological resources shall be the primary guiding principle behind development of the conveyance schedule". The RMP 2 identifies the first parcels to be conveyed to the POM based 'on the approved GDP conveyance criteria and further implements the established guidelines for future conveyances. The required areas of first conveyance are identified as the Coastal sage scrub habitat in Salt Creek and the vernal pools on the Otay Mesa and are identified as Exhibits 14A and 14 B of the Phase 2 RMP (see Exhibit I), There are currently 1,248 acres ofland in the first conveyance parcels, These areas were selected to meet the guidelines of the Otay Ranch GDP and the Phase 1 RMP since they are "keystone" parcels and were considered vulnerable to development and a high quality resource immediately adjacent to developing areas, The conveyance of land is required concurrently with Final Map approval. The first final map is anticipated in June/July 1998, Final maps in SPA One will be obligated to convey approximately 1,243 acres ofland to the POM, As indicated above, the RMP I (page 97-98 and 125) outlines guidelines that identifY those areas to be conveyed early in the process but subsequent to the Salt Creek area being conveyed to the POM. These guidelines are reiterated in the RMP 2 (page 57-58) as follows: . First priority shall be given to conveyance of highest quality resources (such resources may Page 3, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 5/13/98 include vernal pools on Otay Mesa, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat in the Salt Creek area, gnatcatcher population areas in the western San Ysidro and central Proctor Valley areas, or potential wetlands restoration areas in the Otay Valley [depending upon the status of regional park plans and wetlands restoration plans at the time Otay VaHey parcels are conveyed]). . First priority shall be given to conveyance of most vulnerable areas (i.e., those most subject to potential or ongoing disturbance). . Conveyance shalJ occur in an orderly manner beginning with an identified "keystone" parcel (e.g" vernal pool areas, Salt Creek area, Otay VaHey, central Proctor VaHey, western San Y sidro) and proceed to the next logical block of land, . Areas with restoration potential shalJ be conveyed early in order to begin long-tenn research and restoration activities early in the process (e.g" Otay VaHey, vernal pool areas, potential Diegan coastal sage scrub/maritime succulent scrub restoration areas north and south of the Otay Valley). . Cumulative acreage conveyed shaH be greater than or equal to the cumulative acreage of the proposed SPA/Specific Plan development. . General guidelines regarding in-kind mitigation and no net loss of wetlands shaH be considered in the development of the conveyance schedule, particularly in the context of applicable State and Federal regulations, (It is understood that in-kind mitigation may not always be the preferable approach to achieve the goal of establishing a functioning manageable Preserve,) . Applicable State and Federal regulations regarding protection of sensitive habitat and species shall be followed in the development of the conveyance schedule. . The Preserve Owner(s) Manager(s) shalJ participate in preparation of the conveyance schedule, In addition, the Salt Creek area has been identified for inclusion into a "university" site as depicted on the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, although opportunities for core university facilities will be limited, City of Chula Vista Staff and University of California, San Diego have been discussing the potential for siting an environmental sciences research institution on the upper site elevations in this area. Negotiations with the Wildlife Agencies are on-going and aimed at identifying developable areas that might be utilized by the institute or other future university facilities, Additionally, a site in the Salt Creek area has been identified in the City Council's "Seven Areas of Improvement" as the potential site of the "Higher Education CenterlEnvironmental Sciences Institute", Acquisition of the Salt Creek area, therefore, remains a high priority for the City, Page 4, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 5/13/98 DISCUSSION: 1. Proposal The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Conveyance Schedule to add approximately 800 acres in the Proctor Valley parcel to the first conveyance, These additional lands are located north and east of the resort site (Village 13), are currently in their ownership, and meet the first conveyance criteria established in the GDP and RMP I since the area contains gmitcatcher population. At the time the conveyance plan was adopted, the various Baldwin entities (Otay Ranch L.P., Baldwin Builders, Tiger Development II and Village Properties) owned all of the land within SPA One and most of the land proposed for SPA One conveyance detailed in Exhibits 14A and l4B of the RMP 2. The first conveyance parcels are currently owned by the Estate of Patrick and New Millennium Homes. Strict adherence to the Conveyance Schedule, as approved in the RMP 2, would require the cum:nt owners ofSP A One (Otay Ranch Company and McMillin Companies) to acquire land from the two entities (the Estate and New MiIlennium), The McMillin Companies do not own any preserve land within Otay Ranch, therefore, their alternative to land conveyance is to pay the in-lieu fee which is currently being developed. While this option is available to the Otay Ranch Company, they believe it to be an unfair financial burden, particularly since they currently own Preserve land elsewhere on Otay Ranch. The land proposed to be added to the first conveyance complies with the GDP and RMP I guidelines since it is part of the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve, is part of a key wildlife corridor, is environmentally sensitive and is immediately adjacent to properties already within the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Otay-Sweetwater Unit which is controlled by public entities, The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Otay-Sweetwater Unit consists of approximately 43,000 acres and will be managed by the U,S. Department ofFish and Wildlife, Gnatcatchers have been sited and mapped on the land proposed to be added to the first conveyance, The land proposed to be conveyed is not located within the City or the City's sphere of influence, but is within the General Plan and GDP area, The specific proposal is attached as Exhibit 2, The amendment to the Conveyance Schedule will also have to be approved by the County of San Diego. Staff met with County staff regarding this issue on February 18, 1998, They indicated that they would have to review the proposal with the Board of Supervisors Subcommittee for Otay Ranch and provide us with input subsequent to our meeting. Any available updates wjll be presented to the Commission at the public hearing, 2. Analvsis Staffhas reviewed the applicant's proposal to amend the conveyance schedule and sought input from other affected parties. Staffhas conducted several meetings regarding this issue and the related in- lieu fee proposal with all affected property owners, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service and the County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use and Parks and Recreation, Page 5, Item: --L Meeting Date: 5/13/98 A. Property Owner Concerns: All Otay Ranch property owners met with the Executive Committee on November 12, 1997 to discuss the proposed amendment to the Conveyance Schedule, The Executive Committee (formerly known as the Policy Committee) consists of the City Manager and all department heads and was formed during the processing of the Otay R<mch SPA One to discuss and make decisions on policy issues. During the meeting, the McMillin Companies stated that they would be in favor of eliminating all guidelines governing the acquisition ofland by the POM, It is their' opinion that the properties in the Preserve have essentially been preserved anyway, due to their open space designation, regardless of the order in which they are conveyed, They believe that forcing priority acquisitions would not benefit the purchasers of open space property and would not provide any incentive for the developer to purchase and convey land over paying the in-lieu fee. Greg Smith, one of the property owners on the Otay Ranch, was represented by his attorney at the meeting who indicated that he was in favor of retaining the guidelines, The other property owners have not expressed an opinion, Staff Response: It is staff's opinion that the guidelines are necessary to ensure that the most sensitive areas will be conveyed to the POM early in the process. The Findings of Fact for the SPA One EIR indicate that the first conveyance will contain substantial acreage of upland scrub habitats and populations of California gnatcatchers and cactus wrens. Early conveyance to the POM will result in earlier monitoring and maintenance of habitat and species, Elimination of the Conveyance Schedule and guidelines will require a new environmental impact report according to Tina Thomas, the City's special legal counsel. B. U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game Concerns The Wildlife Agencies both commented on the applicant's proposal to amend the Conveyance Schedule, Both agencies indicated awareness of the change in circumstances ofland ownership on Otay R<mch that would necessitate amendments to the Conveyance Schedule. The agencies agreed that the amendment to the Conveyance Schedule was acceptable as long as three provisions were addressed: 1. The guidelines established in the RMP 1 should still be adhered to, and all of the first priority lands should be acquired prior to starting assemblage of the lower priority land regardless of ownership, 2. Observed cattle grazing adjacent to the SR 125 alignment, which has resulted in degradation of vernal pool habitat, should be ceased, 3. High quality biological resource areas, such as the vernal pools on Otay Mesa and the Salt Creek Canyon, should be conveyed into the preserve early. Biological Page 6, Item: ---L- Meeting Date: 5/13/98 resource values are to be maintained by the current landowners until such time as parcels are conveyed to the Preserve Owner/Manager, Staff Response: Staff is in agreement with the comments received from the Wildlife Agencies. The guidelines established in the RMP 1 are not being amended and will be retained in order to guide future conveyance of land to the 'PaM. The land proposed for inclusion in the first conveyance is in compliance with the established guidelines. High quality biological resource areas (as noted in #3) are included in the priority guidelines, which will require them to be conveyed earlier in the process than other open space lands. Additionally, City staffbas discussed the cattle grazing issue with the applicant. He bas indicated that the rancher has been directed to relocate the cattle to a different part of the Ranch. This will occur upon approval of the first final map. City staffhas also contacted the property owner of the subject vemal pools, New Millennium, to alert them of the problem, C. Planning Commission Several concerns where raised at the March 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting concerrring the Conveyance Schedule and its processing. The aevelopers of SPA One (Otay Ranch and McMillin) have complained that the limited conveyance area restrains the market for acquisition of the conveyance area, The restraint they believe will increase the cost of land if acquired for the preserve, Other potential owners(W illiam Tuchscher) have also agreed with the perspective and provided testimony at the March 11 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission continued their public hearing and requested staff address these concerns, Staff Response As part of the in-lieu fee program, staff has had an appraisal of the Preserve land co nducted. The appraiser selected by the City concurs that a constrained market for conveyance land will increase the conveyance area cost due to a lack of competition, One solution to this problem is to expand the area in the Conveyance Plan to reflect the first priority lands listed in the RMP 1 guidelines, Those lands focus on the "Keystone" parcels which contain the highest quality resources are: vernal pools on Otay Mesa, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat in the Salt Creek area, gnatcatcher population areas in the western San Y sidro and central Proctor Valley areas, or potential wetlands restoration areas in the Otay Valley, Adding these lands to the conveyance schedule will increase the competition among the preserve property owners and reduce the acquisition cost of the preserve either by one of the developers or the City with the in lieu fee, The additional owners of keystone parcels include: the Otay Ranch Company, Stephen and Mary Birch Fonndation, Jewels of Charity, Marian Communities and Greg Smith. The amount ofland in the first conveyance will increase from approximately 800 acres to Page 7, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 5/13/98 over 6,000 acres. This amendment requires only the conveyance map in RMP 2 be modified to indicated the "Keystone" parcels. 3, <;onclusion Staff believes that while the proposal-to amend the Conveyance Plan complies with GDP policies, it does not add sufficient land to the Conveyance Schedule to address the concerns raised by the property owners and developers, Therefore, staff proposes the Commission recommend to the City Council that the "Keystone" parcels be added to the Conveyance Schedule for the following reasons: 1, The lands proposed to be added to the first conveyance parcels are all high biological quality and early conveyance would implement guidelines identified in the RMP 1 and 2. 2_ The additional land maintains the biologically sensitive as first conveyance parcels and would also allow less sensitive portions of Salt Creek to be utilized for university-related facilities, if desired. 3. The proposal adds land to the first conveyance and does not delete any first priority lands. The guidelines for acquisition will remain in tact. 4, The early conveyance of these important biological resources is a public benefit. Exhibits: L Existing Exhibit 14A and 14B of Phase 2 RMP 2, Proposed Conveyance Amendment (new Exhibit 14 ofRMP 2) 3, PCM Resolution 98-15 4, CC Resolution H:IHOMElPLANNINGlBEVIIN-LIEU\REPORTSIPC513,DOC . . I EKHIBiT 2. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I ~ CJ ~o D <<~~ v_ Otay Ran:h Page 72 June ~. 1995 """ P'" < .:: r_ -- - -; 0 .... ::: .- '""' ...:: '-' :.::< x=.. 2:.r.. I-I - I I . I . . e-- I i . I . . . I . . I -- . o ~" D /:\0 K/vv \) - '""d .... .... o u ,..., (l) .....w -;:< .(l) . ~ ::: :50 1_""'") ";::-< ~ ~~ 2W Dray Ranch PageT.! June 4, '996 ! i I E'>(Htf];'r - Z '7 i i I I '~ , . I ~ I ~ ! I ~ ~f,j., . 14. ~ Iii) ,~'. ~. ^ ~l )\ . ~" ~ ( /" '\>'$:' -~:-~ /~\ 'i ,..-----.. .--- v ~ '.' ':':-0><,-.-"';0.:' .- r '--. ( """";" ~>"\. ~'~ Q' , ~~" o".s;~'. .s-"'?\ 11', ......\ .....'" ' - ~...--, ~r-:"'.35:.';""':'\ '= i _ ''W ~ II (, ,.,~",~ " ~~';.j _ _"">'" . 1/"'" , ^ ii" 1" i'----" . ~. & ~ . ~ 'fi ~ ~ !II ~ l <> d <.> c 0 ;: IIJ < ";' ~ ~ :;; Q. -0.- ~ < tfj .. .. .. <: .. .. .. Q) :>-. -< .< "" en - '" c > '" Q; QJ E en g 5- .. '" 0- a; IV c:. > - .. '" <C "'0 ~ c Q) ,f G.I "'D > ~ Q) m > ~ c :: E '" .:: :z c: IV ii CD gliii - c.:."" _ c: ::: 1/ :1 c: ::: .. g;c. '" ::: a ctI t; ::.. '" = :: c == a u; Cl ~Il: N a: '" .. ~ c.; -=< "- . -=0:: ",/'-0 rot"': c::: . ..... ~..... I- - .., - So ")/I III o ~ EX!ff!3f( 3 RESOLUTION NO. PCM 98-15 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE OTAY RANCH PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONVEYANCE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, on October 28, 1993, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the Chula Vista City Council jointly adopted the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP), including the Otay Ranch Phase 1 Resource Management Plan (phase 1 RMP), governing the development ofthe 23,000 acre Otay Ranch project, and; WHEREAS, the GDP and Phase 1 RMP require, as a condition of the development ofOtay Ranch, the phased creation of an 11,375 acre Resource Preserve to be owned and operated by a public or quasi-public Preserve OwnerlManage, and; WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR and Findings of Fact find that the creation of the 11,375 acre Resource Preserve mitigates identified biological impacts of the Otay Ranch project, including cumulative biological impacts, and; WHEREAS, on March 6, 1996, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Otay Ranch Preserve Conveyance Plan, which identifies specific open space areas within Otay Ranch which must be conveyed to the Otay Ranch Preserve OwnerlManager as a condition of the development ofthe Otay Ranch SPA One, and; WHEREAS, on June 4, 1996, the City ofChula Vista City Council adopted the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (Phase 2 RMP), including a Preserve Conveyance Plan essentially identical to the plan previously adopted by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, and; WHEREAS, a duly verified application, PCM 98-15, for a Miscellaneous Amendment ("Project") was filed with the Chula Vista Planning Department on October 17, 1997 by the Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant") ; and WHEREAS, said application requested an amendment to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 2, Exhibits 14A and 14B, otherwise known as the Conveyance Schedule; and, WHEREAS, circumstances have changed since the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP was adopted in 1993 which impact the Preserve Conveyance Schedule, At the time the GDP/SRP, including the RMP I was adopted, the entire Otay Ranch project was controlled by one entity, the Baldwin 3-1 Company, Four years later, when Otay Ranch SPA One is required to convey lands to the preserve, Otay Ranch is controlled by ten separate owners, Open space and developable lands are not proportionately shared by all owners; and WHEREAS, said application adds additional environmentally sensitive land in central Proctor Valley which meets the GDP and RMP 1 guidelines to the first order of conveyance; and WHEREAS, the applicant is currently the owner of said land; and WHEREAS, virtually all of the eastern portions ofOtay Ranch have been included in the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Furthennore, the City of San Diego and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have certified the EIR/EIS for the San Diego Multi- Species Conservation Program (MSCP), Including the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plans which incorporate the Otay Ranch preserve system. The County of San Diego has adopted the South County MSCP Subarea Plan including the land plan changes reflected in the agreement between Baldwin entities and the Resource Agencies; and WHEREAS, while the multiplicity of owners seriously complicates the ordered conveyance of preserve properties, the creation ofthe National Wildlife Refuge and the emergence of the MSCP provide greater opportunities to convey preserve lands in a flexible manner; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a public hearing on said amendment application 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 ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p,m, on March 11, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was continued to March 25, 1998 and was thereafter closed and readvertised for May 13, 1998 at the same time and place; and WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and prepared the fifth addendum to the SPA One Plan Environmental Impact Report which concluded that adding the "Keystone" parcels to the conveyance schedule would be consistent with the Otay Ranch RMP guidelines and that the changes to the Conveyance Schedule would not result in significant impacts and pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines found that the revisions would result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the EIR adequate under CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has detennined that the amendment to the Conveyance Schedule of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (i.e., deleting Exhibits l4A and l4B and substituting with Exhibit 14) is consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Otay Ranch General 3-2 Development Plan/Subregional Plan regarding the establishment of the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council approve the proposal to amend the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (i.e" delete Exhibits 14A and 14B and insert Exhibit 14), in accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution and that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day 25th day of March, 1998 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Patty Davis, Chair Diana Vargas, Secretary H:\HOME\PLANNING\SEV\IN-LIEU\REPORTS\CONV513.RES 3-:3 EKHtsii tf RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE FIFTH ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) FOR THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE PLAN AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONVEYANCE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, on October 28, 1993, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the Chula Vista City Council jointly adopted the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP), including the Otay Ranch Phase I Resource Management Plan (phase I RMP), governing the development of the 23,000 acre Otay Ranch project, and; WHEREAS, the GDP and Phase I RMP require, as a condition of the development of Otay Ranch, the phased creation of an 11,375 acre Resource Preserve to be owned and operated by a public or quasi-public Preserve Owner/Manage, and; WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR and Findings of Fact find that the creation of the 11,375 acre Resource Preserve mitigates identified biological impacts of the Otay Ranch project, including cumulative biological impacts, and; WHEREAS, on March 6, 1996, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Otay Ranch Preserve Conveyance Plan, which identifies specific open space areas within Otay Ranch which must be conveyed to the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager as a condition of the development of the Otay Ranch SPA One, and; WHEREAS, on June 4,1996, the City ofChula Vista City Council adopted the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (phase 2 RMP), including a Preserve Conveyance Plan essentially identical to the plan previously adopted by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, and; WHEREAS, a duly verified application, PCM 98-15, for a Miscellaneous Amendment ("Project") was filed with the Chula Vista Planning Department on October 17, 1997 by the Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant") ; and WHEREAS, said application requested an amendment to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 2, Exhibits 14A and 14B, otherwise known as the Conveyance Schedule; and, WHEREAS, circumstances have changed since the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP was adopted in 1993 which impact the Preserve Conveyance Schedule. At the time the GDP/SRP, including the RMP I was adopted, the entire Otay Ranch project was controlled by one entity, the Baldwin if-I Chula Vista Ci1y Council June 4, 1998 Page 2 Company. Four years later, when Otay Ranch SPA One is required to convey lands to the preserve, Otay Ranch is controlled by ten separate owners. Open space and developable lands are not proportionately shared by all owners; and WHEREAS, said application adds additional environmentally sensitive land in central Proctor Valley which meets the GDP and RMP I guidelines to the first order of conveyance; and WHEREAS, the applicant is currently the owner of said land; and WHEREAS, virtually all of the eastern portions of Otay Ranch have been included in the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Otay-Sweetwater Unit. Furthermore, the City of San Diego and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have certified the EIR/EIS for the San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Including the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plans which incorporate the Otay Ranch preserve system. The County of San Diego has adopted the South County MSCP Subarea Plan including the land plan changes reflected in the agreement between Baldwin entities and the Resource Agencies; and WHEREAS, while the multiplicity of owners seriously complicates the ordered conveyance of preserve properties, the creation of the National Wildlife Refuge and the emergence of the MSCP provide greater opportunities to convey preserve lands in a flexible manner; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a public hearing on said amendment application 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 ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m. on March 11, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was continued to March 25, 1998 and was thereafter closed and readvertised for May 13, 1998 at the same time and place; and WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on said amendment application 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 ofthe property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 4: 00 p.m. on June 2, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council; and H:\HOMEIPLANNINGIP A TTY\RESOFORM. WPD 'Lf -"2- Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 3 WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and prepared the fifth addendum to the SPA One Plan Environmental Impact Report which concluded that adding the "Keystone" parcels to the conveyance schedule would be consistent with the Otay Ranch RMP guidelines and that the changes to the Conveyance Schedule would not result in significant impacts and pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines found that the revisions would result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the EIR adequate under CEQA. 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. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The proceedings of all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission and City Council at their public hearings on this Project held on May 13 and June 4, 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 the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims. II, FEIR 95-01 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered the FEIR 95-01 and Addenda and the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01 and Addenda, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the FEIR 95-01 and Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council. V, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL H:\JIOMEIPLANNINGIP ATIY\RESOFORM. WPD Lf ~3 ChuJa Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 4 The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the original conditions of SPA One Plan approval, adopted by the City Council, as set forth in Resolution 18286, dated June 4, 1996, as amended. VI. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: A. The proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan is in conformity with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. The amendment to the conveyance schedule adds to the first conveyance land planned for preservation under the RMP 1, B. The proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan will promote the orderly sequentialized development of the involved sectional planning area. The expanded conveyance schedule will provide greater opinion for conveyance of open spaces to the Preserve. C. The proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan will not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality. The amendment to the conveyance schedule provides for more land planned as open space to be conveyed earlier in the development of the Ranch, VII, CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the project from the Program EIR and the FEIR which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new information of substantial importance to the project has become available since the issuance and approval of the prior reports; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to those already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City Council H,IHOMEIPLANNINGIP ATIY\RESOFORM. WPD '-t - cr Chula Vista City Council June 4, ] 998 Page 5 approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR and FEIR, and a third Addendum has been prepared (Guideline 15168 (c)(2) and 15162 (a)), VIII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. This document along with any documents submitted to the decision makers shall comprise the record of proceedings for any CEQA claims. IX. ATIACHMENTS All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full. X, EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property Owner and/or Applicants shall execute the document attached as Exhibit "A", said execution indicating that the Property Owner and/or Applicant have each read, understand and agree to the conditions contained herein, This does not provide the Property Owner and/or Applicant with any "vesting" of entitlements to this Project or any of the corresponding documents approved herein, that is not otherwise provided by state and federal law, Said document to be placed on file in the City Clerk's office as Document No, Presented by: Approved as to form by: Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director John Kaheny, City Attorney H:\HOMEIPLANNINGIP ATTYlRESOFORM. WPD Lf -S- Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 6 This document is on file in the Clerk's Office and is known as C096-086 and Recorded Document PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 4th day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NA YES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATIEST: 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 regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 4th day of June, 1998, Executed this 4th day of June, 1998. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk H:\HOME\PLANNING\P ATTY\RESOFORM. WPD Lf--(p It II 1/f.'Y - 4 ,- ~'a ,~ ~> TUCHSCHER DEVELOPME1'oi ENTERPRISES, Inc. April 28, 1998 Ms. Anne Moore Assistant City Attorney City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Otav Ranch Resource ManaJ!ement Plan Amendment Anne, Per our recent discussions, the following represent positions proposed to be incorporated into the planning department's latest concept to resolve the first conveyance sequence issue. As we understand it, the planning department is assembling a map which will identify the ''keystone properties" within the Otay Ranch preserve area, Within the context of assembling this exhibit or teA1 revisions to the RMP IT, the following should be explicitly delineated: L The identified "keystone properties" should act (per the guidelines) as areas of first conveyance with an orderly sequential subsequent conveyance of other land areas surrounding these keystone properties, II, The "keystone properties" shall act as an appropriate initial conveyance for a larger area of contiguous land to be conveyed which will ensure the long term viability and preservation of the keystone resource assets, ill. The "keystone properties" should include properties that are contiguous to those already managed as open space preserve such as, properties controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the fish and wildlife agencies, and other public and private ownerships, With these issues incorporated into the expansion of the first conveyance area, we feel confident that all interest including owners of preserve land, developers of the Otay Ranch, land conservarion organizations, and the fish and wildlife agencies will be satisfied in regarding to their particular interest on this issue, 'f -7 3130 BONITA ROAD, SUITE 200, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 619.691.1800 FAX 619.691.9854 -._.-'~-~--~--~-- Page 2 Anne Moore Please contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter as I will be available at your convenience to further discuss this issue, Wannest personal regards, William C. Tuchscher IT President WCT:ves cc: George Kremple Sid Morris Bob Lighter Ken Lee ~ Rick Rossler.,j> 4--'6 ~-:27 Hoover :"'."enue . ,,::'!Ional C:;, C'; 9:950 ~;9) 4;7-':~"7 -', i"fr-I\ t.-r:-. . ", : ,,-. .J:-' ~ ~ -. ., - ..~ ~' ;. '''''-1..~: May 4, 1998 MA,Y G ? 1- _ - ._ , _ _ .. u. ~ ...\.\. McMillin ComIXU1ies I .' {" >, " <.. .". ,_ i Lri~'"ir'~ i [,~(:; :MI. Bob Leiter, Director Planning Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Subject: Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan Dear Bob: At the Planning Commission Workshop last Thursday night staff presented the revised Conveyance Schedule and a status on the In Lieu Fee, We support both items, however we are concerned about the timing of their approval and adoption, As we stated at the workshop, we are extremely concerned about the approval schedule since we have Final B maps that are being reviewed and will be ready for approval in July. We have been told for weeks that the appraisal will be available for our review, We were told at the Workshop that it will still be two more weeks before any public review. It should not take the City weeks to review an appraisal. The appraisal should have been released weeks ago. We do not want to find ourselves at the eleventh hour being asked to review and accept a document that the City has had weeks to review. We ask you to release the appraisal as quickly as possible and permit enough time for us to review and comment. We further request that the Conveyance Schedule and the In Lieu Fee be reviewed and considered together. The two items are so interrelated that we object to any separation of the two items. They need to be considered and approved as a package since one effects the other. Please call me at 336-3733 if you may have any questions or comments regarding this matter. Sincerely, McMillin-DA erica Otay Ranch LLC cc: ~ck Rosaler, George Krempl, Beverly Blessant if-I H:\DAT AIRDRICFU!..'UY AMIOT A YRCH\LEITERs4.DOC FIFTH ADDENDUM TO PROGRAM EIR-90-01 (Initial Study for Otay Land Company) atay Ranch Resource Management Program Phase 2 Modification PROJECT NAME: Change in the conveyance schedule which would add lands to the initial conveyance, PROJECT LOCATION: The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan Area (see attached map) PROJECT APPLICANT: atay Land Company PROJECT AGENT: N/A CASE NO.: IS-98-20 DATE: May 6, 1998 I. INTRODUCTION The environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista allow the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) to prepare an addendum to a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if one of the following conditions is present: 1. The minor changes in the project which have occurred since completion of the Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration have not created any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed. 2, Additional or refined information available since completion of the Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or regarding the measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects of the project, does not show that the project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed. This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional information and analysis concerning potential overall impacts, n. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION The atay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan, Chapter 10, Section B: Resource Preserve, 5. Preserve Management and Maintenance (page 376 - Conveyance priority policy) and Policy 5,6 of the atay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) (a:\llb\negdecs\is9820.add) 0-(6 Page 1 Phase 1 contains guidelines for conveyance of land to the Otay Ranch preserve. These guidelines include the following: 1. First priority shall be given to conveyance of highest quality resources. Such resources may include vernal pools on Otay Mesa, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat in the Salt Creek area, Gnatcatcher population areas in the Western San Y sidro and Central Proctor Valley areas or potential wetlands restoration areas in the Otay Valley (depending upon the status of regional park plans and wetlands restoration plans at the time Otay Valley parcels are conveyed), 2. First priority shall be given to conveyance of most vulnerable areas (Le., those most subject to potential or ongoing disturbance). 3. Conveyance shall occur in an orderly manner beginning with an identified "keystone" parcel (e,g., vernal pool areas, Salt Creek area, Otay Valley, Central Proctor Valley, Western San Ysidro) and proceed to the next logical block of land. 4. Areas with restoration potential shall be conveyed early in order to begin long-term research and restoration activities early in the process (e.g., Otay Valley, vernal pool areas, potential Diegan coastal sage scrub/maritime succulent scrub restoration areas north and south of the Otay Valley). 5, Cumulative acreage conveyed shall be greater than or equal to the cumulative acreage of the proposed SPA/Specific Plan development. 6. General guidelines regarding in-kind mitigation and no net loss of wetlands shall be considered in the development of the conveyance schedule, particularly in the context of applicable State and Federal regulations. (It is understood that in-kind mitigation may not always be the preferable approach to achieve the goal of establishing a functioning manageable preserve). 7, Applicable State and Federal regulations regarding protection of sensitive habitat and species shall be followed in the development of the conveyance table. 8, The Preserve Owner(s)/Manager(s) shall participate in preparation of the conveyance schedule, In response to the guidelines included in the Otay Ranch RMP Phase I, Section II.B of the Otay Ranch RMP Phase 2 included a preserve conveyance plan. The conveyance plan was prepared in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Otay Ranch RMP Phase 1 and identified specific conveyance locations based on the following guidance: 1, Priority is given to high quality resources (a:\llb\negdecs\is9820.add) <f-(( Page 2 2. Priority is given to most vulnerable resources 3. Conveyance should begin with "keystone" parcels (vernal pool areas, Salt Creek, Otay Valley, Central Proctor Valley, Western San Ysidro) 4. Potential Restoration areas should be conveyed early. The Otay Ranch RMP Phase 2 also includes Exhibits 14A and 14B depicting the Salt Creek and Otay Mesa areas as the first conveyances for SPA One, The SPA One EIR (SCH #94101046) includes the following mitigation measure relating to preserve conveyance: "With SPA One, provide for conveyance of 1,186 acres to the Otay Ranch preserve, with the first conveyance of 593 acres occurring in Year 3 of the Otay Ranch development program, The first conveyance area will be located on the Otay River parcel and will contain substantial acreage of upland scrub habitats and populations of California Gnatcatchers and cactus wrens, " ill. STATEMENT OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS Since the Otay Ranch RMP Phase 2 and SPA One EIR were approved, the ownership of Otay Ranch has become fragmented making it difficult for the SPA One landowner to provide for the first conveyance on the Otay River parcel as called for in the SPA One EIR mitigation measure, and in the locations shown on Exhibits 14A and 14B of the Otay Ranch RMP Phase 2. Adherence to the preserve conveyance guidelines contained in both the Phase I and Phase 2 RMPs can still, however, be achieved. The proposed amendment/ modifications would therefore not make any changes to the preserve conveyance guidelines but would do the following: 1. Eliminate Exhibits 14A and 14B from the Otay Ranch RMP Phase 2 and replace with new Exhibit 14 attached (no other changes to the RMP Phase 2 are proposed); and 2. Revise the mitigation measure contained in the SPA One EIR (page 4,3-42 and 43) and Otay Ranch SPA One Second-Tier EIR Final CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (page 35 and 36) to state the following: "With SPA One, provide for conveyance of open space preserve land to the Otay Ranch preserve located in one of the keystone areas consistent with the conveyance guidelines included in both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 RMPs. The keystone areas are identified in the RMP (a:\Ub\negdecs\is9820.add)i L(-(c..... Page 3 as vernal pool areas, Salt Creek area, atay Valley, Central Proctor Valley, Western San Ysidro," as depicted in the attached exhibits. IV. EFFECTS OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS No direct effects would be associated with the proposed modifications to the conveyance schedule since no changes to the overall Otay Ranch designated preserve boundary or development area are proposed. In addition, no changes to the guidelines for preserve conveyance are proposed. The proposed modifications would simply allow conveyance of anyone of the keystone areas as opposed to the limited keystone areas on the atay River parcel as identified in Exhibits 14A and 14B of the RMP Phase 2 and the SPA ane EIR. Anyone of the keystone areas would meet the RMP conveyance guidelines as summarized below: 1. Vernal Pool Areas: Vernal pool areas are consistent with the conveyance guidelines because these areas contain high quality resources, are vulnerable due to easy access and existing grazing activities and have restoration potential. Vernal pool areas are present in several keystone areas including atay Mesa, the atay River Valley, portions of Western San Ysidro; on the Proctor Valley parcel, vernal pools have been identified on the resort site, 2, Salt Creek: Conveyances in the Salt Creek area would be consistent with the conveyance guidelines because Salt Creek is known to contain high quality upland resources including cactus wren and Gnatcatcher habitat, the area is vulnerable and would benefit from management due to easy access and recent fires; and recent fires have created restoration potential within Salt Creek. 3, Otay Valley: Conveyances in the atay Valley area would be consistent with the conveyance guidelines because the atay Valley contains valuable wetland resources and is a recognized wildlife movement corridor, is subject to unauthorized use and could benefit from management, and exhibits substantial restoration potential due to past sand mining activities. Portions of the atay Valley area are also being planned by the atay Valley Regional Park JEPA for regional park uses, and any early conveyance in the Otay Valley area would need to be coordinated with those efforts. 4, Central Proctor Valley: Conveyances in the Central Proctor Valley area would be consistent with the RMP conveyance guidelines because this area contains substantial upland resources including Gnatcatchers, Munz's sage, San Diego thormnint and represents a large habitat block providing linkages to other preserve areas identified as part of the MSCP, the area could benefit from management due to disturbances caused by grazing activities; and contains opportunities for passive restoration in previously grazed areas, (a: \lIb \negdecs\is9820 .add) Lf-i J Page 4 5. Western San Ysidro: Conveyances in the Western San Ysidro area would be consistent with the RMP conveyance guidelines because this area contains substantial resources including Gnatcatcher habitat and vernal pool resources and is identified as an important habitat block as part of the MSCP. This area is less vulnerable than the other keystone parcels since it is not readily accessible and has not been previously grazed, Restoration potential in this area has not been evaluated, v. CONCLUSIONS Any of the identified keystone areas would be consistent with the conveyance guidelines incorporated in the Dtay Ranch RMP Phase 1 and 2 and no features of the currently proposed modifications relating to alternation in the location of the first conveyance to the preserve would result in significant impacts, either on a plan-to-plan basis or on a plan-to- ground basis, Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based on the above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the EIR adequate under CEQA. D!!r::~.@L/ Environmental Review Coordinator References: Otay Ranch Program EIR-90-01 - December 1992 Otay Ranch SPA One Subsequent EIR-95-01 - April 1996 Resource Management Plan Phase 1 and 2 - October 28, 1993 and June 4, 1996 Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan - October 28, 1993 Otay Ranch SPA One - June 4, 1996 Otay Ranch Project Final CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - October 28, 1993 Otay Ranch SPA One CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - June 4, 1996 Attachment: Exhibit 14 (a:\llb\negdecs\is9820.add) Y-/Y Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 2 Meeting Date: May 13. 1998 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 98-21: Consideration of an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) to allow reduction in Village Core densities. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 98-16: Consideration of an amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan on property generally located on 1,110 acres south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future SR-125 alignment. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 98-04: Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map for 10 1.4 acres of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 98-04, generally located off the southern extension of Otay Lakes Road, south of Telegraph Canyon Road. The McMillin Companies has submitted an application to amend the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) and the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan. In addition, they have submitted a revised Tentative Tract Map, PCS 98-04, which covers the Village Five Core area south of East Palomar Street and the neighborhood park and Community Purpose Facility (CPF) sites north of East Palomar Street. The proposed GDP/SRP amendment requests that flexibility be granted in reducing the density of village core areas, as long as core vitality and the ability to serve transit needs are maintained. The requested SPA amendment makes adjustments to neighborhood boundaries in the Village Five Core area, reconfigures the Park and CPF sites based on the reduced density and population and revises the circulation system around the Core area. The Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an Initial Study 98-16 and concluded that the existing Program EIR for the GDP/SRP and Second-Tier EIR for the SPA One Plan provide adequate prior review ofthe projects' environmental impacts. The Coordinator has prepared an addendum to the Second-Tier EIR substantiating this position. The addendum is attached to the draft City Council Resolution for the SPA amendment. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of: 1. the Fourth Addendum to FEIR 95-01 for the Otay Ranch SPA One; and, 2 an amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP (pCM 98-21); and, 3. an amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan (PCM 98-16); and, 4. a revised Tentative Subdivision Map for the 101.4 acres in the Village Five core area. Page 2, Item: -L Meeting Date:5/13/98 ISSUES: Reduction in Village Core density. Creation of Mixed Use (MU) category for the Village Five Core. Consolidation of CPF sites. Reconfiguration of park sites. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDA nONS: None DISCUSSION: I. Back~round: In October of 1993, the City Council and County Board of Supervisors jointly adopted the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP for the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch. On June 4, 1996, the City Council approved the SPA One Plan for Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch. The SPA One Plan was processed by Otay Ranch Company (then known as Village Development). Subsequent to SPA One approval, West Coast Land Fund (WCLF) foreclosed on approximately 1,036 acres of the Otay Ranch, a portion of which was located within SPA One. In response to this, Village Development processed a tentative map excluding approximately 290 acres of SPA One that was subject to the WCLF foreclosure action. McMillin Companies subsequently purchased the WCLF property and filed a Tentative Map on the 290 acres that was in substantial conformance with the SPA One Plan. This Tentative Map (PCS 97-02) was approved by the City Council on June 3, 1997 and was processed to receive approval of the single-family areas north of East Palomar Street. The originally approved map had a total of 1,877 dwelling units on 290 acres as shown in Exhibit 2. The area south of East Palomar Street was originally mapped identical to the SPA One Plan and divided the core into lots as indicted on the SPA One Plan. At the time of approval, McMillin Companies indicated that they would most likely propose revisions to this area in the future. At this time, the applicant is proposing to amend the Village Five Core area as indicated in the discussion below. II. Applicants Proposal: A. GDP Amendment In order to allow for the reduction in density in the Village Five Core area, McMillin Companies is requesting that the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP be amended to allow for flexibility on a case-by- case-basis. The suggested amendment is indicated as Exhibit 3. The applicant is requesting that an additional criterion be added to the Implementation Mechanism section of the GDP/SRP (page 117) as follows: The number of homes identified for the village core represents an urban planninl!: Page 3, Item: --L Meeting Date:5/13/98 !loa!. Reductions in the number of multi-family units m!\,v be approved at the SPA and tentative map level as long as sufficient densities are provided to support bus and light rail transit. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that one of the Village Core policies (page 144) be modified as follows: Th~ numt~r ofhom~s idwillkd mr th~ village cor~ is a nlln.iilluH\ and may not b~ ~du~~d. The number of homes identified for the village core represents an urban planning goal. Reductions in the number of multi-family units may be approved at the SPA and tentative map level as long as sufficient densities are provided to support bus and light rail transit. Analysis Existing GDP/SRP policies indicate a maximum of 1,615 multi-family dwelling units in the Village Five Core at an average density of 18 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). During the preparation of the GDP/SRP, the Otay Ranch Project Team had proposed a density of 14.5 du/ac for all the urban village cores. This density was supported by the Planning Commission, however, during the City Council and Board of Supervisors public review of the GDP, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) requested higher densities up to 22 du/ac in the transit villages to support the future trolley line. The Council and Board ultimately determined that 18 du/ac would be the appropriate density for the village cores, but they could not be reduced. These densities were calculated on a gross area (no streets where deleted from the core acreage). As a result, when the units were planned at the SPA level, with the streets deleted from the area calculations, the net densities of the building sites increased dramatically. There are six neighborhoods in McMillin's existing SPA One Village Five core with the following net densities: Neighborhood R-40 R-41 R-42 R-43 R-44 R-45 Th1aL. Density 23.7 du/ac 24.4 du/ac 33.0 du/ac 33.7 du/ac 22.3 du/ac 29.5 du/ac Units 204 127 241 175 261 165 1,173 The applicant believes these densities are too high and, while there is a growing demand in the multi-family market, the approved densities would not be absorbed by the market. They are proposing that flexibility be added to the GDP/SRP to maintain the 18 du/ac as the maximum density as policy but allow less density to be built. Staff supports the amendment as long as sufficient densities are achieved to support the light rail transit. The City will continue to coordinate with MTDB to ensure the transit village cores contain enough density to support the trolley line. Page 4, Item: -2- Meeting Date:5/13/98 Staff has reviewed the proposed density reduction with MTDB staff, who remains supportive because of the density achieved adjacent to the future trolley stop. The applicant is proposing this text amendment in order to allow them to reduce the density in the Village Five Core on the SPA One Plan from an average of 18 du/ac to an average of IS dulacre on the SPA One Plan. The applicant is still proposing to maintain the following multiple family densities in the Village Five Core area south of East Palomar Street: Nei!1hborhood Densitv R-40: 16.2 dulac R-43: 29.3 du/ac R-44: 30.9 du/ac R-45: Mixed Use Units 201 240 210 18 multi-family units above ground floor commercial Additionally, Neighborhood R-46 located north of East Palomar Street is maintaining a density of 16.3 dulac which is consistent with the originally approved Tentative Map. In reviewing the proposal, and in discussions with the MTDB, City staff is in support of the proposed amendment. MTDB has indicated that an average density of IS du/ac is still within their parameters for transit-oriented development. A letter of support from MTDB is attached as Exhibit 4. B. SPA Amendment The applicant is proposing several amendments to the SPA One Plan as summarized below. The specific amendments to text, maps and tables have been included as Exhibit 5. 1. Reduction in density ofthe Village Five Core. Following is a table which indicates the overall change in dwelling units from the GDP/SRP to the SPA One Plan which maintains 15 du/ac in the Village Core. This table indicates a decrease in one single family unit and a decrease in 422 multi-family units. GDP/SRP Approved SPA Proposed SPA Proposed TM SF Units 1,263 1,263 1,262 1,262 MF Units 1,615 1,615 1,193 1,193 Population 8,289 8,289 7,070 7,070 2. Parks and Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) The number, location and size of the Village Five parks and CPF sites has been revised based upon the reduction in density and population. The approved SPA indicated four CPF sites, ranging in size from 2.4 to 3.7 acres and totaling 11.6 acres. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the three CPF sites located on their portion of SPA One (CPF 4,6 and 7) into one location at the northeast comer of East Palomar Street and Santa Cora Avenue (CPF 4). This Page 5, Item: ~ Meeting Date:5/13/98 new site totals 4.8 acres. The CPF 5 site in the Otay Ranch Company portion of SPA One would be increased in size from 3.7 to 5.3 acres. The applicant has indicated that the larger CPF sites are much more marketable than smaller sites. They noted that most churches require a minimum size of 4.5 - 5 acres. Similarly, the parks within Village Five have been relocated and reduced in size based on the reduction in density and population. Park P-7 has remained in essentially the same location and has changed in size trom 5.2 to 5.7 acres; Park P-8, the Town Square Park, has been reduced trom 1.8 to 1.0 acres. Park P-6 has been reconfigured and reduced in size trom a total of 10.6 to 6.4 acres. The table below compares the CPF and Parks requirements for the approved and 'Jroposed SPA Plans. Approved SPA Proposed SPA Required Provided Required Provided CPF 11.52 ac. 11.6 ac. 9.8 ac. 10.1 ac. Parks 16.6 ac. 21.3 ac. 14.14 ac. 17 ac. The table below further breaks down the sizes of parks proposed for Village Five and indicates the amount of park credit allowed. City policy does not allow parks to receive park credit if they are less than 5 acres in size. However, since small pedestrian parks are an integral neighborhood component of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP and SPA One Plan, the SPA One permits 25% to 50% credit for the pedestrian parks and 100% park credit for the Town Square Park. Additionally, the City Council allowed in their approval of the McMillin Tentative Map, credit for pedestrian Park P-9 since it would be a public park. Park Size P-6.1 (McM) 5.3 ac. P-6.2 (aRC) 1.1 ac. P-7 (McM) 5.7 ac. P-8 (McM) 1.0 ac. P-9.1 (McM) 1.0 ac. P-9.2 (aRC) 1.0 ac. P-IO 1.3 ac. P-II (aRC) .6 ac. Total: 17 ac. % Credit Allowed! Acres 100%/5.3 ac. 100%/1.1 ac. 100%/5.7 ac. 100%/1.0 ac. 50%/.5 ac. 50%/.5 ac. 14.1 ac. Page 6, Item: ~ Meeting Date:5/13/98 3. Street Reconfiguration As proposed, Santa Cora remains a promenade street which loops around Park P-7, the Town Square Park and the multi-family area within the Village Five Core. Due to the reconfiguration of the residential neighborhoods south of East Palomar Street, Santa Rosa Drive has been deleted, resulting in aT-intersection at East Palomar Street. 4. Commercial The commercial acreage in the Village Five Core area has been reduced from 3.6 acres in the approved SPA to approximately 2.8 acres. The commercial area will surround the Town Square Park on the south and east sides. A mixed use land use designation is being proposed which would allow commercial uses on the ground floor with two stories of residential above. The reduction in commercial acres reflects the specific site plan proposed for the Mixed Use area. 5. Reconfiguration of Neighborhoods Neighborhood R-40 This area is located east of the easterly extension of Santa Cora and is a multi-family site consisting of 12.4 acres with 201 units. The resulting density is 16.2 du/ac. Neighborhood R-41 This area is sited directly west of Neighborhood R-40, and is located south of Santa Cora and Park P-7. This is a single family area consisting of90 units on 14.4 acres with a density of 6.3 dulac. Neighborhood R-42 This neighborhood is a multi-family site located north of Neighborhood R-41 and west of Park P-7. Seventy four (74) units are sited on 9.6 acres with a resultant density of7.7 dulac. Neighborhood R-43 This multi-family site is located at the southeast comer of La Media Road and East Palomar Street. The applicant is proposing 240 units on 8.2 acres, with a resultant density of 29.3 dulac. Neighborhood R-44 This area is located directly south and east of the Mixed Use area. The applicant is proposing 210 units on 6.8 acres, with a resultant density of30.9 du/ac. Nei!1hborhood R-45 This area is directly adjacent to the Town Square Park and is situated above the commercial ground floor buildings. Approximately 18 units are planned for this area. The SPA One Plan is proposed to be amended to allow this area to be Mixed Use. 6. Village Design Plan Minor amendments to exhibits and maps in the Village Design Plan are required in order to reflect the proposed SPA amendment and maintain consistency between the documents. These proposed H:\HOMEIPLANNINGIBEV\422PC.DOC Page 7, Item:--L Meeting Date:5/13/98 changes are noted in Exhibit 6. 7. Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Minor amendments are also required to maps within this document to reflect the revised configuration of Parks P-7 and P-6. These proposed changes are noted in Exhibit 7. Analvsis The proposed SPA amendment has been reviewed on several occasions by the Technical Committee, which consists of City stafffj-om the Engineering, Planning, Parks and Recreation, Police and Fire Departments. Additionally, the location and configuration of the CPF and park sites north of East Palomar Street were reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee. The size of the sites was also approved by the Executive Committee. The size of the CPF sites are in conformity with City requirements, and staff believes that the single larger site will provide the opportunity for a significant architectural statement as opposed to the smaller more dispersed sites. The overall creditable acreage for the park sites is consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP requirement of2 acres per 1,000 residents. The additional 1 acre per 1,000 residents will be met through the payment of PAD fees which will be used to construct the community parks as contained in a condition of approval of the Tentative Map. The deletion of Santa Rosa and the slight realignment of Santa Cora are necessary due to the reconfiguration of the neighborhoods south of East Palomar Street. The loop promenade street (Santa Cora) will provide a strong landscape and visual element unifYing this area. Additionally, the reconfiguration of the neighborhoods and the location of single family and multi-family uses is consistent with the goals of the GDP/SRP which encourages multifamily uses closer to the transit stop. Staff is in support of the Mixed Use proposal which surrounds the Town Square Park and believes this furthers the neo-traditional concepts outlined in the GDP/SRP and will provide a strong focal backdrop for the Town Square Park. The Town Square Park will be framed with commercial on two sides, multi-family on the west and a CPF site to the north. C. Tentative Map The applicant has submitted a Tentative Map which is consistent with the proposed SPA and GDP amendment. Neighborhoods R-40, 43 and 44 are multi-family sites that are not specifically designed with this Tentative Map, however, staff has been working with the guest builder in development of their Detailed Site Plans for Neighborhoods R-43 and 44. These multi-family development sites will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee in the near future. 1. Neighborhood R-41 This neighborhood is proposed for 90 single-family lots on 44' x 90' pads. This neighborhood is directly south of the Neighborhood Park P-7 and Santa Cora, a promenade street encircling the park. AJllots adjacent to Santa Cora will face onto the park. This design will provide "eyes on the park" security and a greater sense of ownership of the park by adjacent residents. Lots in this H,IHOMEIPLANNINGIBEV\422PC.DOC Page 8, Item: ~ Meeting Date:5/13/98 neighborhood are served by the Residential Street Section A, which contains a 6- foot landscaped parkway adjacent to the curb and a 4- foot sidewalk. Maintenance of the parkways will be by the homeowner with enforcement by the Homeowner's Association, similar to the other McMillin neighborhoods within SPA One. 2. Neighborhood R-42 This neighborhood consists of74 duplex or single-family attached units on 9.6 acres. Consistent with other neighborhoods in SPA One, these small lots are allowed to be served by Residential Street Section B, which provides for a contiguous sidewalk. The through street (Sierra Verde Drive) linking Neighborhoods R-41 and 42 is required to be Street Section A to provide continuity. Lots in Neighborhood R-42 on Santa Cora will also rront onto the park. Analysis The proposed Tentative Map was reviewed concurrently with the SPA One and GDP Amendments at the Technical Committee. The Tentative Map is consistent with the proposed GDP and SPA amendments. Conditions of approval have been developed by the various City departments and are included for the Commission's review as an attachment to the Resolution of Approval for the Tentative Map. Staff has some concerns regarding the appearance of the lots in Neighborhood R-41 adjacent to the slopes along Olympic Parkway. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to address this aesthetic issue. Conclusion Staff is in support of the GDP and SPA One Amendment including the proposed modifications to the Village Design Plan and Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Plan. Additionally, staff is in support of the proposed Tentative Map with the recommended conditions of approval. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3 : Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Locator McMillin original Tentative Map 97-02 GDP Amendment MTDB letter SPA One Amendment Village Design Plan Amendment Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan Amendment Planning Commission Resolution PCM 98-21 Recommending Approval to the City Council of the Fourth Addendum to FEIR 95-01 and GDP Amendments with attached Draft City Council Resolution Approving the GDP Amendment Planning Commission Resolution PCM 98-16 Recommending Approval to the City Council of the SPA One Plan Amendment with attached Draft City Council Resolution Approving the SPA One Plan Amendment H,IHOME\PLANNINGIBEV\422PC.DOC Exhibit 10: Page 9, Item: ---L- Meeting Date:5/13/98 Planning Commission Resolution PCS 98-04 Recommending Approval to the City Council of the Chula Vista Tract 98-04 with attached Draft City Council Resolution Approving Chula Vista Tract 98-04 H,IHOMEIPLANNINGIBEV\422PC.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 2 Meeting Date: May 13. 1998 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 98-21: Consideration of an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) to allow reduction in Village Core densities. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 98-16: Consideration of an amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan on property generally located on 1, 110 acres south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future SR-125 alignment. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 98-04: Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map for 10 1.4 acres of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 98-04, generally located off the southern extension of Otay Lakes Road, south of Telegraph Canyon Road. The McMillin Companies has submitted an application to amend the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) and the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan. In addition, they have submitted a revised Tentative Tract Map, PCS 98-04, which covers the Village Five Core area south of East Palomar Street and the neighborhood park and Community Purpose Facility (CPF) sites north of East Palomar Street. The proposed GDP/SRP amendment requests that flexibility be granted in reducing the density of village core areas, as long as core vitality and the ability to serve transit needs are maintained, The requested SPA amendment makes adjustments to neighborhood boundaries in the Village Five Core area, reconfigures the Park and CPF sites based on the reduced density and population and revises the circulation system around the Core area, The Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an Initial Study 98-16 and concluded that the existing Program EIR for the GDP/SRP and Second-Tier EIR for the SPA One Plan provide adequate prior review of the projects' environmental impacts. The Coordinator has prepared an addendum to the Second-Tier EIR substantiating this position: The addendum is attached to the draft City Council Resolution for the SPA amendment. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of: 1. the Fourth Addendum to FEIR 95-01 for the Otay Ranch SPA One; and, 2 an amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP (PCM 98-21); and, 3. an amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan (pCM 98-16); and, 4, a revised Tentative Subdivision Map for the 101.4 acres in the Village Five core area. Page 2, Item: -L Meeting Date:5/13/98 ISSUES: Reduction in Village Core density, Creation of Mixed Use (MU) category for the Village Five Core, Consolidation of CPF sites, Reconfiguration of park sites. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: None DISCUSSION: . L Back~round: In October of1993, the City Council and County Board of Supervisors jointly adopted the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP for the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch. On June 4,1996, the City Council approved the SPA One Plan for Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch, The SPA One Plan was processed by Otay Ranch Company (then known as Village Development). Subsequent to SPA One approval, West Coast Land Fund (WCLF) foreclosed on approximately 1,036 acres of the Otay Ranch, a portion of which was located within SPA One. In response to this, Village Development processed a tentative map excluding approximately 290 acres of SPA One that was subject to the WCLF foreclosure action, McMillin Companies subsequently purchased the WCLF property and filed a Tentative Map on the 290 acres that was in substantial conformance with the SPA One Plan, This Tentative Map (pCS 97-02) was approved by the City Council on June 3, 1997 and was processed to receive approval of the single-family areas north of East Palomar Street. The originally approved map had a total of 1,877 dwelling units on 290 acres as shown in Exhibit 2, The area south of East Palomar Street was originally mapped identical to the SPA One Plan and divided the core into lots as indicted on the SPA One Plan, At the time of approval, McMillin Companies indicated that they would most likely propose revisions to this area in the future. At this time, the applicant is proposing to amend the Village Five Core area as indicated in the discussion below. II. Applicants Proposal: A. GDP Amendment In order to allow for the reduction in density in the Village Five Core area, McMillin Companies is requesting that the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP be amended to allow for flexibility on a case-by- case-basis, The suggested amendment is indicated as Exhibit 3, The applicant is requesting that an additional criterion be added to the Implementation Mechanism section of the GDP/SRP (page 117) as follows: The number of homes identified for the village core represents an urban plannin~ Page 3, Item: ~ Meeting Date:5/13/98 goal. Reductions in the number ofmulti-familv units mav be approved at the SPA and tentative map level as long as sufficient densities are provided to support bus and lil1:ht rail transit. ' Additionally, the applicant is requesting that one of the Village Core policies (page 144) be modified as follows: The. JlUlllbe.f ofholll';'S identiGcd fur thlO village. core. is II. rnlliliuUlll an.d ililY not be, lx,due,e,d. The number of homes identified for the village core represents an urban planning goal. Reductions in the number of multi-family units may be approved at the SPA and tentative map level as long as sufficient densities are provided to support bus and light rail transit. Analysis Existing GDP/SRP policies indicate a maximum ofl,615 multi-family dwelling units in the Village Five Core at an average density of 18 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), During the preparation of the GDP/SRP, the Otay Ranch Project Team had proposed a density of 14.5 du/ac for all the urban village cores, This density was supported by the Planning Commission, however, during the City Council and Board of Supervisors public review of the GDP, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) requested higher densities up to 22 du/ac in the transit villages to sUpport the future trolley line. The Council and Board ultimately determined that 18 du/ac would be the appropriate density for the village cores, but they could not be reduced, These densities were calculated on a gross area (no streets where deleted from the core acreage). As a result, when the units were planned at the SP A leve~ with the streets deleted from the area calculations, the net densities of the building sites increased dramatically, There are six neighborhoods in McMillin's existing SPA One Village Five core with the following net densities: NeiEhborhood R-40 R-41 R-42 R-43 R-44 R-45 Total. Density 23,7 du/ac 24.4 du/ac 33.0 du/ac 33.7 du/ac 22.3 du/ac 29.5 du/ac Units 204 127 241 175 261 165 1,173 The applicant believes these densities are too high and, while there is a growing dem3.n.d in the multi-family market, the approved densities would not be absorbed by the market, They are proposing that flexibility be added to the GDP/SRP to maintain the 18 du/ac as the maximum density as policy but allow less density to be built. Staff supports the amendment as long as sufficient densities are achieved to support the light rail transit. The City will continue to coordinate with MTDB to ensure the transit village cores contain enough density to support the trolley line, Page 4, Item: ~ Meeting Date:5/13/98 Staff has reviewed the proposed density reduction with MTDB staff, who remains supportive because of the density achieved adjacent to the future trolley stop. The applicant is proposing this text amendment in order to allow them to reduce the density in the Village Five Core on the SPA One Plan from an average of 18 dulac to an average of 15 dulacre on the SPA One Plan. The applicant is still proposing to maintain the following multiple family densities in the Village Five Core area south of East Palomar Street: NeighborhQod Densi1y R-40: 16.2 dulac R-43: 29.3 du/ac R-44: 30.9 du/ac R-45: Mixed Use ~ 201 240 210 18 multi-family units above ground floor commercial Additionally, Neighborhood R-46 located north of East Palomar Street is maintaining a density of 16.3 du/ac which is consistent with the originally approved Tentative Map. In reviewing the proposal, and in discussions with the MTDB, City staff is in support of the proposed amendment. MTDB has indicated that an average density of 15 dulac is still within their parameters for transit-oriented development. A letter of support from MTDB is attached as Exhibit 4. B. SPA Amendment The applicant is proposing several amendments to the SPA One Plan as summarized below. The specific amendments to text, maps and tables have been included as Exhibit 5. 1. Reduction in density of the Village Five Core. Following is a table which indicates the overall change in dwelling units from the GDP/SRP to the SPA One Plan which maintains 15 dulac in the Village Core. This table indicates a decrease in one single family unit and a decrease in 422 multi-family units. GDP/SRP Approved SPA Proposed SPA Proposed TM SF Units 1,263 1,263 1,262 1,262 MF Units 1,615 1,615 1,193 -1,193 Population 8,289 8,289 7,070 7,070 2. Parks and Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) The number, location and size of the Village Five parks and CPF sites has been revised based upon the reduction in density and population. The approved SPA indicated four CPF sites, ranging in size from 2.4 to 3.7 acres and totaling 11.6 acres. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the three CPF sites located on their portion of SPA One (CPF 4, 6 and 7) into one location at the northeast corner of East Palomar Street and Santa Cora Avenue (CPF 4). This Page 5, Item: ~ Meeting Date:5/13/98 new site totals 4.8 acres. The CPF 5 site in the Otay Ranch Company portion of SPA One would be increased in size from 3.7 to 5.3 acres. The applicant has indicated that the larger CPF sites are much more marketable than smaller sites. They noted that most churches require a minimum size of 4.5 - 5 acres. Similarly, the parks within Village Five have been relocated and reduced in size based on the reduction in density and population. Park P-7 has remained in essentially the same location and has changed in size from 5.2 to 5.7 acres; Park P-8, the Town Square Park, has been reduced from 1.8 to 1.0 acres. Park P-6 has been reconfigured and reduced in size from a total of 10.6 to 6.4 acres. The table below compares the CPF and Parks requirements for the approved and Jroposed SPA Plans. Approved SPA Proposed SPA Required Provided Required Provided CPF 11.52 ac. 11.6 ac. 9.8 ac. 10.1 ac. Parks 16.6 ac. 21.3 ac. 14.14 ac. 17 ac. The table below further breaks down the sizes of parks proposed for Village Five and indicates the amount of park credit allowed. City policy does not allow parks to receive park credit if they are less than 5 acres in size. However, since small pedestrian parks are an integral neighborhood component of the OtayRanch GDP/SRP and SPA One Plan, the SPA One permits 25% to 50% credit for the pedestrian parks and 100% park credit for the Town Square Park. Additionally, the City Council allowed in their approval of the McMillin Tentative Map, credit for pedestrian Park P-9 since it would be a public park. Park Size P-6.1 (McM) 5.3 ac. P-6.2 (ORC) 1.1 ac. P-7 (McM) 5.7 ac. P-8 (McM) 1.0 ac. P-9.1 (McM) 1.0 ac. P-9.2 (ORC) 1.0 ac. P-1O 1.3 ac. P-ll (ORe) .6 ac. Total: 17 ac. % Credit Allowed! Acres 100%/5.3 ac. 100%/1.1 ac. 100%/5.7 ac. 100%/1:0 ac. 50%/.5 ac. 50%/.5 ac. 14.1 ac. Page 6, Item: -.1- Meeting Date:5/13/98 3. Street Reconfiguration As proposed, Santa Cora remains a promenade street which loops around Park P-7, the Town Square Park and the multi-family area within the Village Five Core. Due to the reconfiguration of the residential neighborhoods south of East Palomar Street, Santa Rosa Drive has been deleted, resulting in aT-intersection at East Palomar Street. 4. Commercial The commercial acreage in the Village Five Core area has been reduced from 3.6 acres in the approved SPA to approximately 2.8 acres. The commercial area will surround the Town Square Park on the south and east sides. A mixed use land use designation is being proposed which would allow commercial uses on the ground floor with two stories of residential above. The reduction in commercial acres reflects the specific site plan proposed for the Mixed Use area. 5. Reconfiguration of Neighborhoods Nei~hborhood R-40 This area is located east of the easterly extension of Santa Cora and is a multi-family site consisting of 12.4 acres with 201 units. The resulting density is 16.2 dulac. Nei~hborhood R-41 This area is sited directly west of Neighborhood R-40, and is located south of Santa Cora and Park P- 7. This is a single family area consisting of 90 units on 14.4 acres with a density of 6.3 dulac. Neighborhood R-42 This neighborhood is a multi-family site located north of Neighborhood R-41 and west of Park P-7. Seventy four (74) units are sited on 9.6 acres with a resultant density of7.7 dulac. Neighborhood R-43 This multi-family site is located at the southeast corner of La Media Road and East Palomar Street. The applicant is proposing 240 units on 8.2 acres, with a resultant density of 29.3 du/ac. Neighborhood R-44 This area is located directly south and east of the Mixed Use aiea. The applicant is proposing 210 units on 6.8 acres, with a resultant density of30.9 du/ac. Neighborhood R-45 This area is directly adjacent to the Town Square Park and is situated above the commercial ground floor buildings. Approximately 18 units are planned for this area. The SPA One Plan is proposed to be amended to allow this area to be Mixed Use. 6. Village Design Plan Minor amendments to exhibits and maps in the Village Design Plan are required in order to reflect the proposed SPA amendment and maintain consistency between the documents. These proposed H:\HOMElPLANNINGlBEVI422PC.DOC Page 7, Item:---1- Meeting Date:5/13/98 changes are noted in Exhibit 6. 7. Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Minor amendments are also required to maps within this document to reflect the revised configuration of Parks P-7 and P-6. These proposed changes are noted in Exhibit 7. Analysis The proposed SPA amendment has been reviewed on several occasions by the Technical Committee, which consists of City stafffrom the Engineering, Planning, Parks and Recreation, Police and Fire Departments. Additionally, the location and configuration of the CPF and park sites north of East Palomar Street were reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee. The size of the sites was also approved by the Executive Committee. The size of the CPF sites are in conformity with City requirements, and staff believes that the single larger site will provide the opportunity for a significant architectural statement as opposed to the smaller more dispersed sites. The overall creditable acreage for the park sites is consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP requirement of2 acres per 1,000 residents. The additional I acre per 1,000 residents will be met through the payment of PAD fees which will be used to construct the community parks as contained in a condition of approval of the Tentative Map. The deletion of Santa Rosa and the slight realignment of Santa Cora are necessary due to the reeonfiguration of the neighborhoods south of East Palomar Street. The loop promenade street (Santa Cora) will provide a strong landscape and visual element unifying this area. Additionally, the reconfiguration of the neighborhoods and the location of single family and multi-family uses is consistent with the goals of the GDP/SRP which encourages multifamily uses closer to the transit stop. Staff is in support of the Mixed Use proposal which surrounds the Town Square Park and believes this furthers the neo-traditional concepts outlined in the GDP/SRP and will provide a strong focal backdrop for the Town Square Park. The Town Square Park will be framed with commercial on two sides, multi-family on the west and a CPF site to the north. C. Tentative Map The applicant has submitted a Tentative Map which is consistent with the proposed SPA and GDP amendment. Neighborhoods R-40, 43 and 44 are multi-family sites that are not specifically designed with this Tentative Map, however;-staffhas been working with the guest builder in development oftheir Detailed Site Plans for Neighborhoods R-43 and 44: These multi-family development sites will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee in the near future. 1. Neighborhood R-41 This neighborhood is proposed for 90 single-family lots on 44' x 90' pads. This neighborhood is directly south of the Neighborhood Park P-7 and Santa Cora, a promenade street encircling the park. All lots adjacent to Santa Cora will face onto the park. This design will provide "eyes on the park" security and a greater sense of ownership of the park by adjacent residents. Lots in this H:\HOME\PLANNINGlBEV\422PC.DOC Page 8, Item: ~ Meeting Date:5/13/98 neighborhood are served by the Residential Street Section A, which contains a 6- foot landscaped parkway adjacent to the curb and a 4- foot sidewalk. Maintenance of the parkways will be by the homeowner with enforcement by the Homeowner's Association, similar to the other McMillin neighborhoods within SPA One. 2. Neighborhood R-42 This neighborhood consists of 74 duplex or single-family attached units on 9.6 acres. Consistent with other neighborhoods in SPA One, these small lots are allowed to be served by Residential Street Section B, which provides for a contiguous sidewalk. The through street (Sierra Verde Drive) linking Neighborhoods R-41 and 42 is required to be Street Section A to provide continuity. Lots in Neighborhood R-42 on Santa Cora will also front onto the park. Analysis The proposed Tentative Map was reviewed concurrently with the SPA One and GDP Amendments at the Technical Committee. The Tentative Map is consistent with the proposed GDP and SPA amendments. Conditions of approval have been developed by the various City departments and are included for the Commission's review as an attachment to the Resolution of Approval for the Tentative Map. Staff has some concerns regarding the appearance of the lots in Neighborhood R-41 adjacent to the slopes along Olympic Parkway. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to address this aesthetic issue. Conclusion Staff is in support of the GDP and SPA One Amendment including the proposed modifications to the Village Design Plan and Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Plan. Additionally, staff is in support of the proposed Tentative Map with the recommended conditions of approval. Attachments: Exhibit I: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: .Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Locator McMillin original Tentative Map 97-02 GDP Amendment MTDB letter SPA One Amendment Village Design Plan Amendment . Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan Amendment Planning Commission Resolution PCM 98-21 Recommending Approval to the City Council of the Fourth Addendum to FEIR 95-01 and GDP Amendments with attached Draft City Council Resolution Approving the GDP Amendment Planning Commission Resolution PCM 98-16 Recommending Approval to the City Council of the SPA One Plan Amendment with attached Draft City Council Resolution Approving the SPA One Plan Amendment H:\HOME\PLANNING\BEVI422PC.DOC Page 9, Item: -L Meeting Date:5/13/98 Exhibit 10: Planning Commission Resolution PCS 98-04 Recommending Approval to the City Council of the Chula Vista Tract 98-04 with attached Draft City Council Resolution Approving Chula Vista Tract 98-04 - H:\HOMElPLANNINGlBEV\422PC.DOC -,",- t--------- . . . . . . . --..... , VILLAGE FIVE "",fIJ"'---"'"'i ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~.. ~, ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ .... ~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT C!5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AMENDMENTS PROJECT McMillin D.A. AmerIca APPUCAN"r. OIay Ranch ADDRPROJEESSCT No. 01 OlympIc Pkwy., Ell! 01 La MedII : " So. 01 ~ PIIOIIIII Dr. SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: t NORTH No Scale h:\home~lanrUng\carlosllocatorsIj)cm9816.cdr 3/10/98 I-I EXH/&IT I /- L ~ 2 ~ I r-:- g ~..~ ~ )r:..l-\\ l~~ / 2.c~ 2 ~- c~ 00 :;j 55 t; ~ ..J :f \is i ~ I- m s: x w . . t.i-@ \~ , I , -J~ ( 2-2 Otay Ranch General Development Plan Proposed Text Amendments 1. PART II, Chapter I, Section E, Implementation Mechanisms: Paragraph 2a, page 117: Additional Criterion to be added: "The nurnher of homes identified for the village core represent~ an urhan planning goal. Reductions in the numher of multi -family unit~ may he approved a~ long a~ sufficient demities are provided to support hu~ and light rail transit. 2. PART II, Chapter I, Section F, Village Descriptions and Policies: Exhibit 46, Village Five Land Use Table, page 143: Additional footnote in table: "Park and CPF m;reage shall he determined at the SPA Plan level to reflect approved SP A Den~itie<." 3. PART II, Chapter I, Section F, Village Descriptions and Policies: Village Core Policies, page 144: The I1Uillb;:r ofho.....cs id. utificd for the vill~ge core is a .\\h,i...uw loL.d Ill~Y l10t be redtieed. "The numher ofhome~ identifiedfor the village core repre.~ent~ an urhan plorming gool. Red1/rtion~ in the numher of multi -family units may he approved a~ long a~ s7Jjficient den~itie~ are provided to support hu~ and light rail tran~it. 4/9/98 3-1 ex~~+ ?J 3 -2-. . . . ~ . MlRL DeYek>pn1ent Board ~ ~255 Irr.:,~-:a AvenuE S";:if 1DOC Sari C:n€::: :t 921D-,--;~~ 1619. 2:~- - .~3:: ~AX (6"19 ::.54<~40- RECEIVED MEMORANDUM DEC 24 1997 PLANNING DATE: December 22, 1997 AG 270.1, SRTP 820.6 (PC 271) FROM: Beverly Blessent, City of Chula Vista Nancy Bragad{W0 TO: SUBJECT: OTAY RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 98-04 Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised tentative map (TM) for Village 5. The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) has reviewed the map and found it to be consistent with the transit-oriented development objectives expressed in the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One plan. In addition, John Haggerty, MTDB Desfgn Engineer, has reviewed the light rail transit alignment and found it to meet our design criteria (see attachment). The overall densities in the village core are lower than was anticipated in the SPA plan, but we believe that the mix of apartments, duplexes, triplexes, and small lot single-family homes in the core area meet the intent of the plan. However, we continue to encourage you to approve a range of densities that would permit the developer to build a greater number of units if warranted by future market conditions. If you have any questions I can be reached at 557-4533. PWalla M-OT A YRANCH.NBRAGA Attachment cc: William Lieberman John Haggerty -'I-I MemO" Aoeoo,es . . .. . '0 H I Bit 4. CI1y of Cne-it. Vista City of CO:':J'ladc, Cltv of EI Ca)or.. City of Impenal Beach. City o::"a Mesa GIN 0: i..eiT'cf: Grove. City of NaliO'1al Clty_ City of Powa,.. Slty cf San Diego. C!!,,! of S2~!e€- :::'ountl' of San :}",;;o. S:ate of Caii:ornl2 ~ Metropolitan Tianslt Developmen: Board IS Coordinator at tne Metropolitan Transi: System and the \.: Taxicab Adminislralior Subsidiary corporallOns:~:sar. Diego Transit corDorallon'li]san Diego Trolley. InCH and [[]san Diego & Anzona Easterr Railway Company ------" ;J-Z Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One II. LAND USE The following provides a detailed description of Village One and Village Five land uses, as depicted on the SPA One Land Use Plan (Exhibit 1-6). Table 1-2 provides a comparison between the GDP and SPA land use plans. Differences in acres (as described in more detail below) are attributable to more precise road locations, open space areas and development areas. This portion of the document also analyzes the SPA land plan to evaluate consistency between this SPA Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The following table sumarizes the dif- ferences between the GOP defined Villages One and Five and the scope of this SPA Plan. Table 1-2 Land Use Comparative Table - SPA One ACRES DUs ODP SPA ODP SPA Village One 623.6 619.3 2,880 2880 Village Five 493.4 48&e 2878 ~ ~ un. SPA One Total 1,117.0 -I-;tHJ;5 5,758 5;'t58 1.1..l1U .u.u. Area W. of Paseo Ranchero 280.0 264.8 443 443 Overall Total 1,397.0 +;m:+ 6,201 6;MJ- L.32i1 i.ZQ6 s-- / PART I LAND USE PLAN Otay Ranch 1.33 June 2<1, 1997 e)( Vv\~+ 6 ~ i! III CI :!!! :> ,,~ ~~ ...:.. > ..:..- .'=I.i. -: -:9"'t1 .::.. "'" C .J:j.. ~ c o ~ ~ ~ > , C .. ;;: .. ~ ::;) ... C .. ...I . "Ie..,. ..,. ~U ! ~; . i p ~ ~~ Lt) ~ ,.... en . w j CJ <C ) (\ .. , ..J :. ,-- , .. ..J ' 0 - >:!i --- t~f , z I I It , fJt 0;;; , J:~ ( ; i O~ [f- lu - Zi! -Il . il~! IH . <C~ \ ~IJ~ i( 0:::3 -. tt ~~!i ::;) -, ~12- ~~ / . r~l -- . !l" ~o , ~{d 05 . 6-Z L--. ~ n r-.. cu ~ l ~~ ~ c Jj ~ ~ c o . ~ ::!! ;; , c ~ 0:: ~ :5 'D C ~ ..J ell > i! ~ ~ :; . ~t] I ~I i . . ! I ell C Lt) 0 ell ~ CI ~ ,... en w ~ ..J , t~f , ...J . - , II! >:$ , o:h ( z IIi I a: - 0 Iii J:~ ..~ (.) 5. 0 Ud \ ~p Z;! lIt! !p <(~ z!~ Le- -. i'~l a:~ ; 0 . ;&;;- I '~p ::;) ! ~ >5 ~-=3 im ~~ , ~ 05 II) ~ ,... en w " <t ...J ...J -U) >.. I O:!!i ... ... Z ... (.) :s o G) ~ z en i1. <t cn~ c- D: ._ = cs ~c~ ~ co 0 00::5 ) . . '-----.r---- <:::::> u ~.. 0"0 0':: a:: ]----l \ \~'~'} '. !.--------- \ &1>0; /._ " .. >" E =~~ ? > 0 UN \ .... 1 I> > Ii: & I! o I> ~ ;;: ......... -J! .. I 80- ~ ! ~ > 'j -- I \. I . \\ I \ , . . r . \ . . ! . ~~ ~ z~ ~ d ~d ~-C( .0 ~ 0 '" ~ - , 0 ..:. -~ .~ .., .0 ~ :ECI'I x .. We C e .. A: ~ e o f III .::. " :; II: S- O - 16 hI' ii I ~n- is!1 ~-- .if~ ~t~i Un Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PART I LAND USE PLAN GDP. . The area west of Paseo Ranchero, including parcels not within the Otay Ranch ownership (Ross, Dauz-Gorman and Gerhardt parcels), must be comprehensively planned as a unit, except SPA, GDP or General Plan Amendment application for one or more of the non-Otay Ranch parcels will be considered without con- current consideration of a SPA plan for the Otay Ranch parcels. . The Comprehensive Plan for the area west of Paseo Ranchero must include an evaluation of a general plan amendment for the parcels not governed by the Otay Ranch GDP. The evaluation should consider the factors discussed in this section. . The Comprehensive Plan for the area west of Paseo Ranchero should be prepared after the completion of the MSCP. or equiva- lent regional habitat planning effort. but within 5 years of the approval of SPA One. . The combined total number of units authorized through the ap- proval ofOtay Ranch SPA One east of Pas eo Ranchero. and any subsequent processing of the SPA for the area west of Pas eo Ran- chero may not exceed the total number of units authorized by the Otay Ranch GDP (6.201 units) for these areas. B. VILLAGE FIVE Village Five is comprised of approximately 491acres located in the northern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, southwest of the planned interchange ofSR-125 and Otay Lakes Road. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan designates Village Five as an urban village to be served by a light rail trahsit system. The Otay Ranch GDP and this plan permits: 2,878 units. As an urban village, the Otay Ranch GDP provides for an approximately lIS acre village core including commercial uses, an elementaIy school site, neighborhood parks, CPF land uses, and medium-high density housing. The following table summarizes the GDP defined Village Five and the scope of this document. ~-s- Dtay Ranch I-53 June 24. 1997 PART I Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One LAND USE PLAN Table 1-5 GDP Land Use Comparative - Village Five ACRES DUs Village Five GDP SPA GDP SPA Single Family 280.6 B&.6li1J2 1 ,263 ~ 1.262 Multi-Family 89.7 B:8 ZQ.Z 1,615 t;6+5 L2l1 Parks 1 0.0 ~ 1Ji..2 School 10.0 10.0 CPF 11.3 t+.6 112.l Commercial 6.0 :Hi 2J! External Circulation 15.4 20.3 Internal Circulation ~ 2f1J. Open Space 70.4 90.2 Village Five Total 493.4 49Hm.6 2,878 1;8'18 2,4.Zl AI; depicted in Table 1-5 above, thete ate differences between the acreages depicted in the GDP and SPA for Village Five. These dif- ferences are attributable to the more precise level of planning un- dertaken to prepare the SPA One Land Use Plan. For example, the GDP included acreage for internal circulation in the single family residential acreage - the SPA identifies internal circulation acreage separately. The GDP included 6.6 acres of neighborhood park land within the Village Five residential acreage, but the SPA identifies neighborhood patk acreage separately. Village Five includes more open space acreage because the GDP did not include the slope areas adjacent to the Otay Water District Property in the open space to- tals - the SPA Land Use Plan includes those open space areas. Otay Rancb 1-504 June 2"1. 1997 I. Design Influences The primaty design influence for Village Five is the pedestrian friendly village concept established in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Other influences reflect on-site conditions and characteristics such as, landforms, biological resources, drainage patterns, aesthetics, land use relationships and circulation patterns. Existing development patterns and Chula Vistas General Plan poli- cies for adjoining undeveloped land also influenced the design of Village Five. The adjacent plans and uses include the regional open space system, off-site circulation consideration, public facility con- s--? Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PART I LAND USE PLAN area of the village located to the northeast. The secondary area includes single-family residential neighborhoods, with a range of lot sizes and product rypes and several pedestrian park sites. 3. Land Use Plan Village Five is an urban village, surrounded by major arterials and buffered by open space. The land use plan incorporates the village concepr with higher densiries wirhin the village core and decreasing densities away from the village core area. The land use pattern esrablished by rhe Oray Ranch GDP empha- sizes balanced land uses, environmentally sensirive development, transit/pedestrian orientation, a diverse economic base, diverse hous- ing opportunities and land uses that offer a sense of place to Village Five residenrs. The Village Five Land Use Plan establishes single-family developments from 4.1 to 5:9 fi.2 dwelling units/acre, and multifamily developments from &1 1.5 to 33-;13J1.9. dwelling units/acre. The densities planned for this Village are consistent with the approved Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The village core includes medium-high density residential units, a 10.0 acre elementary school site, a town square, two neighborhood park sites, a transit stop and shelter, future light rail transit right-of way, ~ 2.Jl acres ofcommerciallretail with ,..,.it/pnlinl ahmiJJ and -I+.61Lf1 acres for Community Purpose Facilities. The Village Five Land Use Plan (Exhibit 1-10) depicts single-family and multi-family neighborhoods and the Land Use Plan summary. 4. Road Connections In some instances, SPA identified road alignments differ slightly from the alignments depicted in the GDP. As a "general" develop- ment plan, rhe GDP anticipated and permits such modest changes between the GDP and the SPA. These differences are necessary as the land plan becomes more precise due to physical requirements of the road location, grading consideration, and traffic safery require- ments (such as, sight-distances, "T" intersections requirements and road crossing separations). ~-7 Dlay Ranch I-57 June 24. 1997 U-W~~O~~~~~~~-N~~ ~<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '"- ~ ~ "'''' ....0 ~P:)""O>N"'_""O ~N"':~ci"':Nr<i~ .....f"1N~NNf"1_ , D N~~~~~N~f"1f"1~OOO>W~"O~~~_~_~~~ ~~O>=~~~~~~~~~~~WW~~O>~N~~~~~~~ "iic ~'" o ~ IV E E " C/) CD en ;:) ." C IV ...I CD > u: CD '" ~ :; .. '" '" .. :; < ~"'~N~~mq~-~o=..,m~O~~~~=N=mN.~o~m~N~OON~"~~Nf"1~ON~ "':~~=~__N=M"':mmM"':~~ciri=..=_~~M_NM~N~__"':_~~Nf"1f"1N~OON __N____N_N_ -- ~-_ - ~ ~ __mN ~.~..~~~~~~.~~~.~~~~~..~~~~~~eEE~~~~~ ~~~~~~~w~~~~ww~~W~~~~~222~~~~E5~~~~~~ ...J :,)uu ." o o .c . O:~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~~ ~<%~~~~~~~~~~%~~~~ '" ~ , Z 0 :0 , '" mO>O_Nf"1"'~1O 1":'11..,...,...,...,...,...,.,. rro::r:rr:rc::::rc::::rc:: '1~ :,):,) .. o :0 , '" :; o :0 , '" ~!of.a..~~~ 8vj'i i ~~:or,oo~{jo~ .,!:o ~ ~ U) ~1O~IrI:m5!~ c. Ii 1i:i.1i Ii Iii ..,,,?~,,:- .l..u..u..u.. ::I..:l.Il.:l. JUUU ~; ~ -:~ ~cu .c ~ .1j:) ." c j .. > ii: r ;;: ., ... ., N MN <0 . N- '" .. ;;'c N . ..:..(; -, Nl~ th ~~ '" . c e ~" 0= c gii .- ]~ 2 ~ "' .- eU. " .. . '" w~ ;;: .. J! ~ , '" .. o :0 , '" ~E] I ~' , ; ! d ~ >: w '" Z ~ ~ > w 15 ::j w ~ <!. 0. C ~ - w I" a: t: a: ~ '" ;. w ~ a: i~ I 0. ... ~ Jh- iSM - .J", ~f ~f~i In .. '" M ~ ~ ~ E c E ~ ~ 0: - , , '" a. C e ~.. . > u: . '" ,g :;; i~ 01- " c ~=> r=~~~m&1~&3~:g~~ - -- S~~.~N 1i5!jJ~O~~~~~~~~ T- N N N........... -.:t _ N M~N~~mO~_~O~M~~~~~~~~~N~N~~~~M_~~oqM~~~M_ON~~C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m=~~~~~~~~~ci~ ~ci~~~~~g~~~ -u -0( ~- ~::> ....0 ~~~o~m~~m~~""'N~~MN~~~~~~~~~NN~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rei~~~~~ . E u 0( " - c . j::> ':> ~~~~~~~~ ~ 0~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~........ ~ ~a...a.a.a.a.a.a. ~~mONM~~~~~~_N _NO.....S ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~--S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cnO(/)(/) en LLU.U.U.U.LL.LL.LL.u.u..u.u.u.u.u.u. cnVJClJUJUJu.lC/)CIJ(fJClJt!JrJJV)OOC/J(/) .ti ~ "'. 'i .< z M~~~~mO_NM-.:t~~~~_~ ~~~~~~f?t"?t'?t"{~ I '?t?'?"f--r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 '" - ... ~ . ~ IU c ~ c IJ ,. ~ IU """ s:: ~ .IPe"" . ( r,e') _. - .. "I ., o I 11.11. a. a. uu -- O'lf__ ON Q) Q) -5':-~~:g (J)'::"(I) (1),,0 . ":L() N en i:3 U Q) en 0...: >i ~ .5W5 0 c: en - III 10 - , 0:: - '" :c '" . ., w ::I "t:I c: .. ...I '" > u:: CD 0> ~ :> j i s . I } ;n ~ " I ci: '" [J !2. 1: f . A E c . c g . ::> .!! C ... '2 ~ . . IE - ! -e ! .... ~ :: i e . e ! .! ~ ~ e .... .. u I II I ... ""fIt)S u..u.. .sa a. a. ' uu.g '" h. ij j"t h z i"z "i h Hi H nti H ihl. I' }i't 'i ,,~h i zl HB Hi :-~.~ "i >- a: a: Z-I-W < ffi ~ c << ~ ~ ::0 _za: Q. ::J UJ o ::!: ~ .... ::0 0 (/) 0 () .... () U5 It) J: Z '" () << - z f: ffi C2 <III@*_):( .... .... ttl en a: a: z o .... << o (/) ~ a: UJ a: ::0 :t o UJ .... () ~ ~ () :t .... z u ~ UJ Z a: () << .... 3 ~ (/) .... e( < ~ I- W a: CE 0 W UJ W W U w a: I:t tI: .a ~ ~ < < > (I) ~ W UJ a: z ~ ~ !Z ;( a: a: w ~ Q. Q. CL W W W !ji !ji C) ~ ~ :s :s ~ ,. ,. cO cD > > > Q Z . c W . g CJ . g w . ..J II i >- a: .... Z UJ ~ Z ::J ::0 ::0 o () ..J << a: UJ .... a: << >- a: .... Z UJ UJ C) :5 ..J :> <( UJ a: <<.... ..JUJ <<WI- w i= g: m ct:zcn:i < w > z wQa:CJ ([en 1-_ Ow z..J 2.C:w< tu ~~~ UJ UJ :5 ..J g:g::::!~ (f) C/'J > I- w W > c cOa:w < <I( < a: Z Z C a: w w z w :; :; 0 ... 00 u W Cl:a::wC: a.. a.. en CL . . . . : . I I w ~ '" a: w " ... ::> a: . o a: " ',----'l \, : , , , , , , , . \ , , \ \ , , .-~-:---...., ):t- \, Zo I : \ , , , ~ l ~) w <5 \ (" Z '-, ',~ 0 , , , ' ( ,_..!.__ W / '." ':>--,' ~~~~~--~ ~ \::5--~ 1w~ \, \ ..JI I \ _I i.~-:c. \\>\ ,. \\\ \ ' w ' , ~ ) I-" \ /' r / , , -...._-J , , o I \ / o~ ,_\ __,,' 19 <<-tic',;~;;~-;Ji,uuu I I t 'Ii Ii ~ , , , -'r _ 1,", '---I . w '\... :, Ii ,/" \ I ~ ,,~../ \ \ . <i( \/ ~ y#- U i , ~ 0: j f";7t , . I ~ ~ . I , I I I I I , --~. 7?-/() ~ Z ::> '" ~ - , \ J: !II" ~~ :s ::c:::! 1-'> o C a: ., 5 w " :s J: !iN ~~ 1<~ 1-'> o ... ~ - ~i~ ",,~ hi. =i ~ i!sj ~s~1 Mai'iii'D. i'l- Ocr 0 .!e g' ~8'r m~ >- It >- .... It It Z Z .... w w < z " ~ W It 0 ~ < z w ::;; :> ~ Z It ::;; >- 0. :> w ::;; ~ 12 ::;; z 8 ::;; 0: '" 0 0 .... w .... '-' '-' < w 0; '" r a: C) z '" '-' w :5 < z .... 0: 0: < 0: .... .... '" 0: < :; " a: on w "'~*.):t " ~ g .... .... w w 0; 0: 0: Z 0 .... < <" 0 '" 0: W a: w .... 0: 0: ::;; r < .... 0 w .... .... w '-' r ~ <" < w .... .... '-' .... w ;:: 0: Z Z r w 0: Z .... W '-' W < w en ::;; w z 0: W o>-z '-' < .... 0: - 0: C) ~ ~ '" 0 "'.... ::; w z < < w .... g !Eow < a: a: 0: .... W t;j ....w >- 0 w w w w w '-' W 0: WC) .... .... .... It .... w ~:5 .... 0: It .. .... '" 0: 0 < < >- en ~ .... ........ 0: W W 0: Z en tI')s:~ ::;; ::;; .... ;;: w w>-o a: a: z ::;; 0 Oo:w W 0. < <<0: 0. 0. W W W Z zoo: w w C) C) C) w WZw z z :5 :5 :5 ::;; ::;;0"- < :5 0 o,-,w .... .... .... .... 0: o:wo: Q .;, .;, :; :; :; 0. 0.",0. Z . c I ~* . I I w c . . ~~; . CJ c *" . . c ::J1' . c . W . . oJ a' " w a: :5 " >-' on w iI; on a: w '" >- :0 a: 'i ~ t ~ 'i '2. 1 1 , , , , , , , " , , , , " , , -~~----, x:t. \ , ' , . \ ~\ W Z o ~ "'~ ~'" i~ ,. '" ~ '" ~ w ,.. -',1' -,_ ,,-.~, ... ... '-... ......... ... ...-' " \ \ " ...." '- " "......' " \, , , , , '.'.,"'" . . I . ..1 ::-'1 :: . j: I ...:: I ;.: I ":", I ",.: . '. I -" . .. { I ...... , I ......~ I ,-p,l , , ~ ___~_1..___/'" " 0: ,. ~ o z o > z -< " \ ( '-, , ? ..-.L UJ / , c:>-r.......~t...'-.._.. t, : 5 ~. 'I ...J, , \ -I \ \ >\ " , , , ( '- " ( . ,- f , ~I ~IE ~ . ,~ , of " I I I . I 6-1( . . ~ Z :0 on ci a: -< " w ,. ~ :r "'" ~~ >~ ~> o ~ ~ :: :a: :.0 c :.c 0 x";; w. '5 ~ iJ :r !i'" a!~ >~ ~> o - jij u ~ I," ..~,' .!i ;r ng~ -.~i ~;-t :ll~ =f.ir ~ ~~ z a. Q Z W Cj W ..J z z <: <( ::; ::; w w z z o 0 N N ;:: '" W gj "- o a: "- ;:: '" W ~ (.J o ..J W a: I I I z ;;: ::; W z 2 z z ;;: ;;: ::; ::; \!i ~ 2 o '" N '" - '" r:: fa w <J) a: 0 :0 "- .... 0 :0 a: u.. "- J g i g o ;:: CJ z >= <J) x w I I I I z ;;: ::; w z o N '" '" '" CJ z >= <J) x w c ~ o lI3~ w ;:w ~w-~ W~~" !!!~~~ ~;::w!!! ~~~~ O~E~w, ~~ ~ .- . j~wi3 ...f~d w",Za; !i~~:! I/}~WC ~w~~ ::::~N~ ..ie ";N"; ~ e '!!i 28. ~_ cri_ ~::'! ~~ !~ "CI: ;:~ .;.2 2:"'''' -- -z . ~~ x< We w '" j '" '" < w w ~ '" \II :> z \II ~ ~ '" w '" j ~ '0 ~ 1 o --......r".. =: ci \ -, ! ", '_,;91 i5 " w '... \ ::I ,/ \ \ ,~...,/ \ \ :5 , , , , , \: I v~......,,-- to ~ 'i '1i. \ II I I " z o i o " ~\ ~ \;- ..~ t-;. fall( ~~ i~ 'Ii'1 ,. n .., ~ }::.: ~::" . : ( , ----', / , ........... \. "''i ,~p,.l , , ' ' ...._____...___r' , , ---~ ---_.,/ I , , , , \,--- - \ , , - ~-IL i ......r-- Ii: :J: ~ ~~ j .. 1<= .. .-> o .... C ~ ~.. C> -: a:: ..:. :.c .. :.cf Jj~ :J: Um Zw <" "'j ~~ o !EJ ~:I " . .1 iil u i (" ""I-' II U ~ Hh 49~~ ~H~ ~ tr an I ?c 1 ~ I; , " , a; ~ '" , '" f!! Ii" : .. ~~ -' ~ ~ ,.~ ::! ~> i 0 0 ~ w 0 U w w dg w ~~ ~ ill.l~ ::5 >- ~~~i ~~ '" '" ~ = ....1/1 ~t; W .w_ W~~iji ~~ a: z z i! .....~ z " O...~J; ~ " ::;; z z " z ~~ i ::;; " << ::;; " ~ a; w w ::;; W ::;; ;~w~ ~. :s z ::;; z 0 w z w . z. ~ U 0 N Z w 2 z ::;z~ u_ ~ N 0 Z 0 C:wi< w. '" - N 0 " N o(~ is ~~ ;:: ... N '" ... III~WW <D ~w02 Q Q ;:: Q '" ~ w ;:: <D ....IIIN~ W !<: " w " ~a~ <J) w <J) 0 z 0 z ~EI u ;:: a: ;:: ':Nn 0- 0 => 0- w . 0 -' <J) f- 0 <J) " ,. .. C 0: w X => a: X ~ '" .. 0- 0: W ... 0- W .. .. z I 0 '~ w 0 " I e" 0 i , \ Ii 0 w 0 . 0 ...J ci " .Z! , a: , '" , --------- 'Ii :s ?c 0 -~ ~~ ~~ iZ .~ .- It' .... _w "1,..., .:~ "'\0'> \ '" . ~~ ~~ !e. :~ - -- . . o , \\.c~ '\ \~ \t1 \ :;.- s '. 'O'f. '1< ( \! ~ '\ i' ~ \,/ ~ " .., ; 'Y:' c;:::" - : i , ---,,~) . , , " \ -"~ --' ~ (.. , ' . ....-----1..---1' , " " ,,---. ,-- gLOM .~ \ I I I 6-/3 ~ => '" ci ! !5 w s :s c ~:I .. , ., " ~ ~ o i & /,j:;: ~~ ~S o .... < N. -:i: :.p ~ - . .cw ~i . o \ - iii hi. o. . ;i" :t! .>,.1 h~- !SJ1 ~~-! :H~ .fr iIH z z ;;: z ;;: z ::; ;;: z ::; ;;: Q ::; ;;: Q ::; w Q ::; w Q ::; w Q ::; w 3 ::; w 3 ::; 3 ::; 3 '" to ;;: to '" w w to -' w to ~ a: w to a: w zz w a: w w a: =>;:: z w a: z w iD~ 0 z w 0 z w", N 0 Z N 0 "'w 0 N 2 0 N <", 0 "' "'- .... 8 '" 0 w;:: Q 0 Q "' z'" .... 0 0> :ow w " .... w " ~J: (f) W (f) ~b 0 z 0 z ;:: a: ;:: 0- :::J 0- W 0 (f) 0 (f) x >- x ~ Q a: :::J a: 0- w u.. 0- w Z w ~ ~ w '" ~ '" i w w $~ , , ...I , , a: I , , , 1!! I I I \ 0 \ NOW .> ..~ _.....~:01"!:::) ~6 () ~N~ ~~L Q-,8 .2 -J I", i~ '= ~~ ~~) , III :> Z III ~ ~.. ~~ ~::! ..> o ~ a: o Z o > ~ " --~- i , , \ , , '''''' , , , "'.... -- >---:-\l ... '-, " , , , ;\ \ " , \ /~,/ \ \ , , , , . \/ ...J.... .- <- f , , \ \, \ /' '" , , C;:=:/:.........-_.... / / -- , , , , , , , , , \ :1 ". :::~:~.: !! ) , , ........ \ ;, / - , '....... "... '''~ j , , , , \ \ j ....._____L___r ~ ~ ..~ ~.. i~ .. " '-, , , ( 1\ , " - , i\ , , , ,/"" " \I,~ 'io \ ~ o 51! il a: ,- ~, I 0: I '" '" ~-11f- ~ Z :> '" --.J-- ~ ::q -:E :0 ... -- ~ ~~ .Jji ." ~ E .; ~ ~ II: - !: fJ ~:I .. . .1 Q a: .. is III :Ii ~ J: "'" ZIII ~~ ~= ...> o - Uj hlo :;;.=. .; . . ,.11 o~ :s~.- =ilh f~A~ ..!-;;-a. ..~.. . "'if. i"!b~ nii z z << z << ::; << z ::; .. c :; =< c :; w c :; w C :; W C :; w S ::! w S ::! S ::! 3 V1 u << u V1 w w w U -' U ~ c: w u c: w zz w c: w w c: ::>3 z w c: z w ~~ 0 Z W 0 Z WV1 N 2 z N 0 "w 0 2 0 N <V1 0 "' V1- ... 0 0> 0 w3 c 0 0 c "' z" ... 0 '" "w W " ... w " ~'" <J) w <J) ~o 0 z c: 0 Z 0- >= :::> 0- >= W 0 en 0 en X >- X >- 0 c: :::> c: 0 0- W U. 0- W z Z w CJ w , , ..J , "'ii ~". ,~""c'" ., ~NS ~(').,",f\f~ ~n Q-,~ .? -J I" i[ 1= ~~ '!:~1 $~l If" ' ~:: ~~ ?c= >-> o 0\ "~ \\ \'t 'i\~ 'i>'t \'" .. . ~ '5 -", t; i< ~ 1< ~ " .. .. .. C II: .. is w ,. ~ z o >- z .. U : i , , " -' " , , , c:::=1:.......::.:.. , , , , , , , , , " :.;::i ,:il ~::/~ ::...., ) :' .-..') " , , , " , "'4 r-' , " \...._____1..___> U ii: ,. ~ o , " -, , ( ~ ..~ m.. iV! ,. , \, " , 'i\ , , , , .. ( , ' t' , o ~i u ~ , , , , \.-._-~~ .~, .., . I ~-/S i ~:; !: ~ -: r ..:.!, ~ t .\ ~~ .J1~ 1: E .;; y ~ " !(J ~:! .. . 'I '" UN Zw jj!o ~ ~~ o - iij Sh.' !ill O.!.~ id- f'!l ... :ih z o~.. >-ht nii w Z w :J z a: :J w ;: a: w w ;: z rn ;< '" w c 0 rn .0 ~ ~ ~ W mJ: :;i: " - rn to w"' , 0 z oow :c t Q. t= <"' :c C 0 rn "'3: . ~ a: X Woo w ~ Z Q. ~w III W ~J: W ~~ " I ~O <"' w I 00", ww ..J ~~ 2~ .. ffi :I: ~ ~~ ~~ ~= 1-'> o '" . ",Ocr: G.~O ~w\\! IOU ~ ~~ 'i \).1'7. 'a ...- ~z _0 ~~ ~t> .' z o E~ " '" ~~ G~ c~ Zw wa.. <c (/)wa:s ~~ ~~ ~w ~> ..~ 0 ~~/ :/: ,:: .., ..,{:" .... , ) i , \ " o stS ..~ lz: : . Q: . 0( :z! --- -:j-/? ~--.r-- !tJ JJ ~d '" ~ ~ !fj uilo ..~. I U2i ..~H i..!!~ :"'lo i!:~ .~ uU ~ c ~ N . ~ii: , w C .0 :c . . J w w . Z W III ::; Z c: ::; w c: ~ w Z W ~ J VJ w 0 0 VJ "", "'<n w " Ww VJ z !i~ 2 ;:: <nJ VJ Wa: 0 0 x Zw c: ::iJ: Z Q. W ...... ...0 W I <en oen Cj I Ww ...... W ~~ ..J ~ 'i.\ ~ >---~-~ .. "-... "'~~:n , ,- , , ., , /' " \ ,~,' \ \ , , I " I \",--' '. ....::::. ::}:~ i , " ,. .: .: >! 6""-1 7 ~ ~... ol:f ~t: 0:., '" ~ " '" '-'.. Zw ;i~ >... ;!$ o c JJ ~'I " "' '" ~ o ci a: < i5 '" < ... . Z \1 Z < '-' 6 '" '" ~~ ~N ffi~ <~ cnW CI:S 2~ ?c= OW 1-"> Ifi 0 ~:/ 1[ .I!~ ; I- i I JI'~ ii-or .~l'li ~f.:r '0 "'. in ti: o c U.J .... -' ~ a: z ":'" - z U.J U.J u; ::ii: ~ :::> ~ << z u 0{ ;9ro a: z :::> '" 0 0{ 0 u Z ..c " .... r U.J C) 0 Jj c ::; U.J U ~ z ;:: .~ a: -' C 0 Z 0- ;:: Z C .... U.J 0 ~ Z .... :::> 0- <I) <I) 0 a: X W 0 0- U.J U.J Cj t 0 w I . IT '"( ;~ ..J " , I )" ..~. C a: ~ :5 ~ .... o J: 0.. ~~ :5 ~:! 1-'> o .. i i ~ 'i 'a , " " , ;~,// \ , , , , I " I v~.~ , .} ~ .r~,.::, W_ .!....~ "...1( .... , J ) 1 r~::", ,&-Jl,~ , ' , : \ .........'\ , , , ) \ \ ,~-" >---~'---) J ' .!II: 4, , ( , Z o ,. ~ u ~ 1~ ..'" i~ 7 / \.-..._------~/ I ~. '" , \ ~-/f -- g '" is .. .. :5 tEJ ~:! ,! . .1 J: ON Zw ~'" :5 ?i:~ 5> Z ~ " Z ~ ~ ,,--) I, ,. " \\ " ~ ~ " ? ...~~ ~j -i ~~ ~- u ~ [" !1~- :! ",&I "" ~8-.~ ._1~'i ;!.9~!!i &.~-"' ;!f~ ~f!, ~8'U .~ un o e ::: "'(..!! -:;.. w j5 &I .- .. '" "" . :5 .Jj .5 ... >- '" . cr: >- < " UJ cr: z w C > (i; -' -' UJ UJ '" ::: .. z z () '" CD ;;: Z 0 () z cr: .. UJ to 0 0 :I: en i= :: >- () 0 z z UJ i= cr: -' Z 0- UJ 0 f2 >- UJ 0 en >- '" 0- cr: X UJ Z en 0 0 0- UJ 0 w t IT ... ( ,t-.JJ. CJ I . I I tI ~ W J... t>,,' ...I ci a: '" w '" :5 1< (; '" !i~ C!gj >~ ;!:; o i ~ 'i 'a , - , " , ~: <;I.\~\ :, ...~, \1 :4."\ - .0. ci a: .. is iEJ w .. :5 ~'! .. . " " ii: .. ~ '" !iN C!gj :5 ~=l ...> 0 I ; , , '- z o ~ 11-1,/ c:I "I.. I (~ \ 1<. 1~ ..... i; 0 / S~ , ,.. -~-~ .. ,,----- .9& "" .Z.. , :1 >. ..! I I ( , . '" . 1 \ '" I of ;; I I I I --- Ii ~- i ~~.J-- ::0 ., z ~ III Z o ti ... ... \ !!i "--) " " . " . '. , ~, ,1 '..' - iii h~ i~'tt di- !'~l ;s:a.. :lp ~I'.'!!' o lIa in a: c w 'L 3- U " '" ~ ~ ~ '0 . ... , , ___J, _ : I .(i :\\ " ~ \ ",~ I ~-----~~-----__) I - I 'Y', --.." \, ',_, 1 W " , ~ ' , , , ,,;'\ \ I;:: ,..,,," '\ II 1 \ I , \:~ ,W Il .-:.r if I ,.. ,- .,:., 13. "" ~ / 1\ 1,1 0",., I ... (' t " , I / \~~~)I ""I \ \ ; '\ \ ;. I ,,/ JIll ....-----.....--- - -"; --r ~ I. ... .. c '" - !z IE w w w ~ ~ w e " '" ffJ :5 1< !J 0 " '" ... ... I!: c ;0 W Oil .;, > 8 '" I!: :z: " I!: W .. Iii 0 0 '" :z: ~ ... .. ~ ... .. c c a " - Z C j C .. Z Z ~ ~ '" ~ W W Z 0 ~ ~ ~ .. " " 0 ~ _ !i: W !.~ 0 0 " '" ... ~ fZ !! '" '" W C C " ~ s: iVl c .. .. .. G. ~ ~ .... '" <D Z . I . r' I ( I " w . I . I I C) . . . I I I i w . . u ... . I . ?)- 26 - c ~ ~ -:~ :o~ L';; . - WF ." ~ ~ ~ v ~ "- II> C ~ "- o c o ":0 .. f v ~ a: ~ ~ .; ... - .. 0. :z: !;1'" j:!:!i ..~ ~> o ci II: C Ci W " :5 ~N CW "'~ ?c= ...> o - FS ii~ hio u. . ".1-. .0. !I ~ i .. ~~h ~CI-'a. =;I!f-a ~ if'" ~I'So' o ,"oa .!i 12~ ~ .i ~ '" ~ ?< 15 - c ~ ~ . :0: - , :E~ . :.c"ji ~F ." c . . v . "- III C . c.. 0 c 0 .~ a: . c " v w . II: 0:: S' ~. 0 -'" '" " '" . ... ~~ )oj ~> o o II: -< C w '" :s ... ~ -< .... ~ z w w w I;; w Q " I: a: ;; :s w on )0 III C W ~ z i ... 0 a: ... ... -< w ~ :> 8 III ~ ~ w w )0 ~ Q Q a: z ~ ... .. " ... w -< ~ -< o :c w z -< z Z Q ~ ~ II: " :i z :s w w z 0 oJ 2 '" '" ~ ~ _ !i: w :s :c " w c i on oJ ~ W " a: if = ~ if :> a: ii C .. .. III Z Z . I · f;::t ! I ( I !IN W . I : III 1!~ C) . . I i w . . 1<1 . ..J . I . W:.. ~S 0 Pf". tJ~ hI. ~.:H 'n- h~l o!h ~ ir .....to:. .. ~UI" ~...n ~-2/ PART I Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PUBLIC FACiliTIES The SPA One population genetates a demand fOt 26.225 actes of Community Purpose Facility, as follows. Table 1-10 Community Purpose Facility Demand CPFACREAGE REQUIRED PROVIDED 13.3 14.6* t+.t .2...2 -t-H JJU 1.4 Uol ~ Uol u:z POPULATION Village One 9,570 Village Five 87891.l22 Te1e.Cyn. Estates" Total 1-'1;859 u,m * Population for Village One includes the area west of Paseo Ranchero The following criteria has been employed during the SPA land plan- ning process ro locate Community Purpose Facility uses within the SPA One project area. . Facilities shall be located within the village core. . Facilities shall be encouraged ro share parking with adjacent public and private uses. . Facilities and corresponding parking within village cores shall be located and sized to avoid obstruction of pedestrian circulation. . Facilities and other public structures may exceed height, bulk or set back requirements generally applicable to private uses if such deviations are necessaty to enable the structure to become the focal point, "signature piece" or "point of ceremony" of a given village. . Facilities may locate in traditional commercial and retail facilities. Otay Ranch 25 The Otay Ranch GOP. and the PC Ordinance require that this SPA Plan comply with the PC Ordinance provision of identifying 1.39 acres of CPF land per 1,000 residents. However, jf the CPF land is not utilized or the PC standard is modified, the amount of CPF land will be adjusted accordingly. 26 Per the Otay Ranch GOP, provide within the first phase in the City of Chuta Vista, Community Purpose Facility land to satisfy the Telegraph Canyon Estates Specific Plan reCluiremenl (City of Chula Vista Resolution No. 16960). 6- '2-2- 1-166 June 24. 1997 Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One . The Otay Ranch GDP also requires that the first phase of devel- opment of Otay Ranch within the City of Chula Vista shall sat- isfY the affordable housing obligation for the Telegraph Canyon3l Estates GDP and SPA plan. . Provide an affirmative fair marketing plan which describes vari- ous efforts to attract perspective home buyers regardless of gen- der, age, race, religion, handicap or economic status. Otay Ranch GDP pennits a total of 6;2(>>'" ; 79fi32 homes within Villages One and Five. Satisfaction of the affordable housing requirement for SPA One requires the provision of ~ i811 affordable units. In addition, this phase of Otay Ranch development would have to provide 34 affordable units in satisfaction of the Telegraph Canyon Estates obligation. The GDP requirement for rhe provision of affordable housing is addressed in the Ranch-Wide Affordable Housing Plan (Appendix H) and the SPA One Affordable Housing Plan (Appendix 1). I. SPA One Affordable Housing Plan The SPA One Affordable Housing Plan also identifies priority sites within which affordable housing could be located in both Villages One and Five. The alternative sites were selected based upon their proximity to parks, schools, transit, retail and child care. Addition- ally, the land plan was prepared with a range of multi-family densi- ties sufficient to provide a wide range of opportunities for afford- able housing within each village. The SPA One Affordable Hous- ing Plan also identifies phasing criteria to ensure the provision of affordable housing concurrent with the development of market rate housing. The Otay Ranch GDP supports "the use of accessory dwelling units as an additional source of affordable housing for lower-income house- holds." The SPA One Land Use Plan does not provide for acces- sory dwelling units because there are many opportunities to pro- vide units affordable to low-income households within the multi- family units included within SPA One. Further, accessory dwelling 31 The Telegraph Canyon Estates obligation arises from a separate entitlement. The precise require- ment is the provision of a 3 acre site for affordable housing within SPA One. The SPA Affordable Housing Plan proposes thai the obligation be satisfied by providing sctursl units; 10% of the total number of dwelling units within Telegraph Canyon Estates. 10% of the Telegraph Canyon project equals 34 affordable units. 17low.income units arid 17 moderate income units. 32 Includes area west of Paseo Ranchero. s-- 2-3 PART I AFFORDABLE HOUSING Otay Ranch 1-189 june24.1997 Otav Ranch Sectional Planninl{ Area One provided consistent with the provisions of the PFFP. A 2.1 acre neighborhood park (P- 3) is also included in Phase I B. Pha." 2A Phase 2A is located in the northern portion of Village Five, south of Otay Lakes Road. Phase 2A consists of 542 single family units and a 90 unit multi-family site. Access to Phase 2A will be provided via St. Clair Drive, from Telegraph Canyon Road. This phase is slated for development early in the construction of SPA One because it is anticipated that market conditions will be more favorable for single family detached homes. Approximately one-half of the 2.0 acre neighborhood park (P-9) is included within the single family residential area northeast of the village core. H L1 acres of the M:6 6.4acre Village Five neighborhood park site (P-6) must be provided consistent with the provisions of the PFFP. Pha.e 2B Phase 2B is located in the northwest portion of Village One, east of Paseo Ranchero and north of East Palomar Street. This phase consists of 433 single family units and a 140 unit multi-family site. Access to the Phase 2B area is provided from Telegraph Canyon Road. It is also envisioned that a pedestrian oriented Paseo would be included as part of the western edge of Phase 2B. An 11.1 acre neighborhood park (P-I) is included within the Village One core area. Park improvements will be phased to meet SPA One demand. A .8 acre pedestrian park (p-4) is also included in this phase, in the residential area north of the village core. Pha.e 1 Phase 3 is located in the northwestern portion of Village Five and includes 185 single family homes and a 129 unit multi-family site. :)- 2-f Phasing Plan Otay Ranch 1-195 Otav Ranch Sectional Planninx Area One Ph~,e 4 Phase 4 is located in the southeastern portion of Village Five, adjacent to the Otay Water District property. This phase contains approximately 145 single family homes and 175 multifamily homes. A .6 acre pedestrian park (P-II) is included in the Phase 4 single family area. Access to Phase 4 will be provided via the extension of East Palomar Street through Village Five. The second SPA One elementary school located in the Village Five core area will likely be constructed during Phase 4, consistent with the provisions of the PFFP. Ph~'e 5 Phase 5 is the last SPA One phase and includes the western most portion of Village One, including the village core and most of Village One's multi-family units. This phase also includes site preparation for all of the Village One CPF sites and the commercial sites. It is anticipated that this phase will be developed last because the demand for significant commercial activity will not occur until there is a sufficient population base within Village One and the surrounding community to support such uses. A similar rationale applies to the larger CPF sites. It is anticipated that the market acceptance for attached units will be improved by the time Phase 5 is constructed. It is also anticipated that development of higher density multi-family lots will significantly lag development of the remainder of SPA One and may require that the light rail transit is in operation to be feasible. The third SPA One elementary school located west of Paseo Ranchero will be constructed during Phase 5, depending upon the absorption and student population associated with the build-out of SPA One homes. Village One Ea~t & Village Five We~t Both of these development area~ are acce~sed from Telegraph Canyon Road via the con~truction of La Media Road. The~e area~ are Pha~ed independently of the area~ de~cribed above and are subject to a separate Chapter in the PFFP. However, a~ with the qreas de~cribed above, this project area will initially develop with S--2~ Phasing Plan Olay Ranch 1-196 Otav Ranch Sectional PlanninJ! Area One single family hnusing pmduct.~ with multi-family hnmes and cnmmercial u~es develnping later, a~ the market allnws. Phase 1 This Phase includes all of Village One East and the portion of Village Five located north of East Palomar Street. It includes approximately 125 single family units west of La Media and approximately 3M ill SF and duplex units in Village Five West. It also includes ill multi-family units in Parcel (R-46), a 411 acre CPF parcel (CPF-4), a 10.0 acre school site and Park Parcell!:-6-:6 E.::fL.l in Village Five West and Pedestrian Park P-5 nf appmximately .11 acres . Appmximately 6.3 acre~ nf the 7.4 acre Neighhnrhnnd Park mu~t he prnvided cnn~istent with the pmvisinn~ nf the PFFP, mnst likely during the develnpment nf this pha~e and Pha~e 2A. Although these public facility sites are within the Phase I boundary, the timing of construction of these public facilities will be determined by PFFP provisions. Phase 2 This Phase includes all of Village Five West located south of East Palomar Street, including the commercial, park, CPF and multifamily sites which define the village core for Village Five. This area includes approximately ~ m multi-family units and 176 single family IJ>/its. Development of this area will be partially dependent on development progress in other areas which will provide the population necessary to support commercial and CPF activities in the core. Development of the multi-family units will be determined by market demand. Multi-family development may occur over an extended period of time, even lagging single family development in other village outside of SPA One. SG=c densities :way not bc :warkctablc until light rill se-lVicc is ope-rational. s-20 Phasing Plan Otay Ranch 1-198 w " ~ '" ~ < w UJ Z g :J ::::: e C UJ UJ ..!.~ ;; <J) <J) ~o.. Z 0( 0( 090.0 :t :t ~ e W Q. x .- Q. w ~ CJ ~ I 8 .c W I "- ..J I ~EJ i d: ~' ! o B ~ ~ d c. .. ::0 '" ~ c. :c en ~ G> c: 3 o " e '" w .~ S ~ ~ o '" 0. " J ~ s ~~ nn ~ ! -- . "1i. CD i.~ " ~~g~ w" ~ ~~ . ~ - :> NO - *mn. - ... c. 0( I :2 " ~ j r! . CD ~ n i ~~~ii51E c: ~ -- ....., ~~ 1; .. ~o. ~ G)E2:- .. . ~ c: .- aI- U O,!E >"E~ .. U::,j!! i 1-- E j!,j!! E &~'" alp !o ..-~ ::I =<J):!! !~._:; Of UI 5 0;;: "':!! JC I- > ... 0... ... " e " is w '" S \ , '- o ~ ~27 ~ " u> - Hf t~li _I ~ g .~ ~ ~- .,.n -0" .:c~.:.;' III h.t'a ..a:~~ ~~~~ ~; .. uU a. ::; c: iiJ u ~ c: c: <f) it z ~ UJ ~ C3 t) 0 a: if. ...J U.J <f) <( ::; z c: ::; U.J ::J o c.. < u 0 z e;'" (')U>~ 00 ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ u ~ :E ~ . tt: a: ~ if ~~ II: =:I - ~ QCfi J: 0 ~ ~ c.. u.I I- u..::I ::> [[ '5 > >. :E :::iE :::Ia. ....j - ...J...J ~ :E ~ < < > ;5 < ~ i= t= !::: 0 LL. .... Z Z Z W W W w ::> ...J ...J CI c 2 C ~ " en (j) :E Z zZwwO W <is U5 a: a: u ~ W ..I (I')"It.....NLL. !!:u.;2;2;"- ..U>a:a:(.) ~ " ::i ui ! ~ ~ a: ~]"' ~!2!e .a::: 0 at U) d: ~:'j~~"-- o 0 ~( I - 5i o ... . ~. ': i ::> '" ~- ::: :i- : =:1: ~ . itJ! ~~ ..t . j ~ ~ d Q a: :!S ~ :5 S--2f a. ::;; c: UJ u ~ 8:. c: <n 11: z ;i UJ ~ U u 0 a: ~ ~ W <n " ::;; z c: ::;; W ::J o a.. < U 0 Z -'" !!::!!:: U(/)(/) 00 W 0 5 i: ~ ~ :1 :1 tH a: ~ ~ ~ 555 ~ u.. => ::I ::i ~ :E :e ~ ~ ;i ;i " ".. j:: j:: .. z z w w w w ...,j ....J 0 0 c CJ" CiS Cij Z zZww en en a: a: W CJ w ..j M"I:t NLI,. "...::!!::!!a.. cncna:a:u ~ '" ;:j >- ... ::; (j ~ wo <no: 0'" a.\:[ g; :) a. ~ >- 4 ... '0 z ::J ::;; ::;; o u oj ~ '" a: i]. en o '" ::!! a: U " i: " ~ o 5! Ii: !3 en o ~. j ~ i '" ~- iE)i ~~ t. . ] . . . < d S-2( ::: ~ - =:1: ~ ~ - v .c '_ .- " -"~ J:J .~ c .. c 'C . N Planned Community District Regulations Ih1iWlI VILLAGE COR. DISTRICTS SECTION III VILLAGE CORE DISTRICTS 111.0. Purpose The Village Core Districts are included in the Planned Community District Regulations to achieve the following: . To provide areas for office uses, retail stores, service establish- ments and wholesale business offering commodities and services required by residents of the village or adjacent villages. . To provide an opporrunity for commercial and quasi-public com- munity support facilities. . To encourage office and commercial uses concentrated for the convenience of the public and for a more mutually beneficial relationship to each other. . To provide adequate space ro meet the needs of modern com- mercial activity, including off-street parking and loading areas. . To protect commercial properties from noise, odor, smoke, un- sightliness, and other objectionable influences incidental to in- dustrial uses. . To promote high standards of sire planning, architecrural and landscape design for office and commercial developments within the City of Chula Vista. 111.1 Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted where the symbol "P" ap- pears and shall be permitted subject to a Conditional Use Permit where the symbol "C" appears. Uses where the symbol "A" appears shall be permitted subject to an Administrative Review. Uses where the symbol "N" appears shall not be permitted. The mirpd ,J<e de<ignatinn in thp Villf1.8P Fiw rnrp (r/RM?J pprmit< lJ.<P< nn thefi,,<tflnnr [pvp[ tn hp thn.<p .<pprifipdfnr "r rnmmPrr.in[ Di<trirt", and nnflnnrs ahnve thp fi,,<tflnnr [pve[ thn.<p ..pprifiedfnr "RM2 Di.<trirt" SUP Devp[npmpnt Standard< shall hp dPterminpd hy Site Plan Rpvip..w ~- 30 Otay Ranch 111-29 June 24, 1997 Planned Community District Regulations baa11I VILLAGE CORE DISTRICTS . Building should be located on the site to provide adjacent build- ings adequate sunlight for solar access when practical. Buildings should be designed to minimize energy consumption, including but not necessarily limited to the following conservation measures: . Cogeneration . South facing windows . Eave coverage for windows . Earth berming against exterior walls . Deciduous shade trees on sourherly or westerly orientations Refer to the SPA One Village Design Plan for additional design guidelines and criteria. IliA. Community Purpose Facility (CPF) The City ofChula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.04.055 requires 1.39 acres per 1,000 population for Community Purpose Facility (CPF) Sites. A total offourteen and six tenths (14.6) acres ofland in Village One and eleven and six tenths (++.6} (1Lf1). acres of land in Village Five is designated for CPF use on six sites as indicated on both the Land Use Map and on the Zoning District Map. The final CPF requirement will be based on lot count at the Tentative Map stage. Should additional acreage be required, the requirement will be met through establishing a reciprocal parking agreement with public park, commercial or other land uses for joint use of the parking area. Should a joint use agreement not be established, the additional acreage shall be reserved in another CPF site, which may be chosen at the Final Map stage. Construction shall be precluded on that alternative site until a joint use agreement is negotiated. Similarly, a joint use agreement for parking, in advance of construction, shall provide the basis for a reduction in CPF acreage. 111.5 Precise Plan A Precise Plan will be required to be prepared and submitted for review and approval for all areas in the Village Core District. A Master Precise Plan may be prepared for the entire village core area and updated with each significant new project. This precise plan shall establish specific areas within the village core and will limit the lo- cation of certain uses (eg., fast food, auto repair. etc.). This plan shall be prepared in accordance with City standards. ~- ~/ Otay Ranch 111-35 June 24. 1997 Table 1-13.1 Phasing Summary (Village I) Neighborhood Area Phase I Total I 2 I IA I 18 I 2A 1 28 1 3 4 5 Village One East R-II 125 R-l2E 86 Village One East Subtotal 125 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 Village One SF R-I 103 R-2 74 R-3 81 R-4 96 R-5 79 R-6 85 R-7 136 R-8 65 R-9 74 R-IO 125 R-12 109 R-13 76 Village One SF Subtotal 0 0 0 485 0 433 185 0 0 1103 R-14 129 R-15 215 R-16 280 R-17 200 R-18 230 R-19 204 R-20 140 R-21 168 Viii. One MF Subtotal 0 0 0 168 0 140 129 0 1129 1566 Village One Grand Totals 1251 861 01 6531 01 5731 3141 01 11291 2880 5"-32- Olay Ranch 111-198 11/3/95~ Table 1-13.1 Phasing Summar Village 5) Neighborhood Area Phase I Total 1 2 I lA I IB I 2A I 2B I 3 4 5 Village Five East R-25 73 R-26 78 R-27 58 R-28 82 R-30 145 R-31 83 R-32 113 R-33 55 R-34 40 R-35 40 R-36 69 R-37 66 R-38 45 Viii. Five East SF Subtotal 0 0 260 0 542 0 0 145 0 947 R-29 90 R-39 175 Viii. Five East MF Subtotal 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 175 0 265 VIU. Five East Subtotal 0 0 260 0 632 0 0 320 0 1212 Village Five West R-23 SF 86~ R-24 SF 138 R-41 SF 1272!i. Viii. Five West SF Subtotal m SJ2 R-22 MF 92~ R-40MF 266ZJli. R-42MF 175li R-43 MF 2412Jf). R-44 MF 261 ZJ.!I. R-45 MF 165li R-46 MF 115llZ Viii. Five West MF Subtotal 2D3 m Village Five Totals 1431 m 11235W I 2601 65:1 6321 57:1 31:1 3201 tS7S.Im I SPA One Totals 556 5.5J 1321lli 260 632 320 1129 5758~ S--3~ Ofay Ranch 111-199 11/3/95~ ;;--~~ PART ONE VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN FRAMEWORK Village Design Plan , - ~ ,/, ~.;I Olay Ranch 1-125 November 9, 1995 ~'ih\b1+' ~ PART ONE village Design Plan VilLAGE DESIGN PLAN FRAMEWORK &-2- Olay Ranch 1-125 November 9. 1995 PART THREE 111-1. Village Identity and Character A. Village Setting The SPA One project area is located within the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch GDP area and roughly in the center of the Eastern Territories Planning Area described in the Chula Vista General Plan. SPA One includes all of Village Five and the portion of Village One east of the future extension of Paseo Ranchero, as depicted by the GDP Land Use Plan. Village Five is located directly east of Village One, with the planned extension of La Media Road separating the two villages. The extension of Olympic Parkway East Orange AVc.1ue will define the southern edge of both villages. Village Five is also to be served by the light-rail transit system, with a station planned within its core. The 115 acre core is also planned to include commercial, neighborhood parks, an elementary school site, CPF zoned land, and medium-high density housing nses. The GDP designates 1,263 single-family homes and 1,615 multi-family homes with the village. Village Five is bounded on the north by Telegraph Canyon Road!Otay Lakes Road and the south by Poggi Canyon. The entire Otay Valley Parcel has been farmed or grazed, leaving only isolated areas ofvery fragmented sensitive habitat. The southern edge of the village consists of the undulating slopes of eastern Poggi Canyon. The northern edge of Village Five is Telegraph Canyon (Vicinity Map). Limited scenic views extend to Village Five from along Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway cut OrMge A.enue, both identified in the Otay Ranch GDP as scenic corridors. The village site has views to the surrounding mountains to the northeast and east and to the Pacific Ocean to the west. &-3 ..lllage Five Design Plan Otay Ranch 111-' MRTch .1Q, 7.9.9R Novembor J, , :):)5 PART THREE Otay Ranch 111-6 MRrr.h .10, 1998 Noven,ber 3, 1 :J:J5 Village Five Design Plan c. Village Type and Orientation The organization of traditional communities takes on a familiar and logical form: a central community core with higher intensity mixed uses, and a surrounding residential area. This organization creates an understandable land use pattern and concentrates inter- related land uses in an area which becomes a viable transit service area. The GDP states that urban and transit-oriented villages within the Otay Ranch should emulate this pattern and include the components needed to allow the village to serve the needs of its residents without unnecessary automobile trips. Village Five is both an urban and transit-oriented village. The village core is located in the southwestern portion of the village and includes single-familyand multi-family mcdiUill-high dCiisity residential units, an elementary school, two neighborhood park sites, mixed-use (residential ahove,commercial/retail), and CPF sites. The Village Five core identity is based on a traditional town square design. This will be implemented with commercial, office and public/quasi-public uses organized around a small tree- lined square. The town square park will provide a focal point for the village center and reflect a pedestrian orientation and urban character due to its proximity to higher-density residential and commercial uses. The town square is connected by a "paseo" extending to the secondary area of the village located to the northeast. The secondary area includes single-family residential neighborhoods, with a range of lot sizes and product types, and several pedestrian park sites. D. PedestrianITransit Orientation The land use plan for Village Five is consistent with the pedestrian and transit oriented guidelines presented in Part One of this document. The plan includes a more intense Village Core area which includes a commercial area close to a transit stop. The surrounding Secondary Area includes a range of housing and parks. The street system includes two promenade streets leading directly tQ the Core. The Village Core includes a traditional "Town Square" commercial &-1 >. c . Q. - E ; 0 <J t .~ ,~ . -", ( . -~ ,.... a:cn Ww I-Z 'WO :EN C:w WCl. c.<! W() "cn C:(C ..JZ ..J<! >..J ;;; N ci:" ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ID \'} ~ Qj.::: \1)_ ... 'C (/J ~ -g ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ "2 CD :1: ~ en :[i E c:: c: f- Q) ~ E :~'~"5~~O 11'1 I'tI c:: _ u: u j~~i~0~ . ~ . . u "C"'I .::~ ~Tc ~ ~, ~ > ~ c '" - -, i ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ,., ~ .. ~ ~ Q " '" c > >: :.;;~ Zw "'c:: c:'" ,.-' c= ....,. o Ott"I03W." ~ o . "- : E J 0 ." t: , . "" . -.. ( . -" ).... a:(/) Ww I-z We ~N a:w We. e.<t We..> <:1(/) <to -Iz ::!<t >-1 ~ N ci: ;:-- ~ c ~ w o a:; ~ Q,} N W m 01 Q; c7J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD W Q) <J ...J E C :!: J:: (.f) ~ :J o C ""'" CD ~ E :.= .!!;! "fi 01 Q) E III ca C ~ <U 0 ~a.m>u:u 1~~I~la~ . . . ~ ~ > ~ o :t 0<:1 Zw <('" 0:<( >-' <(-' \ ~> l . . o ~ ~ '0~ ~. ~~ .OttYI03NY1 ~s ~T ~ ~- - - > - ~] ~~ , c , . - 0- C '" .- 0 ~ c ~ '" .. - - - > ~ 1:' E 1:' 1:' ~ :;; c: :g c: E 1:' w ~ w w '" ;; E 1), ~ ?: ~ .. ::; > .- w ~ 'c c ;;; I- ~ ~ i!! ~ C> :; C ~ f= E E J11 '" is c E is 1:' ~ . Z :; " U 0 '" CfJ "- W U u i! ro : E C '" OJ ~ c u '" 0 ~ c J 0 <:: OJ E a: '" ." (f) - :;; 0 a: " - CfJ >- ( .: > ~~~CJ~EJ c . ~ '0 " c: . a: III . <XI I- CI t . Z III -~ W ...J ,.... ~ .---.. ~ -: g; ~ > ......' :: ~:.- ;;: U~' ~ ~ . < ~ , 01 ~ ~ z as ;... fa - - = ~ c. > " c C> .- o ~ o ~ ~ C> .. > , , ==/ " , . , 5 ~ ~ ci . \.. It~_ ::t :';10: ~w "'", "'c )0-: '"'= ..-.. o .....~3...'t' L ~ c . 0- : e ) Q " . i.: : > ~ . -", < . -" )~ > l- f:: z w o ij; > ~ a: I- z W .~ ~ 2" ~ ~ ... c C C:g ~ W LU ~ UJ 113 (ij ~ ~ c ~ ~ ::E '2 'i: LU ~ <( co E E ! ;; ~ E 8 8 > ~ 5- 8 u~~-gU) '5 ~ .!!! CG 8 j g ... CD .5 Q) 0 a: l~~~~~EJ . S !'~:~ > o~=_ - I II:: ..,. ... ~! J G ~ en I C ~ ~ .. ~ = :: a.. > . c '" - ~ . o . '" . > o I ~I f . . , . Q ~ "" ~,. n L :: \,;1; Zw ""c 0:< >-' <:: >-> o ci < . ~ ~"'S ~ ~ ~ << . > " .::: " - '" ~ ~ ..... :;=- C C C U. ~ <i. . .~ . ~~ . " -c E .~ . <3 . ~ c 0 U et E 0 00. '" u ~ 0 a; 0; LlJ ~ .0 ~ ':'-10 "'C.~ ~ ~ ~ a; 0; . 0; ';j.=: ~ ~ '" .~ U; U; ~ ~ ~ Q. 0 e: ~Q. ~~ > E, , QU) ~ u; u; '> u; u;c c. ~ N . . -<< -~ 1). c : E a:W E ~ " "0 ~ .~ c: .m''E 'Sa. '" ) c Wa. LlJ c: ~ ~ ~ -~ .~-.s 0 C "0 CO "'" U'I'~ ~ ." 1-< '" '" . '" " Q)'':: ~i 0> 0> E E 0 :2:e ~"O . t: ZL) ~ ~ 0 0 " ~c 1::"- c -en . '" 0 " ~ : , :; :; ct ct " 0 Wt- '" etu eta; << " " 't:I . , Cjw c ~lm~~ ~ D '" ,'" <w .. ~ Ij ~ ..Ie: CI :::.":': . =1- ~ .. \ ':'. ,~ >en ..I .~." : > Q = ~ w 5 > . :; \ :c ~ - Zw ,,~ G:;; ). ~ .: = I ~ " % . . . o ~ ~ ~ w 'Qtf't'103W'" ~ ~ < ~ s :;; < ~ > n~~ ~ " ~ c c ~ Q ~:::- < .g c .... ~ . ~ ~ ~; J ~ :2 'g E is ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 00.. '" u a: C 8 c c 0; ;; w ~ ~ c c e e 0; 0; ~ ;; .:.'" :2 .~ e e ~ ~ ~ ~- II: 0; iij e eQ. s~ > Q. Oen ~ c 0; iij 5: iij o;c ~" C N ,,~ .. .. ..< -~ :sa. 1i:w E ~ " " ~ .!!E '" wl1. w ;;: ~ ~ ~ "'c -~ .so" c c -g co c~ ~'i ~ 1-< .. ~ .. .. ..'" n '" '" ~ ~ :2'6 .. Z() ~ ~ 8 ~ c ~Q. 0" C -en ~ "0 !ca ~ ~ wI- :> :> Q. Q. en a:u <e 'C .. CJw c ~[ij~~~ D '" <w G) lliJlj .. ...III: en 1.1 ',::'." dI- G) \ ...~..:: >en ...I > > . . o % CC Zw Co "'c >-' c-' ...;: o ~I f . 5 ~ ~ Ii . ~ 5 \ ~ ~ ~ '~.lOi"'" . "-.,, e.':::'" .... > ~ ~ ~; m "0 - U . 0 ... ~ - e .::t 0 ~: ~ ,;; m ~ . \ u 0 ~ 0> '" 0 . " .!!1 . . a: "0 <- . '> " 0 0 0 '" ~ "0 ~ m - 0 0.. c Q; c - "- a ~ ~ '" " - a. 0.. ' c >- e ,!!1 0 0 !Em ~ U 0: " 0 E > . ~= 0 ;;; :; 0 c: m " o(ijO.s (ij~ N co. 0 c. i= .=:g =0 " " 0 -.;"' e oct 0 "0 " D.... ii:~ ~ '" en -"0 ~.~ 0 . &~ " ";. c . " 0 0 Z..;:,l o~ 0" C C . C C 0 "0 "'C.!!:! ., " 0~ 0: "0 5"= ..-;; .. " 0 " ~ 0 Q)~ 0 "in'; E 0 "'.. E E tG.9 .. 0>-", ;; :2'5 0>- ,,:I) " < -C:> c .~~ m"O -"'" 0 0- .,c u.: HO- 0> .. :::c>> e e c .. .. =m "" " 0 ~c ~~ C . '*"' :::; .:: 0:11> >Q. Q. Q. :Ja: Q. :;;!: II> o:u enUJ " ..;I.W "C :.co. " . =;::; t: 1/1//10Iil ~~ 0 D~[]~rn .5-:5 '" '", II)'~ 0 C:>;z CI> ~"O , '" . !!!0 CI> em c " 0 ,... (.);z -' <" > ~ % . . . o ~ ~ 0; . o w 5 > . <; :t ~~ ~ Zw > <C' ~ 0: u 0-(/ ~ E9 ~...,... .... > ~ "C C ~ ~ ~ ~ c ... '" " ~ < ~ ~: ~ "C 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 u 0 '" 0 ~ "E !!1 '" , c: 15 < :; ~ c c z ~ "C is '-" ~ "C C ~ ~ 0 o~ ;;; C o~ . C ~ ~ ~ '" ~ >- u c: ~ ~ e !!1 E > 0- c !(!o 0 ~~ 0 ';;5 ~ 0 in :; 0 c: - 0 N C ~ Q. ~~ =c ~ ~ E~ 0 1ii'" o~ ,oct 0 00 "C ." il:>- <:- '" z.~ .~ in -." c...;: 0 0 ~- ~ .~ c: 0 ~ c c: o~ ~;; c c ~ 0 0 c c 0 ." 1:1.!:!! ~ 0~ = .~~ ~ ~ ",0 0 ~ ~ 0 Q)'= 0 Vi.= ~ "'~ ttI .2 "'~ :2'6 ~ :E 0 8 E ~ a; 0<:- .s~ -C::I 0." ~'" ~ 0- ~c 1;'- '" c ~'" =~ 0 o ~ C : 0 ~ ~ 0 u_ C ~ a: a: :;>= OJ ~ 0 0'" <(-:11: ::J C:co >0- :.:ia: 0.. a:u U)w u ~ ..:.loW "t> '60. ~ :;)0:> c [l1[z]0[2J ~~~ D~GJ~rn .5;€ '" (:) ,~I CI> ~ 3 c ".Z C> ~." eie CI> ~e uz -I > :t uc z Zw g .... z . "'.. u ...... ~; CO I"." I < \\ I . ," 5 .. ~ \\ :I ~ ~ I 0 ~ ~ ~ 0- ~~'" ~ ~roQ) ~..::.: ~ ~ a.. a.. g'~ co m OJ c> "C"C=",a..a.. m Egg~Q..c:c: ~ ~ '" 0 in ~ ~€€~ ~.~.~ . ~ '" CIa 0 m';:: iiiiii ~ (/J ~ o.o..ca..;';;Q;JQ;J E ~ <; Q:~"5~~-gijJ t.) ~ 'w"w 0 eva-a.. Q CI: ~ ~ZZ()o..o_ u <0: c> .. ~ oj; ~<D""'o::.O)........ : "- a: ~ci..ci..ci..ci.ci..ci.. . L1J '> " " " ~~ . <0: c: '" ., ...J C> . ...J IV " ;;: ...J ~ . r::" > U' ... ~ T c ~ ~; . > L ~ D. o '" ~ . o . c> .. > > ~ o .1 i~ - " " . " :;~ z o i " "w "'-:c: "", ,..... "'= "';.... o . . . . . ~ 'OItYI03WY1 &-/3 IJ) :.: a: <C c. W t:) <C ..J ..J :;; ;; ~ in . ~ u ~ !11 '> ~ . " . x ~ ~ . Co ~ . .5 0:: . :;; o 0- xxUJ raratD .:0::":':: a.. a.. O!,x.... "- ro .. ('0 m 'O";;;;mQ..c.. EOo~c..~c: ~~~~ ~.~.~ 0'100 m';: in ti) o.c.ca..V;WtD O:~~~~~-g C/lWWOcpc..a.. .xZZUc..O_ C;9"":-CI?'!J'7'7 0. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. "C c: OJ C> OJ ..J ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! " u . . 1< ;0 " '" .. .. . o i u l . ~ ~ ~ > . (; ~s ~ 1: ; > ~. " C" Zw "'<0 C:'" ,..... "'~ 1-> o 'Ctt'f'IC3W Y1 ~.c ~'G; C ~ ~ ~ ~ " j i . c " ~ . '" . '" . > PART THREE Village Five Design Plan x-:.. . '. --::::; ~'.~'" ", . ~ ~ ..' :....'. ~.'. .. ',..:.: ~":;"'::.P' 6'~:~ ~.:.. ..::. " : . '.'." , "-'" .-.~ VILLAGE PARKS - VILLAGE FIVE · Neighborhood Park P-6 Description: This park is designed to be an active recreation park with potential for adjacent corrununity purpose facilities. The park site has a link to tlte village square and will haveo landscape characteristics tltat complement the urban core. The local promenade streets cape character will be maintained at tlte park perimeter witlt linkages to the paseo. . The school site, altltough separated from the park by tlte Paseo, will have tlte outdoor tUrf areas for practice and other sports during non- school activity. "-.. ~A7ed . CI~ ~ "'" ~/'$. ?C~a- "7(r~ . ?//'I6/.;e f';o/11. . , . :( ',. " . , . " /" , :,~'" ~~. ~. .,. ~\ ') ~F ",~.' '7($.. rlW~z::e f~(Ai.- f'/tN</tl6- , r;(~ I'WfM ;r~. 111.54 November 3. 1995 (p-t':) PART THREE Village Five Design Plan h..:... .... ---::;: ~: '. . .~ ...... ~;./..:....:P>.6......--:'; ~":\::..~: ':': ..... . - '::> VILLAGE PARKS - VILLAGE FIVE . Neighborhood Park P-6 Description: This park is designed to be an active recreation park with potential for adjacent community purpose facilities. The park site has a link to the village square and will have landscape characteristics that complement the urban core. The local promenade streetscape character will be maintained at the park perimeter with linkages to the paseo. The school site, although separated from the park by the Paseo, will have the outdoor turf areas for practice and other sports during non- school activity. ~ ') CFf=' '7!11fi ~A7tffd ----- " ~a- 7(f'"P. . , . :( " ?IN~~ 170/11. rlWMe/'fAz:e f~A{... ?1ttV<I1'/6? /. I;(~ /f'CAz,+ /tI<.eA-. 111-54 November 3. 1995 {P-/(p PART THReE - . Vulage Five Design Plan VILLAGE PARKS - VILLAGE FIVE . Neighborhood Park P-7 Description: nus park is designed to provide active recreation amenities intended for use by the nearby multi-family residents of the Village Five core area. The park will have open areas for casual play and activities. nus park is surrounded by the promenade streetscape proposed for the adjacent streets. Location: In the center of the m~t.i-family complex, southwest of the core area.. " /J1 t/q- - FA-/VI/L.-Y / f<e?IPt5NT//ti:- TO V/~ C~ C4'f8~A- />~~~ Ma'/iI.o I"'~. (p - /7 III-55 November 3. 1995 PART THREE Village Five Design Plan VILLAGE PARKS - VILLAGE FIVE . Neighborhood Park P.7 Description: This park is designed to provide active recreation amenities intended for use by the nearby multi-family residents of the Village Five core area. The park will have open areas for casual play and activities. This park is surrounded by the promenade streetscape proposed for the adjacent streets. Location: In the center of the multi-family complex, southwest of the core area. I /VI //"1- rA-/11/t-Y / Pe5/P~NT/hl- TO 1/1(AA:JGe C~ O~~.4 r,&:/M~~ Ma/I/VO I"~. r MfJt.--71-FhJ1lC,y ~ ~?eNT7/ft- . "-7 &- tf' III-55 November 3. 1995 /I!~~~ ~CI[$y~S PART THREE Village} .,Je Design PLan VILLAGE PARKS - VILLAGE FIVE . Village Square P-8 Description: The Village Five Core area park is designated a town square in the Otay Ranch Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan. The town square concept is emphasized by locating retail and commercial functions at the edges. The village core identity and form are based on a traditional town square character with village- serving retail around a village green. A transit station is proposed adjacent to the town square. Introduction offormal tree planting and pedestrian walks will reinforce the urban town square concept. Location: The south side of the Village Core Street is surrounded on two sides by the commercial area. CiI %;;~~ts. !>A5a? t-tNk. 7T!..l'IlWb/I- ~~OU fi(~tWG$ ~.qt1 /JU(H"/- f7fm I f...?' III-56 November 3.1995 ~-Ior. PART THREE Village Five Design Plan VILLAGE PARKS - VILLAGE FIVE . Village Square P-8 Description: The Village Five Core area park is designated a town square in the Otay Ranch Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan. The town square concept is emphasized by locating retail and commercial fimctions at the edges. The village core identity and form are based on a traditional town square character with village- serving retail around a village green. A transit station is proposed adjacent to the town square. Introduction of formal tree planting and pedestrian walks will reinforce the urban town square concept. Location: The south side of the Village Core Street is surrounded on two sides by the commercial area. . c;;;; ~~. ,PASGiJ ~ i!!./'IetfWt - fia'{7'1'O005 \, W~2f~ ~f/Wfyf7Zt(S fiftl11ZN,I'J)E? fl(q'Y/ mwt7/- f7'fm/~ III-56 November 3. 1995 . . . . . .?~ ~6 . . &-2D . r."", '- """ --~ ~ > ~ ~ :::: C - ...... i:" ~ ~ Q "- C . . ~ ~ " . u u . 0_ 0 . ;;; 1ii . ~ . ~ C '" ~ "-~ "-- . ~ . ~ C C ,,~ ,,~ "- ~ 0- o (l) .- ~ . Co( o. '" 0 ~ -N~ro U) ~>- ~ - E 10 ~ E ~o( 0 5~~~ 0. ...J . "I:: ~ <;; > I. 0 ...J 0; =E =~ !!1 5 ::3_ :;:J"iti . ~~ ~o_ .... C Q <( "@ ~ '!:"- '!:E "@ - a.m- 5: '" = E :;: C _.!'1 '!: "@ '" ~~~o<li '!: W =.!! CD.~ ~ C ) 0 ~ ._c ~ -'" -= "@ "EI/'JJ::.(/J.Q .'-' C . .. . C ..~ C . (ij(ij . Z E N .giiS .~::! <;; u ~Q;~ Q)~ i : . c ~ 3 QI ~ Ole: 0 <( ~ .- .OJ E . >n; '0- ttlo C . .... ;;; o..!!!. 0.- "- .- I/'J ..::.: u . U) II) ;::: c: ~ ." ~ -(i;ttI:,::u '" . UJ c B 0 [] W EJDJ <i:_:l:ID~ ~ .co (,) ., .. ~ Q)'C a, . z C> LU 'C E":; 't:I . UJ ., t;"iij III o~ " z!!:!€ o.a > ,~ U. ...J " . <.~~, I; i\~ gj) JI . , . , . o ~ ~ i\... '!1 . i ~ ~ - - LW ...:..... c.::: ~ . ~ ,.....J .,;f-.' ~.,:".' (:: . '!1 . 'OtfYIC3W>:' ~ S 9'~ ;$ ~ > ~ ~ ~ o~ o o:i- C "- '" " . . ~ r . u u ~ t ;;; c_ c . ;; ~ ,,~ " u ! ~ "-" "-- c c '" "'~ "'~ " ~ " c C "- ~ c. " z " c"" c " c 011) .- " en E ",.. " ~ "0 'e .~ - N~ (a - oJ ~"" c 5~~': - j!! ""= " 1ii 0.. oJ =E ~~ <; > " ~~ '" >- ~ ,,- ~ ~ 8..= II) to ;;; ~E ;;; ,,- . c ;: ~ c ~ " ~s ~ ;;; '" ~~~o~ '" w ,,- $;E ~ c C " " ego " ~ ;;; " 'E fJ)~ :.2 .. E co .~Ci5 .g::o c cui; " Z 1ii u 1'3'Q)3;Q)"-= " g c ~ . >- II) CI't) ~ " ,,- ,,- :E " .g; <<15 0 >- :> c..!!. c..!!. "- S:ii en "0 "in cn=~ u " w B 0 IT] W Q[5]~ ='iij co:.:; (J '" (J c c(=~ ~ CII ..C: 0), " z CI ~~~~.g W CII OU'lIDO"'5 u. oJ z~: Q.(,J > ,J I- e ~ . z o i u z . . 5 ~ : ~ . . . ~ !1 > . \ 0 \2 .. :I ~ o :z: ;';''; z'" "'co c:< ...... <.... ...; o "QI:I'I101"''''' ~ o . <> :E ,0 " o . ~ . '" . ~ ,~ f- a. w U Z o U " z i= :x: " ::; 'S" o ",0 c'" "';: c .co "'~ =c: -0 ~U =.c -0. "'~ C'" ",:. Q) .- 0- ~ ..... w_ - ~ ;; " C - 0 Or;; =-(,1) g~Q, ~'-. ~ c-gu -N- ~~$ ""c:= ~ 0) VI <U5C; di ,,-- CO_ n;! iJ <:: _o~ ~ - E .12 ~ :J 3: 015 13'~ E c.c "0 0'" c c::=co -"'0 ~- '" .-=:C:CO cw c " '" E ~.- ",. ~~.€ u> ~ 1D ~ in m N m a: " '" !11 :> ~ '" c m <5 : o a. ~ o .co. 'i~ oU >- ":::::>> 00 ~! c m WOo ~~ "'''' ~~ >> '" m ~ ~ ;;; " .. u 'c ~ u <f) 1D ~ in o E ~- .co m .... .- "0 .c ~ g::; om "'''' m ~ .'i ~ " U ~ "0 o C ~ E e a. ;,; ;;: ~ c ~ "0 o~ ~ a: o " o c ~ E o a: o ~ - m a. .,; -1:. m 0 a...~ u ~ 0 ....;1.1. -~ co:; ~ c :a E a!E -0 ~u =r.ti .!:5!o u 0 ~" o.u UJUJ ~ ,..-, ...:... '""=.... ~ ~ ~ "C c: '" C1 '" ...J ~ ~ 1 o I 0 > ,10 c o a. c '" . o o o '" o > o : - . . ~ . . ; :2 . S .....::::"'''' "0 .,; > ~ ~ ~ ~ "O~(/'I 0;- ;; ~ "" . c,~ - 0. . ~ . ~ ~ . ro iJ C '" -0 <' a...~ ~: . '0 w~ E c "0 ~ . ~ u . ~ ~ :;; :Q ~ =' 0 .co. ~ . ~ '" ",0 "0 . " ...;U,. cOO c :i: 015 o~'" <' ~ c , ;;; ;; , ~ . . >- -=c c~ .!:.~ E ;; "0 rn,~ ~ .co o. U:c" ~ ~ ~ .u . o~ . c f- 0>>- --(/'I ~ en >- is . - ~ =c ~ en c en .;:: >. ~ E 0. a. - ~ ~.c " a:=C!C ~ o~ u a: > w ~u ~2~ ~ . ~1 "OE c U ~ . (5 -~. N ~ E . . 20 =.c >-_ 0> ~ .- cn; ~u 0> Z .0. .siu .~ c ~ il: " .c ~ "0 "0 O>~ C UJ c <: f-:S UJo. ~ ~ =vi 0 ~~Q) ~ 0> C C . eo> E ~'V; . u .c . . . . . 0 .!!1C5 U :~~ ';:: ~ ~ 0> OE g::; 0>0> E E . uo . Q)OIiii g~E ~ . ~~ 0 0 ~ 11.-5 0 " ..... ~u;n; '> u ~ ~ 55 0: 0: ~ UJ_ u> , '" oo~ 0. "'''' Z ~ . 1= I: W ~ ~ ~EJ8~ ~ ~~EJ '" J: '" ~ (:J '" '" ~ ...J > ~ r ~ u . . ::: t;<.:. Z Zw ~ z "'0 . 0:" u , I )- ~ 'I 41(:: 0-", J!(' 0 : : J 0 ~ ~ Ii! ~ . ~ > . :; UJZ >0( _...J u...~ UJ~ 0;;; <...J ...J< dE >", u Z o u '" co: o u ~, GN -='4 \."', I h-==-.:- 11 ~ '~, "'-" ..\. I( ~ .>".~ ..... 111 ~~1'~~~~~ / I; r ! ' //~ 11! ) 't II v 1;) i ,# (I i(' (, : \ \ Iii / i \ ,.. II / ! i~.~!...,~~~ II (~!i /' \ \ - :~) iI..- I II ! . ~-----~ ~ ; iJ~===-=----____:-.;:.. ,\ \~ ~ \D \0 ~~OO:::::;'.-;. . \~'~ . " y' .'({ I, .: \_0') ." '".... )0 ' '. .' ~ , I !i!". o'::::::::~_.,-'~iIi' ~.. ~!! ~, .-. ~o 9; Ii "!\ - ,- ~, ; ~:i: ~ - ~ ; ~ z w W Q: :r l- I- Q: <( 0.. -- to - 2..-~ c.:.JZ >-< _..J . c.. ~UJ t.Ui- 0<;; <..J ...J< ...J::J -E >UJ u z o u UJ '" o u ::- ~i .~ '" " ~ GS~", 41: --;'1 ~"~"'.~ '~~ tn ~~~. .~ \, '/ \ ~ M ::""'~~. ~I~'" } I ~ ~ . ~~ I "''' ~ , ;If! J !\! !I I/i ~ /"/, , If II' · , II , I. Iii j. -, ! U', iffsl ( " -/ . '-T. ~ ~j---. ....~ "I J ." .;1 I ( ~ . . ~'( / ! 'j , , ~ L \------.... \j, ~~~~-v.;~ I ~\ \ \ ~ M~( '. J 0 ~. J L ~ I.i~ ~ ~ -~"1 ~ ~"'~ z . :~12 ~~~ w ~ ~~.. !ii~!c ~~ ~~tj g~U) ~ ~~~ -~5 ~~.... :;gj ~ "- " :'1: ~ w w a:: I .... .... a:: <( c. 0-~ / a: Wf- ~~ ~a: f- :;;:!Q f-Q o ; . ~--....... . . -. c~ .~~ . I' f,O i ~~ ~l I"e "',n"J I,D. \ . d6i;iEt~ I i~f1I!1 \. w '~.~\ ~gl Ul \. ~ ",,'; :~!f ): ~ 'I 2V'~~---! ~' _ l" I '\ I I ., ,~~?~'~ ~\ I :tn! '. ~~(].. ~/ 'f --- '3fY ",. {p- '--7 ---l r~ 1,1 Lt. ~ ~ ~ , __"', z '- ., ..--' 'l. 'zW r<2' " It---~ < 'J < ~ )-O::<d _wo: -~~ ~"'''' 0::6 -<: "'" ""'..~., '\ .?>~ 9>1;' /' ,/ ! ' , -~ .~ .:; . ~ffi ~~ o~ , ~~ (p- 2f PART THREE Village Five Design Plan CONCEPTUAL TOWN SQUARE PLAN Uw." !?um.:h 111.80 November 3, 1995 &- :2..1 PART THREE. Village Five Design Plall CONCEPTUAL TOWN SQUARE PLAN ~ --- .. . Ulu.\ HuHf.:" 1\1.80 Novemt-er J '995 0-~D PART THREE . Provide CPF, commercial disnict and neighborhood park synergy. . Reserve light rail transit ROWand station site. . Provide the "paseo" and other non-vehicular circulation connections to Secondary Area(s). . Utilize formal landscape and hardscape schemes in the design for the Town Square commercial area. 2. Design Districts The Village Core is divided into three design "districts" based on the proposed land uses and the level of pedestrian orientation. The most intense pedestrian orientation occurs at the commercial core or "Town Square" and decreases generally with distance from that focus area. A second district includes the park site/pasco terminus, multi-family residential and CPF sites immediately adjacent to the commercial district and along the Village Entry Street. The third district includes the remaining parcels within the Village Core which are primarily sin.gle-family and multi-family residential,...and a park and cpr sites. B. Design Features This section highlights important features of the Village Core Concept Plan and provides guidelines by design district in four design areas: building/siting, pedestrian/vehicle/transit access, urban character (landscape and/or hardscape), and lighting/signing/street furnishings. 1. Commercial Coren-own Square District The guidelines set forth in this section relate primarily to the "Town Square" pedestrian oriented plaza/commercial area which fronts on Parcels C-3 BdJ and C4. In applying these guidelines, it should remembered that each of these parcels fo-~/ Village Five Design Plan %S~ · Pft/Tf/Cf . . oar--v1~CC(l.l3./ \ PUll! Sd(tI('rf--e . P6Tfior 011f{ :7Tteer P~cr Otay Ranch 111-81 MII",h .111. 7.CJ.CJR tjo...on,bor J, 1 ~~5 PART THREE . Within building groups, architectural and accent lighting should be indirect and subtle. Increased lighting levels should highlight pedestrian areas to clearly defme the pedestrian path. Service area lighting should be contained within the service area boundaries/enclosure. The actual light bulb for service area lighting should not be visible from adj acent properties. . A Town Square Design Program should be formulated to establish specific design parameters for all signage, theme lighting, and street furnishings within the town square commercial area. Signs and fixtures in this district should be located and scaled for a pedestrian district. Signage should inform and direct but not dominate the visual character of the area. 2. Entry Street District This district relates primarily to the Park, CPF and multi-family residential parcels found near the plaza commercial district and fronting on the Village Entry Street. Although not a part of the shopping street their visually prominent locations, proximity and potential roles in providing access to the commercial area set them apart from the other parcels in the Core. Because these parcels front on the most highly trafficked street in the village, the aesthetics and building design on these sites will generally be more important than pedestrian orientation. Bui1ding DesigJI/Siting . Village landmark buildings should be sited in visually prominent locations along the Village Entry Street (parcels CPF-4,& CPF-5, & CPF 6). A landmark structure should be similarly sited in the park (P-6) across from the Town Square!Village Entry Street intersection. &-32- Village Five Design Plan Otay Ranch 111-85 [tAsrch .1Q 1.9.98 November 3, 1995 PART THREE Response: Village Five meets the park standards through the provision of pedestrian parks, neighborhood parks and a community park located outside of the village per GDP policy. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village Five: Setbacks and landscaping shall be provided along Telegraph Canyon Road/Poggi Canyon in keeping with the open space scenic corridor guidelines which will be developed in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. Response: Setbacks are provided on Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway East o.AI1gc A~uuc (Poggi Canyon) varying from 100 feet to 700 feet. Development of the corridors will be consistent with the concepts in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. The proposed underground water storage facility on the village's eastern edge may include open space/recreation uses on its surface, designed to include access from the village. Response: Access is provided to the water storage facilities in the event future recreation nses are deemed to be feasible. Other Village Five Policies: A visual analysis with photo simulations shllll be performed at the SPA level to assess the visual impacts of development adjacent to Poggi Canyon and Telegraph Canyon Road. Visual analysis requirements will be defined in the Overall Ranch Design Plan. Response: A visual analysis at key points along the Telegraph Canyon and Poggi Canyon corridors is included in the SPA One Environmental Impact Report. Right-of-way for a transit line shall be reserved at the SPA level and irrevocably offered for dedication at the Tentative Map level. 4,-33 Village Five Design Plan Otay Ranch 111-91 Marr.h .1{J, 1.9.98 November 3, 1 ~~5 .. c. .:: ~ '-:i: .. '" en.. ,!:'" :::< ;>01) .: c: c: '" s:: "j ~I ~I .-' ~ ,; ::::: ~ t:: " "" oS - :::: w w e:: :I: l- I- e:: < 0.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ; ~ ~ . o . ~ y . ~: ~3 ~> tp-3Y '" Co ... ~ ;.; :;, '" " 01>", - ... ""'< :::~ ;>- :: '2 :: ;; :.. uJ ~ :I: 1-. 1-' a:: <! a.. " ( ---{) ~ ..., L ~ . '. ~"'i~~ -:i ;:. -' ~ w- 3<)' PART THREE PLANNING AREA "J" Village Five Design Plan PLANNING AREA DESIGN SUMMARY SHEET Planning Area Description: Allowable Uses!Mix: SITE DESIGN ISSUES Special Criteria: Building/Siting: Pedestrian Access: Vehicle Access: Parking: Edges: Signing: Otay Ranch 111-102 March 30, 19.Q8 November 3, 19~5 Parcels &2LR-23, & R-24, R-25, R-26 & R-27 Village Five Secondary Area SF Residentia1lPC District SF3 None Adjacent lots and buildings should be oriented toward park site P-9. Pedestrian edges along Promenade Streets. Trail connections to Telegraph Canyon Road at northern terminus of the Promenade Streets. Trail connection to Telegraph Canyon Road at the northern terminus of the pedestrian Paseo. Pedestrian Paseo between parcels R-24~ and R-27, R 23 and R-26~ and R-25 (planning area "K'~i 1ink1: Trail cOlll1cction with ill park P-9...E.=D- and school S-2. Pasco along the southe.m edge ofparcc1 R-27. None None Scenic edge along Telegraph Canyon Road. Transition edge to Ranch Theme Street landscaping on the western edge. Transition edge to R-464 along southwestern edge of parcel R-22. Transition edge to S-2 along southeastern edge of parcel R-24~ None (p - 3~ PART THREE Five Design Plall Village I L " ~ TELEGRAPH I _ ,_ ~O~"- I~ o ct: ~L.. CANYON ROAD "------,.J ( . ----- ..~ ' .~"".'.'--- ,. / ~ ~ ., . . . . . ~lliJ! - ~ ":""~' ; o. i!~!!!~ UJ ..,."",~. :z ~":':':~ ::51 ' .;.:....; I W,::; - j:,;tJI / "'"'{.C ;' .l~f it ,! ! ~.,'~.: . !%itittJitt~~.~ P-9 . . . I[ ....... . - I[ ...... . . ....... Ie . . . . . . . . . . . . .... " Ie 5-2 _. &- 37 Olay Ranch 111-103 3 1995 November , . . . ... if ~ =L V/~ j . .......-- .............~~ . .[ ~ ~ if : ~ P.9.'. P-9.2j' -.:J · .~ . Q. iN niL :~~'i'; . I, : a :.\\\,. · ~ " ;;\\\~ . , , ~~. i I ~ ~ t ~~l~lll~ 00:.:,:" . .........~...........~:-"':'I . :::::::::~:::::f:f:J!:!!f!}f:f:f:i:i:f:::::::::J::~:?;;:;;.;.:.;.;.......... ,t: . '" .....;.;.;.;.:.::::;:::::::::;:;:::::;::: · ..::f::::::;:::::::::*T:::::::::::......... o-;o;a' t' ~ .. ........;.:.:.;.:.;:.;.:.:.;;;;.;.:.;;.;.;.:;;;.;.;.;;;!.;.;.:.;....;.:.;.;..;.;... .. .....-.".~~~;~<<<<<<<<<~~~~~~:~~ · 5-2 PART THREE ~l II" . . I : Village Five Design Plan Planning Area "J" -..-J L.. '0 ... TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD .. " "- .. r ~ ~ .. .. . . . - " .. .. I 0-3<; Olay Ranch 111-103 November 3. 1995 PART THREE Pl-ANN1NGARFA "K" Village Five Design Plan PlANNING A RF.A DF.SIGN SUMMARY SHF.F.T Planning Area De.~cription: ~llowahle U.~e.ro/Mix: SlTF DRWGN lSSUF.fO Special Criteria: Building/Siting: Ped'.mian Acce.~.~: Vehicl, Acce....~: Parking: F.dge~: ~. . . lJP"Ifg: Otoy Ranch 111-104 Mllrr.h .10 t.9.9R No,oGrnber J. 19~5 Parcel~ R-25. R-26. & R-27 Village Five Secondary Area SF Re~idential/PC District SF3 Nim.J!. Adjacent lot~ and buildi1lg.~ should be oriented toward park site P-9 Pede~trian edge~ along Promenade Street~. Trail connections to Telf!gT'aph Canyon Road at northern terminu~ of the Promenade Streets. Trail connection to Telegraph Canyon Road at the northern terminu~ of the pede~trian Pa~eo. Pa~eo between parcel~ R-24 (planning area ':1") (lnd R-27. R-26 and R-25 link Trail connection with park P-9 and school S-2. Pa~eo along the sOllthem edge of parcel R-27. NiJllJ!. Nim.J!. Scenic edge along Telp.graph Canyon Road. Nfl/lE. ~-~O; P ART THREE Village Five Design plan ~ L.. -------\ '~' T~LEGRAPH:. "0 4:.' o a:: CAN ) L. YON RO ,. AD ---- __ "0C ~~ I~ .4l ,<1:: - o. UJ 2 5-2 &;_t(D ~~ Otay ROMCh 111-105 November 3. \990 1'.0'2 61'3 '2'23 51136 10,:36 1\JN-1l-1'3eie1 o d rla""\"!:! sri C\"tl \..a" . D sign plan village ftVe e uK" P\aOO\oQ ",-rea pP-Rll\'\RE.E. ~. JL \E\..E:~AAPH CA~YON 'ROAD .. /" ..J'L ,. - r;" c5~ . 1:\ ... .. .. _..Jtl .. .\ .. ..- \t '. J". .. .. tL ~t.....~~.....~!~..~:( '.,\ J.,~ _,. \L -.r ,. .. ..~r\ ...~, in, n'\ D U :"- : '.r.!... o 0 ....... . .............. t. .'-- Ifr ,.- .. .. "'\ '\".9.,~ (>.9.2 . . ~.,. . \ I .'tC" .. .,1. ~ , ) ) ) . . ) ~ ~ . .. ,.- ..- ... u_ ---------.-------------- (p-- <ff OIIlY /!.D"ch 1I\'.1~ 3 ,996 ~ NO"""'" . ioil'\\.. 1'.0.. PART THREE Village Five Design Plan PLANNING AREA "LK" PLANNING AREA DESIGN SUMMARY SHEET Planning Area Description: Parcels R-31, R-32, R-33, R-34, R-35, R-36, R-37 & R-38 Village Five Secondary Area Allowable Uses!Mix: SF Residentia1/PC District SF3 SITE DESIGN ISSUES Special Criteria: None Building/Siting: Adj acent lots and buildings in parcel R 31 and R-35 &3D should be oriented toward park site P-IO. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian edges along Promenade Street and Secondary Village Entry Streets. Trail connection to Telegraph Canyon Road at northern terminus of the Promenade Street. Vehicle Access: None Parking: None Edges: Scenic edge along Telegraph Canyon Road. Transition edge to EastLake along the eastern edge of parcel R-36&lZ. Transition edge to Otay Water District along southern edges of parcels R-31 and R 35. Signing: None Otay Ranch 111-106 Ms,,,h .1Q 1.998 t4ovamba, 3, 1 ~~5 0-Cf2- PART THRE:r:: Village Five Design Plan Planning Area ilL" ST. CLAIRE DRIVE J l CANYON.. ROAD OTAY WATER DISTRICT OTAY WATER DISTRICT &- r9 Otay Ranch 11/-107 MR""J.?~ 1 09Jl Ne".!!.'hb~1 J, 1995 PART THREE Village Five Design Plan PLANNING AREA ttMI,tt PLANNING AREA DESIGN SUMMARY SHEET Planning Area Description: Parcels R-46 4 & CPF-4 Village Five Core Area Allowable UseslMix: Multi-Family ResidentiallCommunity Purpose FacilitylPC District RM2/CPF SITE DESIGN ISSUES Special Criteria: This planning area includes a Village Landmark building site at the southwest comer of CPF-4. Building/Siting: Buildings in parcel R-464 should be located along and fronted on the Promenade Street. Other primary building edge is along the southwestern edge. Primary building edge for the CPF site is along the Village Entry Street. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian edges along Promenade Street and Village Entry Street. Pedestrian Paseo along the southeastern edge of CPF-4. Vehicle Access: Vehicle access should be limited along the Promenade Street. Parking: Parking should be in the central portion of the multi-family site and behind the community purpose building, away from pedestrian edges. Edges: Transition edge to Ranch Theme Street landscaping on the northwest edge of parcel R- 464. Transition edge to single family parcel to the north of parcel R-464. Transition edge to Village Entry landscaping along the southwestern edge of parcel R-464. Transition edge to S-2 along the northeastern edge of CPF Parcel. Signing: Village core sign program. Otay Ranch 111-108 March .1Q 19.</8 Novemb~r 3, 1 ~~S (p - 'i-y PART THREE Village Five Design Plan ../' ~ ~". ~~ .$' ..J" ." .J L ) S~2 P-6 P-8 ~ ~-<fC;- ::::" 111-109 MII,ch .1f1, 1.9.98 Hov_be, J, 1995 PART THREE Village Five Design Plan Planning Area "M" 5-2 .. .... .. . . . '. . . & - t.f~ Otay RDnch 111-109 M",ch .1n. 1.9.98 Novoft,bor J, 1 :J:J5 PART THREE Village Five Design Plan PLANNING AREA "N" PLANNING AREA DESIGN SUMMARY SHEET Planning Area Description: Parcel R-28, R-29 & R-30 (& portion of &J1)Village Five Core Area Allowable UseslMix: SF Residential!PC District SF4 SITE DESIGN ISSUES Special Criteria: None Building/Siting: Lots and buildings across from P-ll should be oriented toward the park. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian edges along Promenade Street. Vehicle Access: None Parking: None Edges: Scenic edge along East Orange Avenue. Transition edge to Village Entry landscaping. Transition edge to multi-family along the southeastern edge of parcel R-30. Transition edge to Otay Water District along a portion of the eastern and northeastern edges of parcel R- 30. Signing: None Otay Ranch 111-110 MR',..h 31]. 1998/jovember 3, 1 :J:J5 &- y. 7 PART THREE PLANNING AREA "0" Village Five Design Plan PLANNING AREA DESIGN SUMMARY SHEET Planning Area Description: Allowable UseslMix: SITE DESIGN ISSUES Special Criteria: Building/Siting: Pedestrian Access: Vehicle Access: Parking: Edges: Signing: Oray Ranch 111-112 MRrch .1n 1.9.9R NovGmbu J, 1:J:JS Parcel R-39 Village Five Core Area Multi Family ResidentiallPC District RMI None Lots and buildings across fww P-ll should bc oriented toward the park if fcasiblc....Th12e de1ermined during review process. Pedestrian edges along Promenade Street. None None Scenic edge along East Orange Avenue. Transition edge to Village Entry landscaping. Transition edge to multi-family along the southeastern edge of parcel R-30, Transition edge to Otay Water District along a portion of the caste.w and northeastern edges of parcel R-3e~. None & - cf8 PART THREE Village Five Design Plan PLANNING AREA "EM" PLANNING AREA DESIGN SUMMARY SHEET Planning Area Description: Parcel CPF-.2'i' Village Five Core Area Allowable UseslMix: Community Purpose Facility/PC District CPF SITE DESIGN ISSUES Special Criteria: This planning area includes a Village Landmark building site at the southern comer of CPF-.5:'i'. Building/Siting: Buildings should be located along and fronted on the Village Entry Street. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian edges along Promenade Street and Village Entry Street. Vehicle Access: Vehicle access should be limited along the Promenade Street. Shared parking potential with park P-6. if grade~ permit. Parking: Parking should be behind the community purpose building, away from pedestrian edges. Shared parking potential with park P-6.Jf grade~ permit. Edges: Transition edge of Park P-6 along the northern edges. Signing: Village core sign program. Otay Ranch 111-114 M",,,h 3Q, 1.9.98 November:3, 1 :J:J5 & - cf~ PART THREE Village Five Desigll Plall P-6 "'\ &-1)0 Otay Ranch 111-115 Msrch 30 1.998 t/ovember 3. 1 :J:J5 PART THREE Village Five Design Plan Planning Area "P" . ~~ ~,,!j!\\~\III!jjg!:/ .... ,,~:igjmiilil!\ji::. .::gi~jll!iif:!:' / " "!ji!~!ID!!1i;:. ......... " i........... ,dHHj!ir / [~]" "!jmm!:.. ,<j....... / . ...... .:::!m!:' ':'. .::::::. . . . CPF-5 . . h- c;( Otay lIJmch 111-115 Mar"h .10, 1.9.9R Novon,bor 3. 1 ~~5 PART THREE Village Five Design Plan PLANNING AREA "QP" PLANNING AREA DESIGN SUMMARY SHEET Planning Area Description: Parcels R-e;--R-43 & cpr 6 Village Five Core Area Allowable Uses!Mix: Multi-Family ResidentiallCoiilliiunity Puq)ose Facility/PC Districts RM2fGPF SITE DESIGN ISSUES Special Criteria: This planning area ineludes a Village Landiilark building site at the sOUthWCSKlll edge of the CPf-6. F.levation detailing of huildings at entries should he enhanced. Building/Siting: Buildings in parcels R 42 and R-43 should be located along and fronted on the Promenade Street, especially on the parks p,. -Hmd P-8 edges to the southeast. Other priwary building edge in pareel R-42 is along the slope above La Media Road and tIliuing the eM~cr above the Village Entry. Other primary building edge in pareel R-43 is along the Village Entry Street. ITIDiary building edge for the CpF parcel is the southwestclll edge facing onto park 1'-7. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access along Promenade Streets and Village Entry Street. Pasco eonncction bctwccii parcel R-42 and R-43 leading creating pcdcsu;an t:aillinkage along East Orange A"amc. Vehicle Access: Vehiele access should be limited to Promenade Streets. Parking: Parking should be in the not in the central portion of the site, away from pedestrian edges and Raneh Theme Street, should he attractively designed and screened. Parking for the CPF parcel should bc be-hind the Co=unity pllil'ose building. Edges: Transition edge to Ranch Theme Street landscaping on the western edgc of parcel R-42. Tran~ition edge to single-family development on parcel R-42 to the southwest. Transition cdge to "Town Square" parcel along the northcast':'lll edge of CPF-6 pared. Signing: Village core sign program. Otay Ranch 111-116 fo- <;''2.... /lAamh .1Q 1998 November J. 1335 PART THREI:: Village Five Design Plan v r~ ( Oray Ranch ill-l17 November 3, 1995 PART THREE Village ~<ive Design Plan v Planning Area "Q" / , , ') .' '. : 8 , , , ~ ~.. ~ :~ ~ .J"' / o - S-f Olay Ranch 111.117 t';Iovember 3, 1995 PART THREE PLANNING AREA "R(1" Village Five Design Plan PLANNING AREA DESIGN SUMMARY SHEET Planning Area Description: Allowable UseslMix: SITE DESIGN ISSUES Special Criteria: Building/Siting: Pedestrian Access: Vehicle Access: Parking: Edges: Otay Ranch 111-118 /lARrr.h 3Q 19.QR Novembor J, 1335 Parcels C-3~ & BdJ.€-4 Village Five Core Area COiillliercial - Mixed UselPC Districts CIRM2 This planning area defIDes two sides of the "Town Square" and will be the focal point for the Village Core. The planned transit station is located in the Village Entry Street median adjacent to the "Town Square" parcel P-8. Good exposure and pedestrian connections to the transit station, through the park parcel should be provided. Pede~trian connection from park P-7 thrnugh R-44 multi-family to tnwn .~quare area should he nrovided. . Building fronts should be oriented toward the square with a well articulated, pedestrian friendly sidewalk experience. The rear of the buildings should provide secondary access to the parking areas. Sidewalk along "Town Square" is the primary building edge. Central pede~trian path and promenade street are primnry huilding edge~ for multi-family area. Strong pedestrian edge along "Town Square" perimeter. Strong pedestrian access should be provided across Village Entry Street to median transit station and on to parklpaseo pedestrian path. AIm through multi-family area from park P-7 and inter-village cnnnectinn~ to the south. Vehic1e access should be to the rear of the buildings and separated from pedestrian oriented "Town Square". Parking should be in the rear, of the mixed-'J.~e area and central t1ren~ ofmlllti-family development, separated by the buildings from pedestrian oriented "Town Square" mId promenade ~ Transition edge along the southwest edge of parcel RdJ.€-4 to the park P-7,.,ulti-fau...i1y rcsidcutial PAl'e.e.1 R-38. Transition &-5S- PART THREE Village Five Design Plan edges a1s.a along the puhlic pedestrian way hisecting the multi- family project southwest edge of parcel C-3 to CPf-6 parcel and along the southeast edgc of pare.el C-~ to CPF-7. Signing: "Town Square" design program for signs, lighting and street furnishings. to - 5"0 Otay Ranch 111-119 /lAar,..h .111. 1!I.qR No...ember J, 13:J5 PART THREE Village Five Design Plait . ~ ~5"7 /lAarr.h ,1Q Otay Ranch 111-120 I.Q,QR N""~ember J. 1395 PART THREE Village Five Design Plan ~ '. Planning Area "R" : \ P-7 , '. -- " . . . 9 &-5~ Otay Ranch 111-120 /lAarch 3Q 1.9.98 tjovemb&r J, 1335 PART THREE PLANNING AREA "S" Village Five Design Plan PLANNING AREA DESIGN SUMMARY SHEET Planning Area Description: Allowable UseslMix: SITE DESIGN ISSUES Special Criteria: Building/Siting: Pedestrian Access: Vehicle Access: Parking: Edges: Parcels R-4R & R-423 Village Five Core Area Single-family attached and detached Multi- F~ily Resid~utia1lPC Districts ~ RM1 Pede~trian trail connection from park P-7 through the planning area tn connect with Olympic Parkway cros,~iTll to Village Six to the S01J1h None. Building.\: should be located along and facing on the Promenade Streets, especially along the park P.7 edge. The othw }lIiiliaty building edge is along the southwest eM,~w of the parce.ls. Pedestrian edge along Promenade Streets. Pedestrian trail connection between Dark P-7 . Pa.rce.1s R U and southern edge of R-4/ R-43 leading to OlYTl1[lic Parkway cro.~siTll East Ot.!.iJ.gc AVUIIle. along the slope to the south, below the development site. Street inter.vection~Vchic1c access should be limited along Promenade Street and possibly located neargiOUpcd at parcel boundaries. NfJlJ2. Patking should be in the crot.14l pc;d';on of the lhulti-faillily sites, away froill the pcdcsl..;an edges. Scenic edges along Olympic Parkway and l,a Media Road East Orange A VCJlue. Transition edger to 11Iulti-family re~idential Raue.h Th.......c Sl..calaudscaping on hoth side~ of the planning 0J:eIJ. the wcste.n.l edge of parcel R ~2. 10 -5'1 Otay /Ionch 111-121 March ,111. 1.998 November J, 1935 PART THREE Village Five Design Plan Signing: Village core sign program. Otay Ranch ~ - bV 111-122 /lAarr.h ,1Q 1.998 Noven,ber J, 1995 . PART THREE ::! & :E. { If Village Five Design Plan 'V' ............... .- - EAST ~..- ___,. ~\'ENUE 'ORAN~ ~ 10- 0( Olay Ranch 111-123 November 3, 1995 Planning Area "s" ~~~, . ':~mi!i!!i!!ii:. ?/.. " '::::::::. . ':ii1!i~ii1ii:. .. ':::::;::. .. \.~:ii:~..., .. .. . ., . .,' .. : . . . :~ P-7! ",,>> .. . . . .. .. . ....~ . .... ... ~.............~~~ .. - v r..... · i f111111~1 . ~...... ~ I A'~~'~~ f l' . PART THREE / .' : : Q a., Q:; ~ s .~ .:): : ---! .. I ("- -.. &- fo "L hi/age Five Design Pfan w " .. .. KWAY LYMPIC PAR , , _ o .. .. ()/ay Ranch 111.123 Nov.",o., 3, t 995 PART THREE Village Five Design Plan PLANNING AREA "m" PLANNING AREA DESIGN SUMMARY SHEET Planning Area Description: Parcels R-40, R-41 & CPv-7 Village Five Core Area Allowable UseslMix: Multi-Family ResidentiallCou.llliunity PIli I'ose raeility/PC Districts RM2fGPF SITE DESIGN ISSUES Special Criteria: This planning are.a includes a Village Landmark Duilding site in pared CPF-7 along the. Village BrlLj Succ'"o.None Building/Siting: Buildingr should be located along and facing on-the Promenade Streets, especially in parecl R-38 overlooking the park P-7. The pr~Al'Y b.rilding edge. for the cpr parcel is along the Village Ent>.j Sb.~l. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian edge along Promenade Streets and the Village Entry Street. I'cdcst.riau t..w eonnce.tion in the southeast COu~.;:r of parecl R-39 leading to Village Pathway pcdcsu;auiea..t oVw I'ass to Village. Six, below the de.vclopilltut site. Vehicle Access: Vehicle access should be limited along Promenade Street and possibly grouped at parcel boundaries. V chicle access to thc CPF pa.'Ccl should be liruited along thc Village DrlLj Su,". Parking: Parking should be in the central portion of the multi-family site.s, and behind thc eC'llfuuunity pu. }A'se building, away from the pedestrian edges. Edges: Scenic edge along Olympic Parkway East Orange Avwue. Transition edge to Village Entry Street landscaping on the eastern edge of pared ft-3? Transition edge to ,~ingle-family re.~idpntial to the we.~t in cpr parcel to "ToW!!. Square" CGuuu.;..cial pAl'e.d along the notthwest edge and the illulti- fAiliily ft-38 parcel along the south'"}", edge. Signing: Village core sign program. Otay Ranch 111-124 /lAarr.h .1Q, 1.9.q8 Novambor J, 1335 & - to) Village Five Design plan PART THREE - " -,., " - EAST ORANGE AVENUE & --& <f Qtay Ranch 111-125 M~,r.h 'In 1QQ8No.-t...1h61 J" '",39& PART THREE Village Five Design Plan Planning Area "T" .. .~. ~ .. U';- ... ~ ..~ ~" ...:~.. ~o~ .. ".. '11> .., \~ .. ~ " '.., ~.. ~ . · ..,.. (('..t\- . ~ ~~. ,~ P-7 .. ,,' . . .' ~\ . ~. ~. \.., ... ,.~ ~~. ~ - .... '''~ ~.. ,~. .......... '''''. .. \% ~, : WiiJ m ,'g;f ": ~~[~l~~ I.\~~~~: . ""'\w ",.... . ~~ ,~ : ""''1 I,"''.'' . ~ I~ . *"" """ . - I~ M3 .I!iit : '.::::::::1 _ _ _ __ ~'.~';.. . ~:::::: ----.. ~I _____~- . ~::::::_--.- / _. . . . . ....-J .. .. OLYMPIC ~~RKWAY 0 P-6.1 / . . l [ . : .... .. .. .. .. h-(t?j Oray Ranch 111'125 MB'''''.?~ 1 OIlBNc..l)r"bJ;oI 3, 199& to -- rcN .. ~ ~ w w w ~ e ~ !Ai ~ 8 m .. .. ~ ~ ui ui ~ g '" eo ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ !HI~~~!C cfEf~ii~ ~ililll ~ ~ I w :c ~ ~ ~ 0; III! .... w z ~ z o ~ :i 0 ~ ~ ~ i i;i ~ 0; ~ ... II: .. ~iI c " G: ... -'! =' ~ "" :c '!:I .. c UJ " ~ u " "- III C ~ ~ Q, 0 '" c: i:i 0 "D " f u ~ a: :4 ~ " ... g '" ~ ?( '0 ~~ ~~ ...> o g 5 o w ~ S I~ I I Iw \j ,':. Ii I ;: I ,;; h... :.: I~ ..:f:, I .. ~ ) 'I -, \ \ goo ...;; I IW } ~~ /. -rJ~ I. 7-1 ; ~~ 8-)(h\b,t7 ~ o ct '" W S ~ '0 w ~ :5 ~ '" < w c ~ ii: .... ~ - .. :c ~ :c ." >< C UJ ~ ~ u ~ D- In C ~ D- O C 0 ., ~ ~ .. u ~ 0: i .. ~ .. ct o w ct 'i " ~ '" " \ai- \ ' \ I: w > < '" ct x U~ Zw ~o ,.:5 <=' ~> o o ct < Q w " :5 , .. -' ~ , .. S; w w w I;; t: .' w 0 " ; on < ~ II: IJi ~ w on 0 \" '1f?ii Z -' ]~ 0 W II: W C U II: -' -' .... .. s: g on I!: :E: " I!: ... ' I ': _ .... ~ (' ""'r9'I\~~ t'",~: w w .. 3 ~ w1~ !i ~ ~ ~ ~ z -' w ~ z_ z Z II: " ::I ~"''' '-- ! . ~ w ~ z ~ !: 0 ~ g ]jC;y , , , " 0 " w a Hh~ " , , 0 0 U II: i S ~ -' w , , II: II: W ~ s: II: ID CI) w'" , : , c 0. 0. '" I I ~'"0 , , , I , , , z . I il I . I I' :> , ~~ UJ . I I I! , CJ . i , . I I I . ' UJ . , ..J . I ( " , r , ., ,;- , " , ",~, ,~~) \ ~... ! '...._____1..___ :E: !:iN ~~ ,.~ i!s: o !fr- 7-2- ~ 7 jI~t~~b;t ~I: ~ ... .. - :is :c ~ i<'" W IS!< ",I . '" ~ S iii '0 o .c u .. ." C - e:." .g .11 ~ ... ... i! . 0 .. :. l:!! ~ ." JJ oK ~ g2'~ ~",8 _I i ~ 0 Gin ~ i ;1 iH~!'g {j UUm{U~i ~~ ...."'...<.>... >- ~N";..t . .. . IOCO.....crjaiOPN -- - 7-3 I . I 7---'1 - C9 A. ..... i! III A. 'tI o o of o ~ CI '; Z , GI > ii:m GI b CI<( ~.q- >~ u 's m ~a: _ < 1\1 b :;::; cii It) - ~o C:c: C')CP c: cp._ X:S:: .2 tIIU ~~ 8 cfi S! 70 m -g g'~ @i:2 8 <.g ~ ~ '6 !Ii >'n"BUI1liQ'u u.ffi '3 ts :::-lD >. en e 0:: II) a.. e- en 1\1 :2 II) .- ~<( t:: Ii! Cp U en .?;>,9; .~:::::>>......S ~8C>:=C>CP .- ." u. Cp "0 c: 'v c: en .5 O! 5>; ->QjCPO:: :;2u.-><'1\I E is 51 ~'iii!E E'1::'E~a.. ffi::: E~tII ~iij~;:)~a..ua..> o;:)l1Iena..enwl- uoa.. . . . . N C') .o.....~..... . . . ,..: ~ ,..: cO 0) .- .- ...: N C') q- ~, Exhibit 12 Parks, Recreation, Jpen Space and Trails Master Plan SPA ONE OrAY RANCH -- \ Village Five Neighborhood Park (P-7) 5.2 Acres 1. BasketbalWolJeybalJ Courts 2. Park Maintenance Building 3. Children's Play Area 4. Tennis Courts (2 Courts) 5. Open Turf Play Area (180' x 300':1:) 6. Passive Uses/Green Buffer Exhibit 13 Otay Rmtch Poge48 7-5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. . Village Five Neighborhood Park (P-7) \ 5.7 Acres Hardcourt Play Area Restroom Building Tennis Courts (2 courts) Children's Play Area Soccer Field (1 @ 200'x350') Outdoor Spaces, Gathering Picnic Passive Uses/Green Buffer Pedestrian Linkage to Town Square and Regional Trail Exhibit 13 -? -- !, SPA ONE OrAvRANCH Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan Village Five Village Square (P-8) 1.7 Acres 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. GazebolBand Stand Plaza Space Passive Play Area Commercial Building Casual Picnic and Family Activity Area Exhibit 14 7-1 Olay RDnch P'I!847 Village Five - Village Square (P-8) 0.9 Acres 1. Vertical Focal Point 2. PlazaITown Square 3. Commercial Building 4. Landmark Building 5. Town Square/Regional Trail Linkage 6. Transit Stop ( -<6 Exhibit 14 Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan J l JL ~ .~ 1~.:.\ r:::BJ:.:9 -...J , \ r Village Five Pedestrian Parks (P-g, P-10, P-11) .6 to 2.0 Acres Pedestrian Park 1. Open Turf Play Area 2. Hardcourt i.e.: Half Court 3. Children's Play Area, Seating Area Olay RDnch Page 48 7-i SPA ONE OTAY RANCH ~ L r , Exhibit 15 Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan J UL ~ .~ .., L :-;;@.;) 0' ' --' ~ ..~.~ ~ \ r , r Village Five Pedestrian Parks (P-10, P-11) .6 to 2.0 Acres Pedestrian Park 1. Open Turf Play Area 2. Hardcourt i.e.: Half Court 3. Children's Play Area, Seating Area Olay Ranch Plge 48 7-(0 SPA ONE OTAY RANCH Exhibit 15A \ \ ~ \ I ,1i . . . . ~ " ( - - '-- I Note: location of facilities subject to park master plan approval. Village Five - Pedestrian Park (P-9) 2.0 Acres 1. Children's Play Area 2. Hardcourt Play Area 3. Passive Use/Green Area 4. Outdoor Spaces, Gathering, Picnic 5. Paseo 1-1/ Exhibit 15B Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan SPA ONE OTAY RANCH II RUTGERS AVE. -1 - i - I -___Ir...9S.15 /' ,- 1/ /, R-25 EAS11.AKE EASTlAKE ~ .... I I{:(: " Potential Community Garden Locations - Village Five Exhibit 23 ~, Otay Ranch. Page 74 7 - /'2-- Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan SPA ONE OTAY RANCH " RUTGERS AVE. -..I OS.16 ST. CLAIRE DR. ----- -- ! ~ R.33 t-;;;---' Ir~ EAS11.AKE ;...~-- --- (R-35 '> -.., ~)'-10! R-37 \ f>' ' \. ,,' R-36 '----_;;\_ OS-' B '", J"'-f') R-38 >-- ",p- I ~,.:I" ,~, I ;'(F>--< ~}.? " OO\S~. R-32 - i - / ---_Ir_..9S-15 " '"'- 1/ 'I R.25 R-26 EASTlAKE PARKWAY tA MEDIA RD. Potential Community Garden Locations - Village Five 7-1) Exhibit 23 Otay ",.,,,,,..J.. RESOLUTION PCM 98-21 RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCil- APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TIIE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, an application for an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on December 3, 1997 by the McMillin Companies ("Applicant"), and; WHEREAS, the amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP involves allowing for additional flexibility in detennining the density for the village cores. This text amendment applies to the entire area affected by the Otay Ranch GDP ("Project"), and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said GDP amendment and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and 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 hearings were held at the time and place as advertised on May 13, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Second-tier Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 95-01, a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and Addenda, 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 ErR, the Recirculated EIR and Addenda incorporate, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 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; WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR and Addenda 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 8-( e)(H\&\"r lb Planning Commission May 13, 1998 Page 2 implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisol)', 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 PLANNING COMMISSION hereby adopts Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report EIR 95-01 and the Fourth Addendum. BE IT FURTIffiRRESOL VED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving the proposed amendment 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. 2?-:2.- Planning Commission May 13, 1998 Page 3 PASSED AND APPROVED BY TIffi PLANNING COMMISSION OF CllliLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this May 13, 1998 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Patty Davis Chairman Diana Vargas Attachments: Attachment A: Draft City COlmcil Resolution g--3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OT A Y RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (pCM 98-21) WHEREAS, an application for an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on December 3, 1997 by the McMillin Companies ("Applicant"), and; WHEREAS, the amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP involves allowing for additional flexibility in detennining the density for the village cores. This text amendment applies to the entire area affected by the Otay Ranch GDP ("Project"), and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on 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 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 on May 13, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Second-tier Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 95-01, a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and Fourth Addendum, 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 EIR, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program EIR 90-0 I 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; 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 implement those measures. These findings are not merely infonnational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the ~y Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 2 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 of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearings on the Draft EIR, the Recirculated DEIR and Addendum held on November 8, 1995, November 15, 1995, March 27,1996 and March 28,1996, and their public hearing held on this Proj ect on March 22, 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. II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITII CEQA That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01 and Addendum, the Findings ofF act, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista. ill. CONSISTENCY WIlli THE GENERAL PLAN The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: A THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT IS IN CONFORMITY WIlli 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. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment is minor in nature and does not impact the land use, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses set out in the GD P. This amendment will still advance the goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP. B:\CCGDP.DOC ~-) Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 3 B. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 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 specifies the public facilities required by the Otay Ranch, and also the regional facilities needed to serve it. The proposed amendments to master- planned villages, transit, irrigation of fannland, solar energy requirements, residential noise mitigation, habitat mitigation noise standards and habitat performance standards will not have an impact on the sequential development of SPA One. C. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 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. Four neighborhood parks will be located within the SPA One area to serve the project residents, and the project will provide a wide range of housing types for all economic levels. 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. IV. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A ADOTPION 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, Attachment "A" of this Resolution known as document number --' a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. B:\CCGDP.DOC t-& Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 4 B. CERTAIN MITIGATION MEASURES FEASffiLE AND ADOPTED As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment "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 the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. C. INFEASffiILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment" A" to this Resolution known as document number ---' a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the mitigation measure regarding habitat noise mitigation described in the above referenced documents is infeasible. D. INFEASffiILITY OF ALTERNATIVES As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and in the Findings of Fact, Section XI, for this project, which is Attachment "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 95-01 and Addendum were found not to be feasible. E. ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, City Council hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in Attachment "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 permittoo'project applicant and any other responsible parties and the successors in interest implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Program. B:\CCGDP.DOC ~-7 Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 5 F. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project, or cwnuJatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the fO/m set forth in Attachment "C", known as document number ---' a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, identiJYing the specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. V. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice ofDetennination filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. This document along with any documents submitted to the decision makers shall comprise the record of proceedings for any CEQA claims. VI. ATTACHMENTS All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full B:\CCGDP.IX>C y -- '(p Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 6 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista, California, this 4th day of June, 1998 by the following vote: YES: NOES: ABSENT: Shirley Horton, Mayor 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 4th day of June, 1998. Executed this 4th day of June, 1998. Beverly A Authelet, City Clerk Attaclunents: Attaclunent A: GDP Amendment AttaclunentB: Findings of Fact Attaclunent C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attaclunent D: Statement of Overriding Considerations R\CCGDP.DOC <(-4 FOURTH ADDENDUM TO EIR-95-01 (OTAY RANCH SPA I EIR, SUBSEQUENT) Initial Study IS-98-16 PROJECT NAME: Otay Ranch Village Five, Village Core Amendment PROJECT LOCATION: North of Future Olympic Parkway, east of La Media Road, on both sides of E. Palomar Street; Otay Ranch, SPA One, Village Five, Core Area. Chula Vista, CA. PROJECT APPLICANT: McMillin - DA. America Otay Ranch PROJECT AGENT: Cinti Land Planning CA8ENO.: 18-98-16 DATE: March 5, 1998 I. INTRODUCTION The environmental review procedures of the City ofChula Vista allow the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) to prepare an addendum to a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if one of the following conditions is present: I. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion of the Final EIR (EIR-95-0 I) have not created any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR. 2. Additional or refined information available since completion of the Final EIR regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or regarding the measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects of the project, does not show that the project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR. This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional information and analysis concerning traffic, service and land use impacts as a result of the proposed amendments. FEIR 95-01 analyzed the impact of the development of the property as proposed to be developed as a planned community site. As a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the Final EIR have not changed. Traffic and public service impacts are found to be less than significant for the proposed project and were previously addressed in EIR 95-01. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to EIR-95-01. y_!O II. PROJECT SETTING The project site is known as the Village Five area and forms part of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan which is located in the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch. The Otay Ranch lies in the Eastern Territories Planning Area of the City of Chula Vista. SPA One includes all of Village Five and Village One east of Paseo Ranchero The SPA One Village Five Area contains approximately 491 acres of gently rolling terrain. Elevations generally range from 400 feet to 600 feet above mean sea level (msl). The Village Five Area is bounded by urbanized areas of the City of Chula Vista to the north and east Villages One and Six are also presently undeveloped and are located west and south of the Village Five respectively. Historically, the Otay Ranch property has been used for grazing, dry-fanning and truck farming activities. These activities have generally removed the native vegetation from the majority of the project site. The SPA One area is currently being graded. The Otay Ranch SPA One is generally located in the center of the Eastern Territories Planning Area. Access to the project site is presently provided via Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road, an east-west arterial, which forms the northern boundary of the site. (See Exhibit "An) The majority of SPA area is overlain by the San Diego Fonnation, a marine sedimentary deposit dating to the middle or late Pliocene. The Otay and Sweetwater Fonnations contain volcanic basement rocks of the Jurassic-age. These are uncomfonnably overlain (on-site) by Oligocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene sedimentary rocks. The Village Five Area for the most part does not represent suitable habitat land for any of the sensitive animal or plant species. There are a few areas west of the project site that are considered to be habitat patches that occasionally may attract the California gnatcatcher, the cactus wren and the sage sparrow. Agricultural areas in general may also provide habitat for raptor foraging and perching. m. PROPOSED PROJECT REVISIONS The proposed amendments can be grouped in the following general categories: 1. General Development Plan policy amendments 2. SPA One Plan - Village Five core area amendments a. Changes to residential densities b. Changes to circulation c. Combining Commercial and Multi-family as "Mixed Land Use" d. Combining Community Purpose Facility sites. e. Changes to park sizes and configurations 3. Village Design Plan - The proposed changes will also create inconsistencies in the Village Design Plan. Amendments to numerous exhibits and text references will be necessary. 4. Tentative Tract Map - An amendment would need to be made to the adopted Tentative Tract Map to reflect the changes to parcel configurations and circulation proposed in the village core. 1. General Development Plan Policy Amendments h:\home\planning\1indab\eir8302.adm ~-II Page 2 a.) The amendments proposed to the General Development Plan include revisions to the policies concerning the maximum and minimum densities required in the Village Five Core. Proposed changes would be as follows: Adopted Wording "The number of homes identified for the village core is a minimum and may not be reduced." (PART II, Chapter I, Section F, Village Descriptions and Policies: Village Core Policies, page 144. Proposed Wording "The number of homes identified for the village core represents an urban planning goal. Reductions in the number of multi-family units may be approved as long as sufficient densities are provided to support bus and light rail transit". The proposed wording would also be added as an additional crilerion to PART II, Chapter I, Section E, Implementation Mechanisms:, Paragraph 2a, page 117. 2. SPA One Plan - Village Five Core Area Amendments a.) Changes to residential densities - The residential parcels proposed for amendment include the following: R-40, R-41, R-42, R-43, R-44, R-45, R-46 Comparison of Adopted to Proposed GDP SPA (adopt.) SPA (prop.) 1262 1193 2.9 SF Units 1263 1263 MF Units 1615 1615 Commercial 6.0 3.3 Parks 10.0 21.3 CPF 11.3 11.6 16.9 10.1 b.) Changes to circulation Diff. - GDP/SPA -1/-1 -422/-422 -3.1/-.4 +6.9/-4.4 -1.2/-1.5 Figure 1 b.l) Project revisions include making Santa Rosa Drive and Santa Cora Drive form "T" intersections with Palomar Street in order to improve sight distances. (See Exhibits "If' & "I") Overall, it is anticipated that traffic impacts will be reduced ITom the adopted plan due to the proposed reduction in (multi-family) density. c.) Combining Commercial and Multi-family as "Mixed Uses" The adopted plan includes separate parcels for commercial and multi-family uses in the village core. h:\home\p1anning\Jindab\eir8302.adm y- 12- Page 3 The current proposed changes would have these uses ~velop as "mixed uses" adjacent to the Town Square Park. The adopted 3.3 acres of commercially designated land would be removed and replaced with a mixed use overlay on a portion of the multi-family parcels adjacent to the Town Square. (See Exhibits "c" & "G") d.) Community Purpose Facility Sites The adopted plan includes three parcels for Community Purpose Facilities. The proposed plan reconfigures these three sites into one large site to be located north of Palomar Street facing the Town Square. The size of the new CPF site would be consistent with the project proponents requirement to provide CPF site based on a reduced density. (See Exhibit "B") e.) Changes to Park Sizes and Configurations The proposed plan reconfigures park sites and reduces park acres to be consistent with the amended densities. The plan maintains the system of park and pedestrian linkages from Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway. The proposed park sites are sufficient to meet the park dedication requirements for all development in Village Five. ( See Exhibits "D", "E" & "F") 3. Village Design Plan The changes proposed in the configuration and intensities of land uses in the core area create inconsistencies in the Village Design Plan. This amendment includes an amendment to numerous exhibits and text references in this document. These would be considered minor technical changes corresponding to proposed land use policy amendments outlined above. 4. Tentative Tract Map An amendment will be required to the adopted Tentative Tract Map to reflect the changes to parcel configurations and circulation proposed in the village core. Conditions of approval would need to be amended to reflect the SPA and Tentative Tract Map changes. (See Exhibits "H" & "I") These amendments represent technical changes resulting from the proposed land use and circulation concept changes and which will be further analyzed by the preparation of a focused Traffic Study. IV. COMP A TmILITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS The Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Element designates land uses for Otay Ranch Villages One and Five. For the subject site, the Chula Vista General Plan is implemented through the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan will be consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan designates Village Five as an urban village to be served by a light rail transit system. This concept will not change. As an urban village, the Otay Ranch GDP provides for an approximately liS acre village core including commercial uses, an elementary school site, neighborhood park, CPF land uses, and medium-high density housing. These general land use concepts will be retained even with the proposed amendments. h:\home\planning\lindab\eir8302.adm y-13 Page 4 V. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS I. Public Services Impacts Fire The Fire Department states that the nearest fire station is about 3 mites away from the proposed development site. The Fire Department further states that adequate level of fire protection for the proposed development can be provided with implementation of the Otay Ranch Fire Station Master Plan which includes building of new stations with manpower and equipment over a phased time period. The Fire Department states that additional comments will be provided when detailed development plans become available. Police Department The estimated response time of 8 minutes and 30 seconds for Priority I calls and 8 minutes and 32 seconds for Priority 2 calls are above the recommended thresholds. Staff at the Police Department do not consider this significant and indicate that adequate police service will be provided to the area and mitigation is not required. Upon the availability of specific site plan development, the Police Department recommends a security evaluation by crime prevention personneL 2. Utility and Service Systems Schools The Sweetwater Union High School District states that school impacts associated with the proposed project have previously been negotiated. Full mitigation would require the developers participation in the formation of a community facilities district (CFD) prior to the issuance offinal maps. The Chula Vista Elementary School District indicates that they have studied the proposed amendments and their position remains unchanged with respect to retaining the designated school site within the Village Five Core area. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires 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. No intersection may reach an LOS "F' during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Policy. The City Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that h:'homelplanning~indabIcir8302.adm 7- If' Page 5 the project will overall have less impacts to traffic as proposed. However, in order to properly analyze specific street re-designs a traffic study will be required. 3. Open Space No impacts to open space would result from implementation of the project VI. ANALYSIS The project consists of proposed amendments to adopted planning documents to the Otay Ranch Village Five, the General Development Plan, the Otay Ranch SPA I Plan, the Village Design Plan, and the Tentative Tract Map. The proposed changes do not involve additional land not previously analyzed by EIR 95-0 I, The proposed amendments also do not introduce land uses not previously analyzed by EIR 95-01. The proposed amendments would re-designate 3.3 acres of land presently designated for commercial use by the Village Design Plan to a mixed land use. A total of 30,000 square feet of commercial space would be provided at ground level with the multi-family land uses to be located at the second level. Overall, however, the number of multi-family dwelling units would decrease by about 422 units from the presently adopted SPA I Village 5 Plan. The proposed changes would also affect the proposed street patterns. Local streets aimed at serving the adopted 3.3 acre commercial site would be changed. The proposed street revisions would improve sight distances and improve the overall circulation of the immediate area surrounding the village core. It is anticipated that by reducing the commercially designated land and decreasing the proposed number of multi-family dwelling units would tend to reduce both traffic and air quality impacts. Minor changes to the proposed parks are also proposed. The Neighborhood park known as P-6 will retain the 6.4 acres but will be slightly re-configured. Neighborhood park P-? will be slightly modified to conform with the proposed street re-alignment The Village Square P-8 will be slightly reduced from the 1. 8 acres to 1. 0 acre. These proposed changes are found to be in substantial conformity with the adopted plan. The proposed changes to the density formula would also change the amount of required community purpose facility sites. The proposed amendment would consolidate three sites designated for community purpose facilities into one large site to be located north of Palomar Street facing the town square. (This proposed change is found to be in substantial conformity with the adopted plan.) Finally, amendments to the Village Design Plan and the tentative tract map represent technical map modifications which would reflect land use and circulation concept changes and which will be further analyzed by the preparation of a project specific traffic impact analysis. VIT. CONCLUSION h:\home\planning\lindab\eir8302.adm 7-/~ Page 6 Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental Impact Report adequate under CEQA Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator REFERENCES Chula Vista General Plan (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures Dtay Ranch General Development plan Dtay Ranch Sectional Planning Area Dne (June 4, 1996) EIR - Dtay Ranch GDP Program E1R 90-01 (Dec., 1992) EIR - Dtay Ranch SPA I E1R 95-01 (April, 1996) h:\homelplanning~indab\eir8302.adm y-(& Page 7 Case No.IS-98-16 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: McMillin DA America Gtay Ranch 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA. 91950 (619) 477-4117 4. Name of Proposal: Gtay Ranch Village Five Core Amend. 5. Date of Checklist: February 27, 1998 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless llitigated u.ss than Signifieant Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 jgI zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental 0 0 0 jgI plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 jgI 0 (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement 0 0 0 jgI of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Page No.1 f-fJ Potentially Potentially Significant U!SS than Significant Unless Significant No Impact l!itigated Impact Impact Comments: The project site is currently vacant and in an unimproved condition. Existing land uses consist of agricultural and cattle grazing activities. There are presently no improved roads or habitable structures on the project site. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) is the City's planning document that implements the General Plan and Planned Community (PC) zone. These documents will provide for the orderly pre-planning and long- term development of large parcels of land. The provision for sectional planning area plans (SP A) allows for the formulation of more detailed development plans that are necessary to implement the PC Zone and GDP. The proposed amendments are as a result of more detailed and current planning studies. The proposed revisions to the corresponding adopted General Development Plan, SPA I Plan, Village Core Design Plan and Tentative Map will result in less multi-family residential units being developed. The project conforms to all plans and zoning for the project site. the proposed changes to the affected planning documents will result in less impacts than were previously reviewed by the adopted Environmental Document. The issues related to land use compatibility, consistency with adopted plans, and the conversion of vacant land to an urban use have been adequately addressed by Program EIR-90-01 and EIR.-95-Ol. No adverse impacts are noted from the proposed project amendments. I. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? o o 181 o o 181 o o o o o 181 Comments: The project site is undeveloped. The overall project is in substantial compliance with approved plans. The proposed project consists of amendments to adopted land use planning documents and would result in the project being developed with less intense uses. Implementation of the project would assist the City's ability to meet housing and employment needs within the area. As a component part of the overall Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the SPA One Village Five project will contribute to meeting the projected demand per SANDAG estimates for housing and employment. No adverse impacts to housing are noted from the proposed project amendments. The issues of housing and growth were adequately addressed by Program EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. Page No.2 f- I <{ Potentially Potentially Significant ~ss than Significant Unless Significant No Impact lfitigated Impact Impact II. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 jgJ 0 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 jgJ 0 0 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface 0 jgJ 0 0 relief .features? d) The destruction, covering or modification 0 0 jgJ jgJ of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of 0 0 0 jgJ soils, either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 jgJ sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to 0 jgJ 0 0 geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Page No.3 f- /1 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless llitigatcd Less than Significant Impact No Impact Conunents: Regionally, the Otay Ranch is located within the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Range is composed of a series of northwest-trending uplifted blocks which are separated by similarly trending faults. The Otay Ranch site is located in the transitional area between the mountain-valley section and the coastai plain section. The inner Continental Borderland is part of a broad zone of northwest-trending faulting associated with the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. Based on a review of published geologic literature and maps of the project area no active faults are known to directly underlie the project site as was analyzed and determined by the Otay Ranch Final Program Environmental Impact Report, (Dec. 1992). During the last 50 years, the San Diego region has been characterized by little seismic activity. The most probable seismic event likely to affect the proposed development would be an earthquake on the Rose Canyon fault, which is located about 11 miles northwest of the project site. Mitigation has been included in both EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01 that would require site-specific geotechnical studies prior to construction to evaluate soil conditions and characteristics, areas of potential slope instability, landslides, faults, liquefaction potential, and rippability characteristics. The proposed amendments would not change adopted mitigation nor do these propose more intense use of the land. No further mitigation would be required and no significant impact is noted. These issues have been adequately addressed by EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. III. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 jgJ 0 0 patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 jgJ related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 jgJ 0 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in 0 0 0 jgJ any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 jgJ direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Page No.4 y- 2L> f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Potentially Potentially SigniJicant WSS than Significant Unless SigniJicant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 jgJ 0 o o jgJ o o o jgJ o o o o jgJ j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 jgJ 0 water otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. The SPA One Master Drainage Plan (Hunsaker and Associates) provides the framework for addressing the issues relating to urban runoff, sedimentation, floodplain, encroachment, and water quality. The increased flows expected at build out of SPA One which includes Village One and Village Five can be mitigated through: 1) the provision of the detention facilities on-site as recommended in the Master Drainage Plan, and 2) the payment of the Telegraph Canyon drainage fee established at the time final maps within the basin are recorded. The SPA One project site is not an area of significant groundwater recharge. Due to the filtering of pollutants during percolation, in addition to the poor quality of existing ground water within SPA One as described in the existing setting no significant impacts to ground water quality are anticipated. The proposed mitigation measures and project design levels would reduce the ground-water and surface water impacts to below a level of significance. The proposed amendments would result in a reduction of approved residential densities and eliminate some street sections thus reducing impacts to water resources. No adverse impacts are noted from the proposed amendments. IV. AIR QUALITY. 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? y- 2..( o jgJ o o o o o jgJ Page No.5 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact \litigated Impact Impact 0 0 ~ 0 o o o ~ e) Create a substantial increase in stationary 0 ~ 0 0 or non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Conunents: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. These EIRS' considered pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources associated with the proposed development. Mitigation measures were made a pan of the FEIR that covered the following areas of potential sources of impact: construction, land use policies, siting! design policies, and transportation-related management actions. The subject amendments propose to reduce the number of multi-family residential units built and eliminate some local streets, thus potentially having the result of lessening the overall impacts to air quality. Additionally, the proposed mixed-use concept would help implement a land use mitigation measure found in EIR-95-01, calling for a balanced mix of housing and employment possibilities to reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled. V. TRANSPORTATION/CmCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic 0 ~ 0 0 congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features 0 0 0 ~ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 ~ nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- 0 0 0 ~ site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 ~ 0 bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ~ alternative transponation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Page No.6 f- 2.-7- Potentially Potentially Significant lEss than Significant Unless Significant No impact llit~ated Impact Impact g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 jgI h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 jgI 0 0 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: It is anticipated that the proposed amendments will result in less traffic! circulation impacts. The proposed amendments would result in the removal of a local street section intended as access to the 3.3 acre commercial site. Two street sections are proposed to be re-aligned to improve local circulation. A minor traffic study will be prepared to analyze the proposed changes to land use and street design. The analysis should provide support for the proposed minor changes and will assist in the specific street design of the development plans and tentative tract maps. The overall issues involving transportation and circulation traffic impacts were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. VI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning efforts? ~- 2-3 o o jgI o 0 0 jgI 0 0 0 jgI 0 0 jgI 0 0 0 0 jgI 0 0 0 jgI 0 Page No.7 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless lfitigated ~ss than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: Impacts to biological resources have been adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. The entire area within Village Five will be impacted at project build out with the exception of a strip along its northern border which will preserved as open space. Project development will result in impacts to approximately 47.2 acres of annual, non-native grassland; 495.1 acres of agricultural land; 0.1 acres of disturbed habitat; 0.7 acres of freshwater marsh; 0.3 acres of open water; and about 17.9 acres of developed land. Impacts to non-sensitive habitats or developed land are less than significant. Freshwater marsh is the only sensitive vegetation community that would be impacted in Village Five. The subject amendments do not propose any new land area for development nor do they propose land uses not previously analyzed by the corresponding adopted plans and environmental documents. No new impacts' to biological resources are noted as a result of the proposed amendments. The project will comply with mitigation relating to biota impacts as stipulated in EIR-90-01 and EIR-9S-01. VII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 ~ plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 0 0 ~ and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral 0 0 0 ~ resource protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: It is anticipated that the proposed amendments which propose the removal of of 3.3 acres of commercially designated land and the reduction of multi-family residential units would result in lessened impacts to non-renewable resources. These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-9S-01. vm. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? o o o ~ f- 2. 'I Page No.8 Potentially Potentially Significant lEss than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or 0 0 0 181 potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with 0 0 0 181 flanunable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed amendments would not pose a health hazard to humans. The result of implementing these amendments would tend to lessen the overall impacts to land development. These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. IX. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 181 0 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 181 0 0 Comments: The primary noise source throughout the project area at full build out of the adopted SPA I Village Five Development Plan would be from vehicular traffic. On-site noise impacts would occur as development takes place on the Otay Ranch. Offsite noise impacts would increase as regional traffic volumes increase due to growth and roadway segments are widened. The degree of impact would depend on the location of the noise-sensitive receptors in relation to those roadway as well as the project design. This issue has been adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. The subject amendments propose to reduce commercially designated land and eliminate local street sections designated to serve these commercially designated lands. In addition, the proposed amendments would also reduce the number of multi-family residential units adopted by the existing SPA I Village Five Plan. X. 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? o 181 o o Page No.9 r - 2..S- Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact llitigated Impact Impact b) Police protection? 0 jgJ 0 0 c) Schools? 0 jgJ 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 jgJ 0 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 jgJ 0 Comments: Project impacts to governmental services have been adequately analyzed in Otay Ranch EIR 90-01 and EIR-95-01. Appropriate mitigation has been adopted to address potentially significant impacts from the overall project. The proposed amendments do not propose any new additional development not previously analyzed. A reduction in land use intensity is anticipated from the proposed revisions. See co=ents below. o jgJ o o XI. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS o jgJ o o 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. The City of Chula Vista Fire Department indicates that this threshold standard will be met. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire Department indicates that it has no specific co=ents at this time. However, fire and emergency service demand is detennined by response time which is affected by roadway conditions, facility site location, and intensity of development. The proposed amendments will result in less intense development because of considerable removal of co=ercially designated land and a reduction in multi-family units. The previously adopted Otay Ranch EIR-9D-01 and EIR -95-01 includes mitigation provisions for the construction of the needed fire station facilities to be coordinated with the site specific development schedule. Site specific co=ents will be made actual construction plans are received for review and approval. b) . Police o jgJ o o y-2..(p Page No. 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Signllicant Impact No Impact The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% 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 Police Department response time for both Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls within the vicinity of the proposed project are slightly above these Threshold Standards. Comments: In order to address the need for law enforcement personnel and facilities, the applicant has coordinated the preparation of a comprehensive Law Enforcement Master Plan. With each specific development proposal, funher more detailed environmental review has been and will be required to ensure adequate facilities and staff are available to serve the project. This issue was adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. The police Department anticipates that adequate service will be provided to the project site as development and associated mitigation incrementally and simultaneously proceed forward. Any additional construction plans should be forwarded to the crime prevention unit for evaluation. c) Traffic o (gJ o o 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 I-80S 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 Standard. This Threshold Standard will be complied with by the proposed proJect. Comments: No adverse impacts to traffic! circulation are noted from project approval. Project shall d) Parks/Recreation o (gJ o o The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,000 population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Page No. 11 f- 2-7 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Miligated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Conunents: The proposed amendments would affect three park designated areas within the Otay Ranch Village Five Village Core Area. The proposed amendments represent minor adjustments to the park configurations mainly for the purpose of accommodating adjacent property owners and proposed street re-alignments. The parks will generally retain the same size as shown in the adopted plans and with the same park focus. The park and community purpose issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR -95-01. ~D~mF 0 ~ 0 0 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. Conunents: The Engineering Department indicates that the project site is not within a flood plain. The developer proposes storm drains that will flow to open channels south of Telegraph Canyon Road or north of East Orange/Olympic Parkway. These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. The proposals will not change the overall drainage concept and site specific development will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. f) Sewer o o ~ o 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. Conunents: The Engineering Division indicates that the proposed amendment will potentially decrease sewage discharge by about 86,721 gallons per day. The adopted plan calls for the southerly portion of Village 5 to connect to the proposed East Orange/Olympic Parkway sewer main. The northerly portion of the Village 5 will connect to the existing sewer main in Telegraph Canyon Road. The Engineering Division indicates that these will adequately serve the proposed project. The subject amendments do not propose changes that would cause new impacts to the Sewer Master Plan nor Engineering Standards. g) Water o ~ o o [-29 Page No. 12 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless llitigated IEss than Significant Impact No Impact The 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 panicipate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building pennit issuance. Comments: This issue was adequately addressed in EIR -90-01 and EIR-95-01. No new impacts to water resources are noted from the proposed amendment. XII. 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 jgJ 0 0 b) Communications systems? 0 jgJ 0 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 jgJ 0 0 distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 jgJ 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 jgJ 0 0 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 jgJ 0 Conunents: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-D1 and EIR-95-01. Calculations by the Engineering Divisions indicate that the proposed amendments would result in a decrease of solid waste by 7,194 lbs. and sewage discharge by 86,721 gallons per day. The Engineering Division further indicates that the southerly portion of Village 5 will connect to the proposed East Orange/Olympic Parkway sewer main and the northern portion of the village will connect to the existing sewer main in Telegraph Canyon Road. These sewer lines are adequate to serve the proposed project. The Engineering Division concludes by stating that development impact fees and other fees must be adjusted to correspond to the diminished impact these amendments will cause to the City's infrastructure. f- 1 c; Page No. 13 Potentially Potentially Significant wss than Significant Unless Significant No Impact llitigated Impact Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to 0 181 0 0 the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 181 0 0 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 0 181 effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 181 0 could 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? 0 0 0 181 Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of 0 0 0 181 or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical 0 0 0 181 or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 0 181 cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious 0 0 0 181 or sacred uses within the potential impact area? y-30 Page No. 14 e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. XV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 0 181 0 0 Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: This issue was adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant Impact lfiligaled Impacl 0 0 0 No Impact 181 XVI. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? o 181 o o o 181 o o c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans or programs? Comments: The proposed amendments would affect three park designated areas within the Otay Ranch Village Five Village Core Area. The proposed amendments represent minor adjustments to the park configurations mainly for the purpose of accommodating adjacent property owners and proposed street re-alignments. The parks will generally retain the same size.as shown in the adopted plans and with the same park focus. The park and community purpose issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR -95-01 o o 181 o XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. Page No. 15 f;- =<;/ Potentially Significant Impac! Potentially Significant Unless lfil\lialcd Less than Significant Impac! No Impacl a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 181 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 co=unity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate imponant examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Conunents: Because of the highly disturbed nature of the site and the analysis and mitigation provided in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01 which will be implemented, none of these potential impacts would result. b) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 181 achieve shon-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Conunents: The project conforms to all long-term goals/plans for this area and therefore will not achieve shon-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 181 0 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.) Conunents: Cumulative impact analysis was evaluated in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. d) Does the project have environmental effect which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o o 181 o Page No. 16 ~- 32- Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated less than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the current proposed project amendments will cause adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. This issue in was adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Project Proponent Date XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental 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. o Land Use and Planning o Population and Housing o T ransponation/ Circulation o Public Services o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Systems o Aesthetics o Geophysical o Energy and Mineral Resources o Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance Page No. 17 8- ~3 XXI. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARA nON will be prepared. I find 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 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) 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 IMP ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. Signature Date Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista f- '3t D D D D D Page No. 18 OTAY RANCH - VILLAGES 1 & 5 on' OF oar-:- vtS7'..... :;.uFORNU. .-- - --- Vln.;re One \I "" VJUaqe Fivl!' CiDSi LoS l'!o=iDg 12191'J7 p_laf8 Project Location s-:s\ Exhibit -A- a S ~~" > - ~ . a '" - c:. <:I' 3 a ~ u.. '" . ~ .<. a ~: " a ~ a a !XI '" u '" on 0 a <: ~ Of . '" '" .<. a <: 0 a :; " " - a ~ " '" - " a ~ ii ;; " ~ - ... E a Of a - .Q ." ,.. a~ !! ~ "" " ~!! '" U '" ~= ~ > a: '" "'''' ~ -'" : u; 5. 0 <: ~ ;::. 0. ~; '"<: a a .. - '" -< o~ ,< 0 " " <,.- 0::,.. . a i:" '" >< u; "'.. ";;:::t: 0<: :z;.:J .,. -" 0.- '" a .,- a a aa " " ,,'" a <: "0 " 'C'.U " W 0:::1 c: Vi ~~ "" " 0 0" 0 o ~ '" 02)": <: - ~ COa ",,2 ~.:I:' ~''t1 ..- ~ <: E E a OJ o~ .!Q; a -'<:J ~"g ""CO "'- C. a g'i!! 0 5! " ='" "" ,," u_ a )0;;'- <: a '" aO 0<: .." ~",. ~ ,:: 0:'" ::>0.. a: 0.. ~o: 0.. :;~ iii O:(J <nw u a ';:ijj -a '00. a :J.:;> c: [l]000 ~~~ LJ~[]mrn .s;~ 01 <=>.Z <J ..,'~ " S0 Q ~" " - '" -0 UZ ...l <- > ~ :;; o " ::: ~ - . <; - . (/ ~ = 1\1 ,,~ Zw ~\\ ~~ 'II \ ~= 'I~~~. :; ....., ~\ \\, . . '1\ \ \11 :;; \ \11 :; ~\'I\ ;~\\\ , 'I I I' i\ 1\ I I, : \", I ........... .~,.I01Jt~ -- -"7 :1 VI ~ _ ~,6 ~.. ( 0) 1... <:.~ ~ '~.. ~""- /'~N . . . '-'>>>-....j > // 1;' (( \ ' .\ \\ \ ... i . '%iii?t j ""' u.I%u.a --AI ': O~b ... ~~ - - .Q - .:: ~ w .. (J 3 ~ a: <0< ~Wa: .cc~~ ....cc'" 0;;" J- 37 Village Five Land Use Summary - Park & CPF Requirements Neigh. tar Acres Target Part Park ac Park Area Use - Units FactDr Req'd Credit R-23 SF 15.3 BB 0.0064738 0.570 R-24 SF 26.9 138 0.0064738 0.893 R-25 SF 16.4, ..., 2~ 0.0064738 0.473 "~~,,):'J,,,,(,~., .",,' R-26 SF 15.5 78 0.0064738 0.505 R-27 SF 11.B 58 0.0064738 0.375 R-28 SF 11.9 B2 0.0064738 0.531 R-30 SF 22.0 145 0.0064738 0.939 R-31 SF 18.5 83 0.0064738 0.537 R-32 SF 23.1 113 0.0064738 0.732 R-33 SF 11.7 55 0.DD64738 0.356 R-34 SF 9.0 40 0.0064738 0.259 R-35 SF 9.8 40 0.0064738 0.259 R-36 SF 13.3 69 0.0064738 0.447 R-37 SF 11.9 66 0.0064738 0.427 R-38 SF 7.7 45 0.0064738 0291 R-41 SF 14.3 92 0.0064738 0.596 Sub-total 240.91 1265 8.191 R-22 MF 11.41 78 0.0049739 0.388 R-29 MF 10.4 90 0.0056014 0.504 R-39 MF 13.7 175 0.0044077 0.771 R-40 MF 12.9 201 0.0056014 1.126 R-42 MF 11.7 68 0.0049739 0.338 R-43 MF 8.3 220 0.0044077 0.970 R-44 MF 7.3 218 0.0044077 0.961 R-46 MF 72 126 0.0056014 0.706 Sub-total 82.9 1176 5.76 P-6 Park 2.7 2.7 P-6.3 Park 1.0 0.5 P-6.6 Park 4.3 4.3 P-B.1 Park 1.0 1.0 P-B2 Park 5.0 5.0 P-9 Park 1.0 0.5 P-10 Park 1.3 0.0 P-11 Park 0.6 0.0 Sub-total 16.9 CPF-4 CPF 5.7 CPF-5 CPF 3.6 Sub-total 9.3 S-:! (EIem Sell) SchDDI 10.0 OS (11-24) 0.5. 902 Internal Cir. Street 20.5 - External Cir. Street 20.3 Village 5 Total 491.0 24411 I 14.01 14.0 $'"' 3g- Figure 2 cum Land Planning 12115/97 ~-~._-- PART THREE -7-:~.....J . ..-: ~~~~ .. .44' . '~'~:.;<~;,/~.~.~:~ :?, .. . . . . . ~-'~:.._' .::::s;; Village Fh Design Plan VILLAGE PARKS - VILLAGE FIVE . Neighborhood Park~ D~cription: TIlis park is d::signed to be an aclive recreation park with potential for adjacent community purpose facilities. The park si~ has a link to the village square and will have landscape charncteristies !hat complement the urban COTe. The loc:al promenade strcetscape charnet::!" will be maintained at the park ~rimeler with iinkages to the pasco. The sc:hool site, although separated from the park by the Paseo, will bave the outdoor turf areas for practice and oth::!" sport.s during non- school activity. - 7C(7'-t?ot- '7(7t:- '" f' A7f;:fl CFF~ C?!1P ~ , -?1(V6W- f?o/f1. . . . r/WMe('{;1l:f? r-~ , , IJ(~ /?CA-ZA- /rI\e4- III-54 Exhibit -D- }-3'1 PARTTHR - y age Five Design Plan VILLAGE PARKS - VILLAGE FIVE . Neighborhood ParkP-7 /v.;fu Description: Tbis park .is designed to provide~tive =cation amenities inlCIldcd for use by the nearby multi-family residents of the Village Five core~..2... The park will bave open = for casual play and activities. 'This park is surrounded by "!be promenade streetscapc proposed for the adjacent streets. Location: In the center of the multi-family complex, southwest of the core area. /YI j/L-i - rA-/VIIJ.-Y ( ,~:5/J?e-N/7h!- ~ TD l//U-PC-e C~ ~~A- ,Pfi.OM~~ ~/V.o ;"'~. 5/NGa 1711171'-'1 M{Jt--77-F~(W ~ 1Y?5?e1V77/ft-- . f - t.f.G Exhibit -E- V'/~9?/)A/V3 ~- 7i7f5 Ct;YJr77t/lYllr fiZ::tts PART THREE Village Five _ :sign Plan VILLAGEPAPXS- VILLAGEr-IVE . _Vill"ge",Squard?$11 D~::ription: Tn: Village Five Core area park is d:signa~d a town square in the Ouy fumch Parh, Recreation, Op:n Space and Trails Plan. The town square concept is emph.as~ by IDeating retail and comm=ial fun:tions at the edg~. The village core identity and form are based on a traditional town square character with village- s~g retail aTo1.!.'1d a village ~n. A transit S'.ation is proposed adj~en! to the town square. Introduction offormaJ tree planting and ped::strian wa!ks wilJ reinforce the uroan town square concept Loc:arion: The south sIde of the Village Core Street is SUITounded on two sid~ by the commercial area.. ~~~~- 1'/l.,St;!i/ ~ 7l2Ni3fbfj- ~~OD /7(P11Z"(v'r1f)/iii f7(Cf'I1 /l1Wt:T/- {7rm1t-?" 111-56 N?7?17t-~/N / 5i?..&c:; I L/ ~- <fl Exhibit -F- PART THREE ~ Village} ."e Design Plan CONCEPTUAL TOWN SQUARE PLAN 3 ~ .~~ opa 06~ ~ * Olay Ranch III-BO November 3. '995 f- 'f-L Exhibit "G" -. . .'. , '. II" ~-I! ,,"!t,'II'II-lt ' . . .. "m''''' .~. ';J' ;';,>...,. ..... .if~tI;'.{lfi!1,:t ..rd.....: -' .i .{"....-' ;,,7": i:;:.~~.'~ .:.'. f!mf!tlh~' }.l!."~'i~" ."-.['11 uinmt..if\l,!tlt". ..1181' ":~L~ . 0 . g<lr1rl,I,' l"uP2 -IIi" .' .. I.H '!Jl .1". w 3". ~'111.~~I!Ii!l~1i!tt~:JI"j~~~I~ .. .... _:~. ..... ::r~;~~;c ~ " i. i~..iC'II.!il,l!lU!l!'~I'I'l!iri'lij:1 . \. :'.. ~. .;:.;:~ ~ C ,1:::. _ . !11ft. I:/! ',:It;! ..!i!I1:ID ..: .' l . ... ."" "., -..'; :!c.. -. !II Ii , 1/, II.CHi!' 11,,,,,8"!l . -~""I fl.. . I . r . .. ..~. ....ca .c .... . r ~~l!iilill~mke' !i9ilrin:i!liU:r-: - ::rl~l"'kil"h '1,l,iH.';!1I!. ..:.".-.-t~~ )( 0 :; ... ..... t - - -. -.-... .~~ ~'_._ ~ ..... . .~I{.J.lh,.h :1,1 hll, lid ,lid . . . '_-,- " fJ. w .-- . .. . '. , . . . 1'.\'_.' :11 -... :.;... \ .:. -u ;: ..::.:~:">~'~.."" ". .:." . . . .....>'"'~:~.~J/~ ." ;.-:. . -:. " ..-,:.: '.:,: ..' . . . . . .1 L.i!!'~.i!!'j,~.rl.....'..:...':-.:~.....~..~::1..~.,:,~:~ . . ". .-);~:.:;~(:~~? '~: h> ff t tr!~ .r.~ ~'...-... J~j ~hm~>~'> "'ai1 :Imill?> . . f.~~~ . . . '.; ::i - . .~~ . .I!!I~ !"..~1+ in. Ilk! f liil~ j{; :: ::.1 'I ~1:I1iU IhI. ; ~-~lt~~ !~ ..~. ~. I-.:"It:; ~-1 I . J S -'- . . ';'r.-r-~ 0..., ", . ~. t' - _~ 11 tl ...; ..~_ i~ 'j . , /.. . ~.:. :_~ ... ~ I I I.." - . - wi ~f' ~.~ , , df ~ , '..:.:. .1.. ~-'':'' L ~. I ( .. .., - _ _'I- 3'e.~'=~' . -, ./IOili i,.' if ~. ".., --~:::---.. - ~-::: -- -~ \.\.'" i:. \ I i. ~. '" . ~.-. -~ - . i! r-- -, '.. . ,. '-'~.,,.;;....' ..:I, ,." I ! I rr .... ..... ./:' :.fS!r.r_'r. I, :. ';(, .'~ t '; - iU".w '~,q ~ ~ ~ H I ~nl, 11i!i!~!I I II! iiI fl.. " ., a; . I ~ U ~ It.lmlilii!1i i m! J -'. - /" I!::. It ~ ~JHf Ii! I - iii If i i - j~ \ j .- J . I ~, ; i ow '. . 'il , . I ~: .1 - . I i '1(.: I ~ , i.L' '. ,i .1 i '~i'r'~ Iii '~i U 8-- ~ ! !r I ~ ~ ~!.::: I f,-'.ii~ll, .~. R:,! I ;.. "j , . . ; j! . if .,i I.' . i J I! . ~ ~ !!t '. ._ Po . :,:: .' ';xI '., . .Ir. l,'.' z. r -"'iI' ;.,i....:..t-..~--_.s;...<. -' . .., ......' ..'.. ". "Ilr-., ." --.....' -. .-.. ~-- fl'I" I fJ..., ii,! ,..-.t, ~,~. :~,., .",n ~ ," :..........;:;. .'c,'~ -' ......- If:IJ.rt,r'I"~'Jliri ~l :;:"tln~i-'. ;~~~~...~;.t1J' ...dHtt ':;.'!l-' .o..,..~."4;;'.:.:=~~;:.. . I.. J "~<." , co ...."'ml n... .... ......~.' .. _I I ... I J ot. Ii~.....>o!,':" H- r '. "l: ~~,. ..... .:~ .'~ ; I :II' ! f j It I! Ii J1i 1i ! II ;:'1 ~'", '" ! -I .!IJ,,,,,t, ill" .'",,'~' I' illl 'I ;'~'III;I " I "'J.'I .~..... " . ... ,..: -.' ~ ~'>-<31 . I m!hid !r ['.1(' .;.f!: ,jlf'irr .~i j .Ii ~.. :'. ' I ,. '...' .' . (fJ~. :-:> i~~~ t I _.' (j'li' r il a I 1: "," . I <O~ ... .. 1. t. i !f: f 'Iill~ i ~,III!I' ! .t. ..It It: L I, . '.' ~ I I 0 = . Ii I i IbUliU t !p':.dr,~,J~f~ !ili~=i~ N:'iirr1t+t: ! i !! Ii; :.1 ~ IrJi ~ ; II a.. ~ & .-hijl ~!, ;1 j Qi,','ir-I"lf: .':I,'lr:iJi!il.!;i iUHilll.uHI .. -. H:" . I! . tin... d i 0, ~!. ill I : Ii fil ;( r 1" J"m1i I'i! !:1!1m~II1't . a: III"" ! I ~';;h!Uii!i!' .lii;h~l~tIN::'lft:f!:, :f; . .. a.. . I I' !~i~~~JI~~~!fi.JM!!!I:lili.~:iliIIJ ' . .. .. .' 2" ... =. ... .:a ~ . . I.. ~..; !s J J i .;.. 10 a z :r:< (,), ,... Z< . <( CI]~ ..... Il.a:wo <- ~x .~ ~<x ...:;'-. 0 I w"""--<<x >.<..J;X -I-..J> .... -<. <O>..J.I- L... ::J. r- :I: > Z o. wzu.... 0 ....::i 0 ~ ..J !: -ZO ~o 0- ~I- II: o a.. ~ ~. r iU I!,.d iP.P.d :P-< 2 rr.'!h~ . - I ml'iih" . i Iii ;.!!! ! 1iI!1~- I~!. i J .1f!mi!I,..j ;.. I , "'I., t, IIu.f .!!JiG'! i:a: - m I ruf 51 !Ii ~ili ::: : i jJJ ~ i~rrili dJISJr.~~ Ul.1 riI;;. ail ! ::I , . !..~ t I . ~,.. ! · i" !~!f:IJ I! · i dd ~ !I 11 !~f:\ . ( s- . $ .!. I..:i d, Iii At' I !~ I '-...1 . - I I RESOLUTION PCM 98-16 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, INCLUDING THE VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENT, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, an application for an amendment of the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on December 3, 1997 by the McMillin Companies ("Applicant"), and; WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan includes Villages One and Five. The SPA One Plan project area is comprised of approximately 1,061.2 acres ofland located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future alignment ofSR-125 ("Project"). This amendment is for the Village Five Core, south of East Palomar Street and the CPF and park uses north of East Palomar Street in Village Five, north of East Palomar Street, and; WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan refines and implements the land plans, goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on October 28, 1993, and as amended on May 14, 1996, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project and notice of said hearings, 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 Village Five at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on May 13, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission at which time said hearing was thereafter closed, and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an addendum to the Second-tier Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 95-01, a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and Addendum, 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 EIR, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03 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 ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 21,1995, and; q-I i:~HI ~rr q Planning Commission May 13, 1998 Page 2 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 Chuia 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving the Project 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 13th day of May 1998 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Patty Davis Chairman Diana Vargas, Secretary q-2. 8:\PCSPA.DOC RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT PCM 98-16 TO THE OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUPPORTING PLANS, NON- RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH- WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND THE GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT WHEREAS, an application for an amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department in December 3, 1997 by the McMillin Companies (" Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan also includes the following documents: Overall Design Plan, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan and Supporting Documents, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Regional Facilities Report, Phase 2 Resource Management Plan and Supporting Plans, Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, Ranch-Wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan and the Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report (all documents referred to herein as "Project"); and WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan project area includes all of Villages One and Five and is comprised of approximately 1,061.2 acres ofland located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future alignment of SR-125 ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, the SPA refines and implements the land plans, goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on October 28, 1993, and amended on May 14, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project and notice of said hearings, 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 Village Five at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on May 13, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, a Second-tier Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 95-01, a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and Addendum, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation <7-3 Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 2 Monitoring and Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Second-tier EIR 95-01, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03 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 ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council ofChula Vista certified EIR 95-01 as adequate in compliance with CEQA at a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 1996 and recertified said EIR on May 21, 1996 to assure compliance with Public Resources Code Section 2 1092. 5(a). The City now desires to once again recertify this document as adequate in compliance with CEQA; 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 complement 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 this resolution approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are references in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council ofChula Vista held a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 1998 regarding the Project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT TIIE CITY COUNCIL of the City ofChuJa Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: L RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The proceedings of all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission and City Council at their public hearings on this Project held on May 13 and June 4, 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 the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims. R\CCSPADOC 9-'1 Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 3 II. FEIR 95-01 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED The City Council of the City ofChula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered the FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project. IlL CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01 and Addendum, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the FEIR 95-01 and Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City ofChula Vista City Council. V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: A. The proposed amendment to the Sectional Planning Area Plan is in conformity with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan reflects the land uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan. B. The proposed amendment to the Sectional Planning Area Plan 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 specifies the public facilities required by Otay Ranch, and also the regional facilities needed to serve it. C. The proposed amendment to the Sectional Planning Area Plan will not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality. The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with a grade-separated open space buffer adjacent to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay B:ICCSPADOC ~-s- Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 4 Ranch Planning Area One, four neighborhood parks will be located within the SPA One area to serve the project residents, and the project will provide a wide range of housing types for all economic levels. A comprehensive street network serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan closely 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. VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council hereby finds that: (I) there were no changes in the project ITom the Program EIR and theFEIR which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new information of substantial importance to the project has become available since the issuance and approval of the prior reports; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to those already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR and FEIR, and a third Addendum has been prepared (Guideline 15168 (c)(2) and 15162 (a)). VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. This document along with any documents submitted to the decision makers shall comprise the record of proceedings for any CEQA claims. VIII. ATTACHMENTS All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full. IX. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The Property Owner and/or Applicants shall execute the document attached as Exhibit "A", said execution indicating that the Property Owner and/or Applicant have each read, understand and agree to the conditions contained herein. This does not provide the Property Owner and/or Applicant with any "vesting" of entitlements to this Project or any of the corresponding documents approved herein, that is not otherwise provided by state and federal law. Said document to be placed on file in the City Clerk's office as Document No. B:\CCSPADOC I-Y Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 5 Presented by: Approved as to form by: Robert A. Leiter Planning Director John Kaheny City Attorney B,\CCSPADOC 9 -) Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 6 This document is on file in the Clerk's Office and is known as C096-086 and Recorded Document PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista, California, this 4th day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NAYES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Shirley Horton, Mayor 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 regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 4th day ofJune, 1998. Executed this 4th day ofJune, 1998. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk B:\CCSPADOC '7-8 RESOLUTION NO. PCS 98-04 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A PORTION OF VILLAGE FIVE OF THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 98-04 WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified and described on Chula Vista Tract 98-04 and is commonly known as the Village Five Core and the park and CPF site north of East Palomar Street ("Property"), and; WHEREAS, McMillin Companies filed a duly verified application for the subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known as Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 98-04, with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on December 3, 1997 ("Project"), and; WHEREAS, said application requests the approval for the subdivision of approximately 101.4 acres located south of Telegraph Canyon Road along the extension of Otay Lakes Road known as La Media into 164 single family residential lots, 669 multi-family units, 10-acre school, 12 acres of neighborhood parks, 4.8 acres of community purpose facility lots and one commercial sites on 2.8 acres, and; WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional Planning Area Plan ("SPA Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996 by Resolution No. 18286 ("SPA Plan Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA Plan, relied in part on the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #95021012 ("FEIR 95-01"), and; WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01and the addenda thereto, that is virtually identical in all relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers, lot configurations, transportation corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said former environmental evaluations, and; WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Tentative Map and detennined that it is in substantial conformance with the SPA Plan, and the related environmental documents therefore, no new environmental documents are necessary, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the tentative map 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 Village Five at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and; /D-( €. ~H LI~rr lO Planning Commission May 13, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has previously considered EIR 95-01 and the proposed tentative map is consistent with the project described therein and creates no additional environmental impacts as indicated in the Addendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution adopting the Fourth Addendum to EIR 95-01 and approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for a portion of Village Five only of Chula Vista Tract 98-04 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 THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of May, 1998 by the following vote: YES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Patty Davis Chairman Diana Vargas Secretary B:\PCTM.DOC (O-?- EXHIBIT D RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE FOURTH ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FEIR 95-01 (SCH #95021012) AND APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PORTIONS OF THE OTAY RANCH SP A ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 98-04, AND MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified and described on Chula Vista Tract 98-04 and is commonly known as Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One ("Property"); and WHEREAS, McMillin Companies filed a duly verified application for the subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known as Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 98-04, with the Planning Department of the City ofChula Vista on December 3, 1997; and WHEREAS, the application requested the approval for the subdivision of approximately 101.4 acres located south of the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road into 164 single family residential lots, 669 multi-family units, one 10-acre school site, 12 acres of neighborhood parks, 4.8 acres of community purpose facility lots and one commercial site on 2.8 acres; and WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993 by Resolution No. 17298 and as amended on May 14, 1996 by Resolution No. 18285 ("GDP Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH #9010154 ("Program EIR 90-01"); and WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional Planning Area Plan ("SPA Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996 by Resolution No. 18286 ("SPA Plan Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA Plan, relied in part on the Otay Ranch SPA Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #95021012 ("FEIR 95-01"); and WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01, and addendums thereto, that is virtually identical in all relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers, lot configurations, transportation corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said former environmental evaluations; and /0-3 Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed alternative tentative maps (including the Project's) as part ofIS-98-16 and detennined that they are in substantial confonnance with the SPA Plan and the related environmental documents and that the proposed alternative tentative maps would not result in any new environmental effects that were not previously identified, nor would the proposed alternative tentative maps result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified; therefore only an a Addendum to FEIR 95-01 is required in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the original tentative map application on May 13, 1998 at which time the Planning Commission voted to adopt the Fourth Addendum to FEIR 95-01 and recommend that the City Council approve the Project in accordance with staff's recommendation and the findings and conditions listed below; and WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said tentative subdivision map application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten days prior to the hearing; and . WHEREAS, a hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on June 4, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL finds, detennines, and resolves as follows: SECTION I. CEQA Finding Regarding Previously Examined Effects . The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Program EIR 90-01, Second-tier FEIR 95-01, and addendums thereto, would have no new effects that were not examined in the preceding Program EIR 90-01 and subsequent Second-tier FEIR 95-01 (Guideline 15168 (c)(2)); and SECTION 2. CEQA Finding Regarding Project within Scope of Prior Program EIR The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the project ITom the Program EIR and the FEIR which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new information of substantial importance to the project has become available since the issuance and approval of the prior reports; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to those already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR and FEIR, and a fourth Addendum has been prepared (Guideline 15168 (c)(2) and 15162 (a)). B,ICCTM.DOC ID- 'f Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 3 SECTION 3. Notice with Later Activities The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the GDP EIR (90-01) and the SPA Plan EIR (95-01) and the Final EIR with first, second, third and fourth addendum's adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes ofCEQA (Guideline 15168 (e)). Notice on the SPA EIR was given on June 4, 1996. SECTION 4. Tentative Map Findings A Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council finds that the revised tentative subdivision map for the Village Five core as conditioned herein for Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 97-02, is in conformance with all the various elements of the City's General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area Plan based on the following: 1. Land Use - The Project is a planned community which provides a variety ofland uses and residential densities ranging between 6.3 and 30.9 dwelling units per acre. The project is also consistent with General Plan policies related to grading and landforms. 2. Circulation - All of the on-site and off-site public and private streets required to serve the subdivision consist of Circulation Element roads and local streets in locations required by said Element. The Applicant shall construct those facilities in accordance with City standards or pay in-lieu fees in accordance with the Transportation Development Impact Fee program. 3. Housing - The Applicant is required to enter into an agreement with the City to provide and implement a low and moderate income program within the Project prior to the approval of any Final Map for the Project. 4. Parks and Recreation Open Space - The Project will provide 12 acres (gross) of neighborhood parks and the payment of PAD fees or additional improvements as approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation. In addition, a recreational trail system will be provided throughout the Project, ultimately connecting with other open space areas and trail systems in the region. Open Space - The Project provides 20A acres of open space, 14% of the total 290 acres recommended for approval. A program to preserve 83% of slopes greater than 25% has been established ranch-wide and is detailed in the recirculated FEIR 95-01. IO-S B:\CCTM.DOC Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 4 5. Conservation - The Program EIR and FEIR addressed the goals and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan and found development of this site to be consistent with these goals and policies. 6. Seismic Safety - The proposed subdivision is in conformance wit the goals and policies of the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site. No seismic faults have been identified in the vicinity of the Project 7. Public Safety - All public and private facilities are expected to be reachable within the threshold response times for fire and police services. 8. Public Facilities - The Applicant will provide all on-site and off-site streets, sewers and water facilities necessary to serve this Project The developer will also contribute to the Otay Water District's improvement requirements to provide terminal water storage for this Project as well as other major project in the eastern territories. 9. Noise - The Project will include noise attenuation walls as required by an acoustic study dated June 6, 1995 prepared for the Project. In addition, all units are required to meet the standards of the UBC with regard to acceptable interior noise levels. 10. Scenic Highway - The roadway design provides wide landscaped buffers along the two scenic highways, Telegraph Canyon Road and East Orange Avenue (Olympic Parkway). II. Bicycle Routes - Bicycle paths are provided throughout the Project 12. Public Buildings - The Project provides one elementary school site to serve the area. The Project will also be subject to Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. B. Balance of Housing Needs and Public Service Needs Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. The development will provide for a variety of housing types trom single family detached homes to attached single-family and multiple-family housing and will provide low and moderate priced housing consistent with regional goals. /0 -t/ B:\CCTM.DOC Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 5 C. Opportunities for Natural Heating and Cooling Incorporated The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by Government Code Section 66473.1. D. Finding regarding Suitability for Residential Development The Village Five site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed development. SECTION 5. Tentative Map Findings In Support Of Approval Of The Tentative Map Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 (a) in the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for the McMillin Companies properties in Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 98-04, is in conformance with all the various elements of the City's General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area Plan based on the following: A. Public Facilities McMillin Companies has filed a tentative map that is consistent with the SPA One Plan including the school and park locations. SECTION 6. Approval of Tentative Subdivision Map The City Council does hereby approve, subject to the following conditions, as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, the Project tentative subdivision map for only McMillin Companies Village Five core of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 98-04, based upon the findings and determinations on the record for the project. SECTION 7. Adoption of Addendum The City Council does hereby adopt the Fourth Addendum to the Final EIR 95-01. SECTION 8. Notice of Determination City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination for the project and file the same with the County Clerk. RICCTMJJOC (tJ-7 Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 6 SECTION 9. Consequence of Failure of Conditions If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modifY all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further condition issuance of all future building permits issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. SECTION 10. Invalidity; Automatic Revocation It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every tenn, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Robert A Leiter Planning Director John Kaheny City Attorney 10 - y B:\CCTM.DOC Chula Vista City Council June 4, 1998 Page 7 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista, California, this 4th day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NAYES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Shirley Horton, Mayor 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 regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 4th day ofJune, 1998. Executed this 4th day of June, 1998. Beverly A Authelet, City Clerk 8:\CCTM.DOC 10- ~ MCMILLIN Otay Ranch SPA One Tentative Subdivision Map PCS 98-04 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a). the conditions and Code requirements set forth below shall be completed prior to the related final map as determined by the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and/or the City Engineer; (b). unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is required the applicant shall be required to provide subordination of any prior lien holders in order to ensure that the City has a first priority interest in such land unless otherwise excused by the City. Where fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free and clear of all encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the City. The Developer has requested "A" Maps for the first Final Map on the project. An "A" Map shall be defined as a master subdivision or parcel map, filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which shows "Super Block" lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof, and which does not contain individual single or multi-family lots or a subdivision of the multi-family lots shown on the tentative map. Subsequent to the approval of any "A" Map, the applicant may process the necessary final "B" Maps. A Final "B" Map is defined as a final subdivision or parcel map, filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the ChuIa Vista Municipal Code, which proposed to subdivide land into individual single or multi-family lots, or contains a subdivision of the multi- family lots shown on the tentative map. The "B" Map shall be in substantial conformance with the related approved final "A" Map. Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee. GENERALIPRELIMINARY 1. Prior to each final applicable map, the Developer will comply with all requirements and guidelines of the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan, Spa One Affordable Housing Plan, and the Non- Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager. These plans may be subject to minor modifications by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager, however, any material modifications shall be subject to .approval by the City Council. 2. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. For purposes of this document, the term "Developer" shall also mean "Applicant" . 3. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they (0 - (0 Pa~e No.2 are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The applicant shall be notified 10 days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City. 4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable SPA conditions of approval. 5. Any and all agreements that the applicant is required to enter in hereunder, shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. ENVIRONMENTAL 6. Prior to approval of each fmal "B" Map, the applicant shall enter into a supplemental subdivision agreement to implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01, the CEQA Findings of Fact for this Project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 7. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996 and as may be amended from time to time by the City. 8. The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant shall apply for and receive a take permit from the appropriate resource agencies or comply with an approved MSCP or other equivalent lO(a) permit or Section 7 consultation applicable to the property. DESIGN 9. In addition to the requirements outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual, privately maintained slopes in excess of 25 feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated to soften their appearance as follows: an equivalent of one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area, one I-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate groundcover. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary the slope plane. Landscape and irrigation plans for private slopes shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of the appropriate final map. 10. A comprehensive wall plan indicating color, materials, height and location shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to approval of each final "B" Map. Materials and color used shall be compatible and all walls located in corner side-yards or H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMILLINIVIlL5CORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10 - (I Pa~e No.3 rear yards facing public or private streets or pedestrian connections shall be constructed of a decorative masonry and/or wrought iron material. A revised acoustical analysis indicating if view fencing, such as a combination of masonry and wrought iron, is allowable at the ends of cul-de-sacs backing up to Telegraph Canyon Road, Olympic Parkway and La Media Road, shall be prepared prior to submittal of the wall plan indicated above. View fencing shall be provided at the ends of all open cul-de-sacs where a sound wall is not required, as required by a final acoustical analysis. The exposed portion of any combination free standing/retaining wall as measured from finish grade shall not exceed 8.5 feet. The applicant shall submit a detail and/or cross section of the maximum/minimum conditions for all "combination walls" which include retaining and free standing walls. Said detail shall be included in the grading plans submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning prior to the approval of the first grading permit. The maximum height of all retaining walls shall be 2.5 feet in height when combined with freestanding walls which are six feet in height. A 2-3 foot separation shall be provided between free standing and retaining walls where the combined height would otherwise exceed 8.5 feet. The 8.5 foot wall located in the open space slope adjacent to Neighborhood R-41 shall be reduced in height if possible, when final design grades of the subdivision, trail and drainage channel are determined. If the wall height cannot be minimized, then several smaller walls (2-4 feet in height) shall provided. 11. Lots backing or siding onto pedestrian paseos or parks shall be provided with view fencing such as four feet of wrought iron on top of a two foot masonry wall, in accordance with the comprehensive wall plan and subject to approval by the Fire Marshal and the Planning and Parks and Recreation Directors. Where said wall/fencing is located adjacent to any public park, the wall/fencing, including footing shall be located wholly within the park and maintained by the City. 12. Should the applicant propose an amendment to the Dtay Ranch General Development Plan to reduce density. within the Village Cores at some time in the future, the provision of alley product shall be analyzed and considered concurrently with said amendment. 13. Approval of lot widths and the final number of lots in Neighborhood 42 is subject to building design and product site plan approval by the Planning Department. A reduction in the number of currently proposed lots may occur prior to approval of actual building permits for this Neighborhood. 14. Eliminate the flat areas at the tops of slopes which are in excess of what is required to maintain and install perimeter walls adjacent to cul-de-sacs backing onto La Media Road. 15. The following lots shall be reconfigured to eliminate odd property line alignments: 44 and 74 in Neighborhood R-42 and 67 and 70 in Neighborhood R-41. H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMILLINIVILLSCORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10- /2. Pa\1e No.4 16. Prior to the approval of the improvement plans for Valley Bend Court, a plan detailing guard rail and landscape screening for Valley Bend Drive shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments. STREETS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 17. Dedicate for public use all the public streets shown on the tentative map within the subdivision boundary. Prior to the approval of the applicable "B" Map as determined by the City Engineer, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct and guarantee the construction of all streets shown on the tentative map and all street improvements as required by the PFFP for each particular phase which could be a result of the cumulative development within SPA One. 18. Secure in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, as necessary, the construction and/or construct street improvements for all on-site and off-site streets deemed necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision. Said improvements may include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, reclaimed water and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, landscaping, irrigation, fencing, fire hydrants and traffic signal interconnection conduits and wiring. Street cross sections shall conform to the cross sections shown on the Tentative Map. All other design criteria shall comply with the Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Design Standards, the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual and the City Landscape Manual current at the time of approval of the appropriate final "B" Map, unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein. Exhibit A indicates the relationship between the Otay Ranch SPA One roadway designations and the approved City designations in the Circulation Element of the General Plan for purposes of determining the appropriate design standards for all streets within SPA One. Should the City Engineer deem that the construction of sidewalks along the offsite portions of Olympic Parkway and East Palomar Street west of Paseo Ranchero is not necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision, their construction may be delayed. 19. Include a fully activated traffic signal at the following intersections as part of the improvement plans associated with the final "B" Map which triggers the installation of the related street improvements. a. East Palomar Street and Paseo Ranchero b. East Palomar Street and La Media Road c. East Palomar Street and Olympic Parkway d. Olympic Parkway and Paseo Ranchero e. Olympic Parkway and La Media Road Install underground improvements, standards and street lights with the construction of street improvements, and install mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment as determined by the City Engineer H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMILUNIVILL5CORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 /0- /3 Pa~e No.5 20. Submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping plans for all collector or higher classification streets simultaneously with the associated improvement plans. 21. All vertical and horizontal curves and intersections of all streets shall meet the sight distance requirements of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to comply with the requirements in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Any conflict between the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the City standards shall be resolved by the City Engineer. 22. Prior to the approval of any final "8" Map containing parkways, the Developer shall agree to plant trees within all street parkways and street tree easements which have been selected from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan which shall be approved by the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. The applicant shall provide root control methods per the requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director, install an irrigation line from each individual home to the adjacent parkway, and provide a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. The improvement plans, including final selection of street trees, for the street parkways shall be approved by the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer. 23. The developer shall install irrigation and landscaping for each parkway prior to owner occupancy of the residence, in accordance with plans submitted to, and reviewed and approved by, the Planning Department. 24. CC&Rs for the project shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval, and shall include provisions which clearly indicate the responsibility of the individual homeowners to water and maintain irrigation and planting within the parkways. The CC&Rs shall also indicate that the Master Homeowner's Association shall have both the authority and the obligation to enforce said maintenance. 25. Homeowner Landscape Guidelines for Parkway Landscape Maintenance shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, and shall be included as an attachment to the CC&Rs, thereby providing specific maintenance guidelines as an integral part of the CC&R documents. 26. The City of Chula Vista shall be named as party to the CC&Rs, with the authority, but not the obligation, to enforce the terms and conditions of the CC&Rs in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision. . 27. The CC&Rs for the project shall include language which specifies that individual residents may not modify the parkway planting. 28. Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of the first final Map (including an "A" Map), in which the developer agrees to the following: a. Fund and install Chula Vista transit stop facilities (Le., bus stops) when directed H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMIWNIVILLSCORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 / D - /Y; Pa~e No.6 by the Director of Public Works. The improvement plans for said stops shall be prepared in accordance with the transit stop details described in the Village Design Plans and approved by the Directors of Planning and Public Works. b. Not protest the formation of any future regional benefit assessment district to finance the Light Rail Transit. c. Fund its fair share of the cost of construction of the two pedestrian bridges connecting Village One to Village Two and Village Five to Village Six as determined by the City Engineer based on the proportionate benefit received from the improvements. The developer shall also identify the financing mechanism to be used to fund said cost. 29. Prior to approval of the appropriate final map, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the Developer shall grant in fee to the City the right-of-way for the Light Rail Transit as indicated on the typical cross section of East Palomar Street on the approved Tentative Map. Said right-of-way shall be granted to the City for open space, transportation, and other public purposes. Said right-of-way shall not extend across street intersections unless approved by the City Engineer. Include said right-of-way in an open space district. 30. Guarantee the construction and enter into an agreement to construct the pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to Village Five in accordance with improvement plans approved by the City prior to approval of the final map that requires construction of La Media Road between East Palomar Street and Olympic Parkway. The developer shall construct said bridge, at the time when that portion of La Media Road is constructed and may seek, with the concurrence of the City, repayment from other benefiting property owners through a reimbursement district. 3 I. In the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of-way which are in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise required by federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after construction has commenced. 32. Include the necessary modifications to the applicable existing traffic signals at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road at Otay Lakes Road as part of the improvement plans associated with the first final "B" Map which triggers the construction of La Media Road. Install underground improvements, standards and street lights with the construction of street improvements, and install mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment as determined by the City Engineer. 33. Provide: (I) a minimum setback of 19.5 feet on driveways from the back of sidewalk to garage, (2) a minimum 7-foot parkway (face of curb to property line) around the turnaround area of the cul-de-sac, and (3) sectional roll-up type garage doors at all properties fronting on streets H:\HOME\BEVERL YB\MCMILUN\VILL5COR\CONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 - /O~/":> Pa~e No.7 which are proposed for construction in accordance with the detail of the "typical cul-de-sac. 150 feet or less" shown on Sheet 1 of the tentative map, except as provided for in the Planned Community District Regulations or approved by the City Engineer and the Planning Director. At the ends of open cul-de-sacs, where no residential lots are located, the sidewalk may be contiguous with the curb, with an open view fence located directly behind the sidewalk. 34. Not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities crossing any public street. This shall include the prohibition of the installation of sleeves for future construction of privately owned facilities. The City Engineer may waive this requirement if the following is accomplished : a. The developer enters into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to the following: 1. Apply for an encroachment permit for installation of the private facilities within the public right-of-way. 2. Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service. 3. Mark out any private facilities owned by the developer whenever work is performed in the area. The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the developer. b. Shutoff devices as detennined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations where private facilities traverse public streets. 35. Residential Street Condition A as denoted on the cover page of the tentative map is the preferred section and shall be implemented on all residential streets, excluding the duplex product, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director. Following is a list of streets where Residential Street Condition A shall be implemented: Neighborhood R-41: Sierra Verde Drive ,Corral View Avenue, Valley Bend Drive, Ranchette Court, Misty Ridge Avenue. Neighborhood R-42: Sierra Verde Drive. Residential street Condition B may be used in Neighborhood R-42. 36. The applicant shall submit a conceptual design for the bridge connections between Village One and Village Five which indicates materials, height, location, etc. Said design plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of the final "B" Map that H:\HOME\BEVERLYB\MCMILLINIVILLSCOR\CONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 /0 -I P Pa~e No.8 requires construction of La Media Road between East Palomar Street and Olympic Parkway. 37. Requested General Waivers I, 2 and 3, as indicated on the cover sheet of the tentative map, are hereby approved. 38. The developer shall dedicate the right of way and easements within the boundaries of the tentative map for other land owners to pioneer public facilities in the property as required by the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP); provided, however, that such dedications shall be restricted to those reasonably necessary for the construction of the facilities identified in the PFFP. 39. The Developer shall be responsible for the construction of full improvements of that portion of East Palomar Street contained within the proposed tentative map, including the installation of full transit stop improvements at the Village Five core. In the event said portion of East Palomar Street is proposed for construction in phases, the Developer shall: (I) submit and obtain approval of the City Engineer of a construction phasing plan, which shall determine the improvements, facilities, and/or dedications to be provided with each phase, and (2) enter into an agreement with the City, prior to the issuance of any grant of approval for the construction of the initial phase of East Palomar Street, where the Developer agrees to construct the remaining phases at such time as required by the PFFP. 40. In order to finance the construction of the backbone facilities (which include but are not limited to East Palomar Street within the tentative map, transit stops, pedestrian bridges, Telegraph Canyon detention basin and Poggi Canyon Channel and detention basin) not included within a City development fee program and which would provide benefit to areas beyond a single ownership within the Otay Ranch SPA One, the Developer may seek, with the concurrence of the City, payment of the fair share of the construction cost of said facilities from other benefiting properties through the establishment of a reimbursement mechanism, a development impact fee program, an assessment mechanism or other equitable facility financing program within the City's discretion. 41. Santa Cora Avenue shall be designed to provide a 10-foot dry lane at each side of the centerline for the IO-year frequency drainage flow. 42. The developer shall be responsible for grading that off site portion of East Palomar Street extending from the eastern subdivision boundary (R-40) to the intersection with Santa Rosa Drive, as determined by the City Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, this grading shall be performed in conjunction with the grading for that portion of East Palomar Street extending from Santa Cora Avenue to the eastern subdivision boundary. Said access shall be provided at the intersection of East Palomar Street and Santa Rosa Drive. Prior to the issuance of any grant of approval for development of said portion ofR-40, developer shall accomplish the following: I. Guarantee the construction of full improvements and facilities for that portion of East Palomar Street, located east of the tentative map boundary, which the City Engineer deems H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMlLUNIVIU-SCORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 /0-/7 Pal:e No.9 necessary to provide the required access. 2. Obtain all offsite right-of-way necessary for the installation of the required East Palomar Street improvements. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 43. Provide a setback, as determined by the City Engineer, and based on the soils engineering study, between the property lines of the proposed lots and the top or toe of any slope to be constructed where the proposed grading adjoins undeveloped property or property owned by others. The City Engineer shall not approve the creation of any lot that does not meet the required setback. The developer shall submit notarized letters of permission to grade for all off-site grading. 44. In conjunction with the as built grading plans, the applicant shall submit a list of proposed lots with the appropriate grading plan indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut or a transition between the two situations. 45. Comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program. 46. Provide runoff detention basins or any other facility approved by the City Engineer to reduce the peak runoff from the development to an amount equal to or less than the present 100- year frequency peak runoff. 47. Prior to approval of: (1) the first final "B" Map or grading permit whichever occurs first for land draining into the Poggi Canyon, the developer shall: a. Guarantee the construction of the applicable drainage facility, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer as follows: 1. Runoff detention/desilting basin and naturalized channel in Poggi Canyon; The Developer may agree to construct these facilities at a later time if approved by the City Engineer and if the developer provides private temporary runoff detention basins or other facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which would reduce the peak runoff from the development to an amount equal to less than the present 100- year peak flow. Said temporary facilities shall comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which approves any temporary facility, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to guarantee the adequate operation and maintenance (O&M) of said facility. The developer shall provide security satisfactory to the City to guarantee the O&M activities, in the event said facilities are not maintained to City standards as H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMILLINIVILL5CORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10-/'g Pa\:e No. 10 determined by the City Engineer. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and agreements with the environmental regulatory agencies required to perform this work. b. Prepare a maintenance program including a schedule, estimate of cost, operations manual and a financing mechanism for the maintenance of the applicable facilities. Said program shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer, the Director of Parks and Recreation, and the applicable environmental agencies. c. Enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista and the applicable environmental agencies (Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife) wherein the parties agree to implement the maintenance program. d. Enter into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to the following: 1. Provide for the maintenance of the proposed naturalized channel and detention basin in Poggi Canyon until such time as maintenance of such facilities is assumed by the City or an open space district. 2. Provide for the removal of siltation in the Poggi Canyon Channel and detention basin for a period of five years after all upstream grading of the area contained within the tentative map is completed and erosion protection planting is adequately established as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation. 3. Provide for the removal of any siltation in the Poggi Canyon Channel and detention basin attributable to the development for a minimum period of five years after maintenance of such facility is accepted by the City or an Open Space District. 48. Ensure that brow channels and ditches emanating from and/or running through City Open Space are not routed through private property and vice versa. 49. Provide a graded access (12 feet minimum width) and access easements as required by the City Engineer to all public stonn drain structures including inlet and outlet structures. Improved access as detennined by the City Engineer shall be provided to public drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot. 50. Provide a protective fencing system around: (1) the proposed detention basin at Poggi Canyon, and (2) inlets and outlets of storm drain structures, as directed by the City Engineer. The final design and types of construction materials shall be subject to approval of the Director of Planning and the City Engineer. H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMILLINIVIliSCORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 /D - ICf Pa\>e No. 11 51. Designate all drainage facilities draining private property to the point of connection with public facilities as private. 52. Provide a 6 inch thick concrete access road to the bottom of the proposed detention basins. This access shall have a minimum width of 12 feet, a maximum slope of 8 %, and a heavy broom finish on the ramp as directed by the City Engineer. 53. Provide graded maintenance access roads along both sides of the proposed on-site and off- site portions of the Poggi Canyon Channel. The width of said roads shaH be 12 feet unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final dimensions and location of the access roads shaH be as determined by the City Engineer. 54. As part of the construction of the regional trail, instaH a fence along those portions of the proposed maintenance access road of the Poggi Canyon Channel, which is proposed to be incorporated into the Regional Trail System. The fence shaH be erected only at those locations where its installation will not interfere with the normal channel maintenance. The specific locations where the fence will be allowed and the fence details shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation. 55. Prior to approval of mass grading plans, the Developer shaH prepare and obtain approval by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Director of Parks and Recreation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan. Prior to approval of the street improvement plans for Neighborhoods R-40, 41, 42 and 43 the Developer shall obtain approval of landscape/irrigation plans. 56. Landform grading, similar to what was proposed along Telegraph Canyon Road on tentative map 97-02 and consistent with City policy and the approved tentative maps for the adjacent properties, shall be implemented adjacent to all off-site major roads (i.e., East Palomar Street and Olympic Parkway). 57. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls which are to be maintained by open space districts or other methods shall be constructed entirely within open space lots. 58. The grading plans for the intersection at Olympic Parkway/Paseo Ranchero shall include a partial grading of the area that would accommodate the future grade separated intersection. The elevations and extent of the required grading shall be determined by the City Engineer to: (I) allow in the future the construction of any additional grading necessary for the ultimate intersection configuration, and (2) construct the Poggi Canyon Channel at its ultimate location. 59. Prior to approval of the first grading permit for any land contained within the tentative map, the developer shall submit and obtain the approval of the City Engineer of the foHowing: I. A grading study demonstrating that the grading depicted in the tentative map will generate the necessary fill to construct those portions of Olympic Parkway and the Poggi Canyon H:\HOME\BEVERLYB\MCMILLIN\VILLSCOR\CONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 I 0 - 2-0 Pa~e No. 12 Channel located within the subdivision boundaries. This study shall incorporate the most recent design infonnation for those facilities, including the findings and recommendations, if available, ofCIP project No. STM 331, Olympic Parkway from Oleander Avenue to SR-125. Said grading study shall identify the proposed location for stockpiling of fill materiaL 2. A grading study of the area required for the emergency storage reservoir of the proposed sewer pump station. 3. A phasing program identifying the extent of the interim grading which would provide (I) adequate setbacks from the existing Poggi Canyon natural channel that may be required by the appropriate resources agencies and (2) adequate setbacks trom the proposed alignments of Olympic Parkway and Poggi Canyon Channel required to accommodate the ultimate improvements for said facilities. 60. In the event the City Council approves construction of the proposed pump station, the intersection of La Media Road and Olympic Parkway may be required to be graded concurrently with the earliest to occur of the following grading operations: I) first grading pennit for neighborhood R- 41; 2) grading required for the construction of the proposed sewer pump station and associated emergency storage reservoir, or 3) prior to the grading of La Media Road. 61. Prior to approval of any grading pennit for any land contained within the tentative map, the developer shall accomplish the following: I. Identify on the applicable grading plans the quantity and the proposed location for stockpiling of material reserved for constructing Olympic Parkway and Poggi Canyon ChanneL In the event it is proposed to stockpile material over areas where the ultimate improvements for Olympic Parkway and Poggi Canyon Channel will be located, the developer shall be responsible for perfonning any remedial work (i. e., removal, compacting, etc.) of the native soils recommended by the soils engineer, prior to placement of such stockpiled material. 2. Enter into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to make available to the City or any developer pioneering the construction of Olympic Parkway and the Poggi Canyon Channel within the subdivision, the fill material identified for constructing said facilities. In the event the material is deposited on a land owned by other property owner, the developer shall be responsible for ensuring that said party is among the signatories to the agreement. SEWER 62. Provide an improved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet to all sanitary sewer manholes. The roadway shall be designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer. 63. Prior to approval of any final B Map for any property located within the Poggi Canyon Sewer Trunk gravity basin, the developer shall construct or secure the construction, in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, of the Poggi Canyon Sewer Trunk improvements H:\HOME\BEVERLYB\MCMILLINIVILL5COR\CONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 (0- 2/ Pa"e No. 13 required to serve the properties located within said final map. As an alternative to the gravity sewer line the developer may propose the construction of the sewage pump station shown on the tentative map at the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of East Orange A venue and La Media Road. Prior to the issuance of any grant of approval for the construction of said pump station and associated improvements, the developer shall comply with all the requirements of Council Policy No. 570-03 (Sewage Pump Station Financing Policy). In addition to the requirements imposed by said Council Policy No. 570-03, the developer shall accomplish the following: 1. Provide an emergency storage reservoir The design, capacity and location of said reservoir shall be approved by the City Engineer 2. Deposit with the City, prior to the issuance of any grant of approval for the construction of said pump station and associated improvements, a cash bond or other type of improvement security approved by the City Engineer to secure, upon construction of the Poggi Canyon Sewer Trunk, the following activities: (1) removal of the pump station improvements, and (2) connection by gravity to the future Poggi Canyon Sewer Trunk. 3. Provide for the update of the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer Pumped Flows DIF. Said update shall be prepared by the City, as directed by the City Engineer, and approved by Council prior to the issuance of any grant of approval for the construction of said pump station and associated improvements. The developer shall not receive credits towards future fees for funding this update. All cost of performing said update shall be borne by the developer. 64. Fund a revision of the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee reflecting the land use of the proposed tentative map. Said revision shall be prepared by the City, as directed by the City Engineer, and approved by the City Council prior to approval of the first final "B" map. The developer shall not receive credits towards future fees for funding this revision. All cost of revising the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee shall be borne by the developer PARKS/OPEN SPACE/WILDLIFE PRESERVATION General 65. The project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide three (3) acres of local parks and related improvements per 1, 000 residents. Local parks are comprised of community parks and neighborhood parks. Pedestrian parks are an integral component of the plan and shall receive partial park credit as defined below. A minimum of two thirds (2 acres/1,ooo residents) of local park requirement shall be satisfied through the provision of turn-key neighborhood and pedestrian parks. The remaining requirement (1 acre/l,OOO residents) shall be satisfied through the payment of fees. 66. All local parks shall be consistent with the SPA One PFFP and shall be installed by the Applicant. A construction schedule, requiring all parks to be completed in a timely manner, shall H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMILUNIVIlLSCORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10-1.2.. Pa~e No. 14 be approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation. 67. All local parks shall be designed and constructed consistent with the provisions of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and related Parks and Recreation Department specifications and policies. 68. All aspects of the neighborhood parks, shall be designed in accordance with the City Landscape Manual. 69. The Applicant shall receive surplus park credit to the extent the combined park credit for neighborhood parks, pedestrian parks and the town square park exceeds the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard. This surplus park credit may be utilized by the Applicant to satisfy local park requirements in future SPAs. 70. The Applicant and the City shall mutually agree on a PAD fee reimbursement schedule in coordination with the adopted construction schedule. Milestones will be established for partial reimbursement during the construction process. The City may withhold up to 20% of the park construction funds until the park has been completed and accepted. Reimbursement of PAD fees shall include the interest accrued by the City on said PAD fees minus the City's cost of processing and administering this reimbursement program. 71. Unless otherwise specifically stated herein, Developer shall provide the City with an irrevocable offer of dedication, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for all designated public park lands prior to approval of the first final "B" Map within the phase identified in the PFFP for said parks. 72. Nei~hborhood Parks: Developer shall provide the City with an irrevocable offer of dedication, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the parks identified in the PFFP as P-6, 7 and 8 prior to the approval of the final map in accordance with the PFFP phasing. a. In addition to those required PAD fees, the Applicant shall pay PAD fees based on a formula of 2 acres per 1,000 residents for the first 833 dwelling units. In the City's sole discretion, PAD fees may be required for units in excess of the first 833 dwelling units. b. Prior to the approval of the first final map which creates residential lots ("B" Map), the applicant shall enter into a supplemental agreement where the applicant agrees to construct and guarantees construction of the first neighborhood park, no later than issuance of the building permit for the 833rd dwelling unit. The agreement shall also provide the following: 1. The level of amenities required in the neighborhood park shall be determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation in conjunction with the park master planning effort required by the City of Chula Vista Landscape H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBlMCMILUNIVILLSCORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10 ~ ~:; Pai:e No. 15 Manual. The applicant shall complete construction of the neighborhood park within six (6) months of commencing construction of said park. 2. The timing of construction of Parks P-6, P-7, P-8 and the regional trails shall be addressed in the revised PFFP. 3. At no time following completion of construction of the first phase of the first neighborhood park shall there be a deficit in "constructed neighborhood park" based upon 2 acresll,ooo residents. Applicant agrees that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits should said deficit occur. For purposes of this condition, the term "constructed neighborhood park shall mean that constJ;Uction of the park has been completed and accepted by the Director of Parks and Recreation as being in compliance with the Park Master Plan, but prior to the mandatory one year maintenance period. This condition is not intended to supersede any of the City's maintenance guarantee requirements. 4. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees for any amount above their pro-rata share for the costs of constructing a turn-key park constructed in accordance with the Parks Master Plan. c. The applicant shall grant to the City, at the "A" Map stage, an irrevocable offer of dedication for all neighborhood parks shown on the Tentative Map. 73. Community Parks: Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map the Applicant shall pay PAD fees for the Community Park based upon a formula of 1 acre per 1, 000 residents 74. Trails/Open Space: a. All trails shall connect to adjoining existing and/or proposed trails in neighboring development projects, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation. b. The maximum gradient for connector trails shall be 10%. Steeper grades of up to 12 % for short runs of 50 feet may be permitted subject to the approval by the Parks and Recreation Director. c. The graded section upon which the connecting trails are constructed shall be 10 feet in width. Six feet shall be provided for the trail bed, with a 2 foot graded shoulder on either side. d. Landscape and irrigation plans for the transit right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director in conjunction with the landscape plans for East Palomar Street. H:\HOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMIUlN\Vlu.5CORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 (O-7..y Page No. 16 OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS 75. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the developer shall: a. Submit and obtain approval of the SPA One Open Space Master Plan from the Director of Parks and Recreation. The Open Space Master Plan shall be based upon the approved Concept and Analysis Plan, the requirements of which are outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and include but are not limited to elements such as final recreational trail alignments and fencing and phasing. b. Request the formation of an Open Space District consistent with a financing mechanism approved by the City Council. The district formation shall be submitted to Council for consideration prior to approval of the first final B map. Maintenance of the open space improvements shall be accomplished by the developer for a minimum period of one year or until such time as accepted into the open space district by the Director of Parks and Recreation. If Council does not approve the open space district formation, some other financing mechanism shall be identified and submitted to Council for consideration prior to approval of the first fmal map. c. Submit evidence acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation of the formation of a Master Homeowner's Association (MHOA), or another financial mechanism acceptable to the City, which includes all the properties within the approved tentative map prior to approval of the first "B" Map. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of the improvements listed in Condition 74d. The City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation may require that some of those improvements be maintained by the Open Space District. The final determina.tion of which improvements are to be included in the Open Space District and those to be maintained by the MHOA shall be made during the Open Space District Proceedings. The MHOA shall be structured to allow annexation of future tentative map areas in the event the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation require such annexation of future tentative map areas. The MHOA formation documents shall be approved by the City Attorney. d. Submit a list of all Otay Ranch SPA One facilities and other items to be maintained by the proposed district. Separate lists shall be submitted for the improvements and facilities to be maintained by the Open Space District and those to be maintained by a Master Homeowner's Association. Include a description, quantity and cost per year for the perpetual maintenance of said improvements. These lists shall include but are not limited to the following facilities and improvements: I. All facilities located on open space lots to include but not be limited to: H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMILLlNIVILl.5CORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 I D- 1. c;- Pa\1e No. 17 walls, fences, water fountains, lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads, drainage structures and landscaping. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the number of acreS of turf, irrigated, and non-irrigated open space to aid in the estimation of a maintenance budget thereof. 2. Medians and parkways along Olympic Parkway (onsite and offsite), Paseo Ranchero, La Media Road, East Palomar Street (onsite and offsite) and all other street parkways proposed for maintenance by the open space district or Homeowners' Association. 3. The proposed detention basin in Telegraph Canyon and the fair share of the maintenance of the existing naturalized Telegraph Canyon Channel east of Paseo Ladera as determined by the City Engineer based on the proportional benefit received from the improvements. This includes but is not limited to the cost of maintenance and all cost to comply with the Department of Fish and Game and Corps of Engineers permit requirements. 4. The proposed detention basin and naturalized channel in Poggi Canyon. This includes but is not limited to the cost of maintenance and all cost to comply with the Department of Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers permit requirements. 5. Pedestrian Bridges. e. All costs of formation and other costs associated with the processing of the open space district shall be borne by the developer. f. Provide all the necessary information and materials (e.g., exhibits, diagrams, etc.) as determined by the City Engineer to prepare the engineer's report for the proposed open space district. 76. Include in the CC&Rs, if applicable, the obligation of the Homeowners' Association to maintain all the facilities and improvements within private open space lots prior to the approval of the final map containing said lots. 77. Grade a level, clear area at least three feet wide (face of wall to top of slope), along the length of any wall abutting an open space district lot, as measured from face-of-wall to beginning of slope, said area as approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation. 78. Ensure that all buyers of lots adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the open space district sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that they are aware that they shall not modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto the open space lots. These H:\HOME\BEVERLYB\MCMIWNIVIlL5COR\CONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10 - 1..-(0 Pai:e No. 18 restrictions shall also be incorporated in the CC&Rs for each lot. 79. Agree to not protest formation or inclusion in a maintenance district or zone for the maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic corridors along streets within and adjacent to the subject subdivision. 80. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the Developer shall grant in-fee to the City on the appropriate final map, all open space lots shown on the tentative map and execute and record a deed for each of the lots to be maintained through the open space district. 81. Provide documentation, prior to the approval of the first final "8" Map, to the Director of Planning and the City Engineer that an annexable Mello-Roos District, or other financing mechanism approved by the Sweetwater High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District has been established to provide for construction of schools. 82. The update of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (currently being prepared) which incorporates the public facilities proposed in the Otay Ranch SPA One shall be approved by City Council prior to the approval of any final "8" Map. 83. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which includes Landscaping and Irrigation (L & I) improvements to be installed in an open space lot to be maintained by the open space district, the developer shall place a cash deposit with the City which will guarantee the maintenance of the L & I improvements, prior to City acceptance of said improvements, in the event the improvements are not maintained to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation. The amount of the deposit shall be equivalent to the estimated cost of maintaining the open space lots to City standards for a period of six months as determined by the City Engineer. Any unused portion of said deposit may be .incorporated into the open space district's reserve at such time as the maintenance of the open space lot is assumed by the open space district. 84. Ensure that all buyers of lots fronting residential streets constructed in accordance with Condition A sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that (1) they are aware that the individual homeowner will be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping improvements located between the curb and the sidewalk (excluding City approved trees), and (2) they shall not replace or remove any trees planted between the curb and the sidewalk without the approval of the City. These provisions shall be incorporated in the CC&Rs for each lot. WATER 85. Provide to the City a letter from Otay Municipal Water District indicating that the assessments/ bonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the City have been paid or that no assessments exist on the parcel(s). 86. Present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter from Otay Water District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long term water storage facilities. H:\HOME\BEVERLYB\MCMILUNIVILLSCOR\CONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10-1-7 Pa\1e No. 19 EASEMENTS 87. Grant to the City a 10' wide easement for general utility purposes along public street frontage of all open space lots offered for dedication to the City unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 88. Indicate on the appropriate "B" Map a reservation of easements to the future Homeowners' Association for private storm drain and private sewer facilities within City open space lots as directed by the City Engineer. 89. Obtain, prior to approval of any final, "B" Map, all off-site right-of-way necessary for the installation of the required improvements for that subdivision thereto. The developer shall also provide easements for all on-site and off-site public drainage facilities, sewers, maintenance roads, and any other public facilities necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision. 90. Notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the final map by City if off-site right-of-way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of approval. (Only off-site right- of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition. ) After said notification, the developer shall: a. Pay the full' cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the tentative map. b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer. c. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings as determined by the City Attorney. d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire right-of-way, easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the final map. The developers shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition. The requirements of a, b and c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the appropriate Final Map. 91. Grant easements to subsequent owners pursuant to Section 18.20.150 of the City Code on any final map that proposes private utilities or drainage facilities crossing property lines as directed by the City Engineer. H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMILLlNIVILLSCORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 /CJ- J...8 Pa\:e No. 20 92. Grant to City on the appropriate final "B" Map two foot access easements along the rear and side property line of lots adjoining walls to be maintained by the open space district. The locations of these easements shall be as required by the Director of Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer to provide adequate access for maintenance of said walls. 93. Grant on the appropriate final "B" Map the following: (I.) a minimum 15 foot wide drainage and access easement for stormdrains located between residential units, and (2.) a minimum 20 foot wide sewer and a=ss easement for seweriines located between residential units. The City Engineer may approve that a reduced (stormdrain and/or sewer) easement width be granted at those locations where stormdrains are proposed adjacent to sewerlines. All other easements shall meet City standards for required width. AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL 94. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each final "B" Map, where the developer agrees to the following: a. That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occur: 1. Regional development threshold limits set by the adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached. 2. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. 3. The applicant does not comply with the terms of the Reserve Fund Program. b. That the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Otay Ranch SPA One if the required facilities, as identified in the PPFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program, have not been completed. c. Defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision approval. d. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project. H:IHOMEIBEVERL YBIMCMIWNIVIu.5CORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10 - 2-4 Pa~e No. 21 e. Ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot on public streets within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista. f. Include in the Articles of Incorporation or Charter for the Homeowners' Association (HOA) provisions prohibiting the HOA from dedicating or conveying for public streets, land used for private streets (i.e., in multi-family areas) without approval of 100% of all the HOA members. g. Ensure that all insurance companies are permitted equal opportunity to go out to bid to provide a Cooperative Homeowner's Insurance Program (CHIP). 95. Enter into an supplemental agreement with the City prior to approval of the first final "B" Map, where the developer agrees to the following: a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP). b. To not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of correctional facilities. 96. The applicant shall comply with the Affordable Housing Agreement approved by the City Council on February 10, 1998 by Resolution 18885. 97. The Applicant shal1 pay, prior to approval of the first "B" Map, their proportional share, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation, of a collaborative study analyzing local park needs for the area east of the I-80S Freeway. 98. Prior to the approval of the first fmal "B" Map, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer of an "Improvement Phasing Schedule" which will identify the timing of construction of all backbone facilities and/or completion of the activity noted in the following table. The Improvement Phasing Schedule shall be consistent with the PFFP. H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMIWNIVIu.5CORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 /0- -3.t> Pa~e No. 22 COST ITEM TO BE INCLUDED IN IMPROVEMENT PHASING SCHEDULE *Payment of Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIF FACILITY For areas covered by backbone streets and all common areas with include, but are not limited to, parks, schools, paseos and open space lots. Poggi Canyon Channel (on-site and off-site) and detention basin *Acquisition/dedication of off-site drainage . easement. *Construction and maintenance (prior to City acceptance) . Security satisfactory to the City shall be provided for the above backbone facilities when their construction or compliance is triggered as identified in the approved Improvement Phasing Schedule. In addition to the foregoing, prior to approval of the first final "B" Map, the Developer shall provide security satisfactory to the City Engineer to guarantee the construction of the following: a. Full improvements of that portion of East Palomar Street contained within the tentative map boundaries including full improvements of the transit stop proposed in East Palomar Street at the Village Five core. b. Fair share of the improvements for the pedestrian bridges connecting Village One to Village Five, Village One to Village Two and Village Five to Village Six. The amount of the security for the above noted improvements shall be 110% times a construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement plans have been approved by the City; 150% times the approved cost estimate if improvement plans are being processed by the City or 200% times the construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement plans have not been submitted for City review. A lesser percentage may be required if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such reduction. SCHOOLS 99. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located within Village Five, prior to issuance of the SOOth residential building permit (150 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School district as based on District facility needs. MISCELLANEOUS 100. Include in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) provisions H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMILUNIVIU5CORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10 - 3/ Paee No. 23 assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems which are private. The CC&Rs shall also include provisions requiring the HOA to obtain an encroachment permit from the City prior to performing work on any private easement which may disturb any existing landscaping or any other public improvements. The City of Chula Vista shall be named as party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the terms and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision. The CC&R's shall also include language which states that any proposal by the HOA for dedication or conveyance for public purposes of land used for private streets (i.e., in multi-family areas) will require prior written approval of 100% of all the Homeowners' Association members. 101. The Developer is required to submit copies of Final Maps in a digital format such as (DXF) graphic file prior to approval of each Final Map. Provide Computer Aided Design (CAD) copy of the Final map based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and submit the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal in duplicate on 5-114" HD or 3-112" disks. Submit as-built improvement and grading plans in digital format. Provide security to guarantee the ultimate submittal of improvements and grading digital files. Update electronic files after any construction pen and ink changes to the grading or improvement plans and resubmit to the City. 102. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System -Zone VI (1983). 103. The developer may submit and obtain the approval of the City of a master final map ("A" Map)showing "super block" lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof. Said" A" map shall also show the backbone street dedications and utility easements required to serve the "super block" lots. All "super" block lots created shall have access to a dedicated public street. Said" A" map shall not be considered the first map as indicated in other conditions of approval unless said map contains single or multiple family lots or a subdivision of the multiple family lots shown on the tentative map or unless otherwise indicated in said conditions of approval:. The City shall not require improvement plans in order to approve a final map for any "A" Map lots, but the developer shall provide security to guarantee the construction of the backbone facilities, prior to approval of any "A" Map in the following amounts: The amount of the security for the above noted improvements shall be 110% times a construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement plans have been approved by the City, 150% times the approved cost estimate if improvement plans are being processed by the City or 200% times the construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement plans have not been submitted for City review. A lesser percentage may be required if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such reduction. Prior to approval of the first "A" Map, the Developer shall enter into an agreement where the Developer agrees that the subsequent development of a multiple family lot, which does not require the filing of a "B" Map, shall meet (prior to issuance of a building permit for that lot) all the H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMlLUNIVIU5CORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 I 0 - :3 1..... Pa\:e No. 24 applicable conditions of approval of the tentative map, as determined by the City Engineer. Construction of non-backbone streets adjacent to multiple family lots will not need to be bonded for with the final "A" Map which created such lot. However, such improvements will be required to be constructed under the Municipal Code provisions requiring construction of street improvements under the design review and building permit issuance processes. In the event of a filing of a final map which requires oversizing (in accordance with the restrictions of state law and City ordinances) of the improvements necessary to serve other properties, said final map shall be required to install all necessary improvements to serve the project plus the necessary oversizing of facilities required to serve such other properties. The developer may seek repayment from other property owners through a reimbursement district. 104. Prior to approval of the first" A" Map, the Developer shall enter into an agreement to secure approval of a Master Precise Plan for the Village Five Core Area prior to submitting any development proposals for commercial, multi-family and Community Purpose Facility areas within the SPA Five Village Core. 105. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance (Section 19.09 of the CVMC) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the Applicant shall complete the following: (1.) Fund the preparation of an annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence following the first fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP; and (2.) Prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities. 106. The applicant of each master tentative map shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector and submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal package required of each developer to ensure a high standard of design and to ensure consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project manager shall have a well rounded educational background and experience, including but not limited to land use planning and architecture. 107. The applicant shall submit copies of any proposed C.C. and R's for review and approval by the Director of Planning and the City Engineer prior to approval of each fmal "B" Map. H:\HOME\BEVERLYB\MCMILUN\VIlL5COR\CONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10- 33> Paee No. 25 108. If developer desires to do certain work on the property after approval of the tentative map but prior to recordation of the applicable final "B" Map, they may do so by obtaining the required approvals and permits from the City. The permits can be approved or denied by the City in accordance with the City's Municipal Code, regulations and policies. Said permits do not constitute a guarantee that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and improvement plans) will be approved. All work performed by the developer prior to approval of the applicable "B" Map shall be at developer's own risk.. Prior to permit issuance, the developer shall acknowledge in writing that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and improvement plans) may require extensive changes, at developers cost, to work done under such early permit. The developer shall post a bond or other security acceptable to the City in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the rehabilitation of the land if the applicable final "B" Map does not record. PHASING 109. The applicant shall submit to the City a revised phasing for review and approval prior to approval of the first final "B" Map. The PFFP shall be revised where necessary to reflect the revised phasing plan. 110. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, the developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City Engineer and Director of Planning prior to approval of any fmal map. Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. The City reserves the right to require said improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Planning Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 111. The Public Facilities Finance Plan or revisions hereto shall be adhered to for the SPA and tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by. the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of development within and outside of the project area. Throughout the build-out of SPA One, actual development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP. Neither the PFPP nor any other SPA One document grant the Applicant an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements and market conditions, shall govern SPA One development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. H:\HOME\BEVERLYB\MCMlLUNIVILLSCOR\CONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10- ~Y Page No. 26 CODE REQUIREMENTS 112. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation Qf the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. 113. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. 114. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy: a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees b. Signal Participation Fees c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees d. Interim SR-125 impact fee e. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin DIF f. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF g. Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIF h. Otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee. 115. Comply with all relevant Federal, State and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. 116. Ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments" pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 regarding projected taxes and assessments. Submit disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. 117. Comply with Council Policy No. 570-03 if pump stations for sewer purposes are proposed. 118. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within open spaces. 119. The applicant shall comply with all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. 120. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implementation (19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09.100). The applicant acknowledges that the City is presently in the process of amending its Growth Management Ordinance to add a proposed Section 19.09.105, to establish provisions necessary to ensure compliance with adopted threshold standards (particularly traffic) prior to construction of State Route 125. Said provisions will require the demonstration, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, of sufficient street system capacity to accommodate a proposed development as a H:IHOMEIBEVERLYBIMCMILLINIVILLSCORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 /D-~ Pa\:e No. 27 prerequisite to final map approval for that development, and the applicant hereby agrees to comply with adopted amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance. 121. Upon submittal of building plans for small lot single family (5,000 square feet or less as defined in the City of Chula Vista Design Manual) residential development, plans shall clearly indicate that 750 square feet of private open space will be provided. 122. AU proposed development shaU be consistent with the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations. H:IHOMEIBEVERL YBIMCMIWNIVIlLSCORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 10 - 3~ Paee No. 28 COMPARISON OF OTAY RANCH STREET CLASSIFICATIONS TO CITY STREET CLASSIFICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS TO BE UTILIZED IN TENTATIVE MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN PREPARATION FOR OTA Y RANCH CLASSIFICATION OF... USE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CITY STREET CLASSIFICATION OF... Scenic Corridor Prime Arterial Prime Arterial Prime Arterial Primary Village Entry Secondary Village Entry Village Core Residential Promenade Class I Collector Class II Collector Class I Collector Class III Collector Core Promenade Residential Village Main Village Plaza Residential A and B Residential Residential Residential Alley Standards H:IHOMEIBEVERL YBIMCMILLINIVILLSCORICONDF.DOC Printed: 5/6/98 /0 _-37 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 3 Meeting Date: 05/13/98 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: DRC-98-l6 - Appeal of the Decision made by the Design Review Committee - Hyun/JVP, Ltd.lAutoplex, Appellant On April 3, 1998, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Design Review Committee's conditional approval of DRC-98-16, based on the attached statement submitted with the appeal form (Attachment 1). The following staff reports and DRC minutes are attached as Attachment 2: Staff Report PRC Minutes December 15, 1997, February 16, 1998 and March 16, 1998 December 15, 1997 February 16, 1998 March 23, 1998 At each of the DRC meetings, the Project was considered and refined until on March 23, 1998 the DRC conditionally approved it. The letter conveying the DRC's final decision dated March 25, 1998 is also attached (Attachment 3). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Design Review Committee and deny the appeal, based on the proposed findings of fact contained in Section 5 below. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On March 23, 1998, the Design Review Committee conditionally approved DRC-98-16 by a vote of 3-1-1. DISCUSSION: 1. PrQject Description/History The Project Applicant's application, a 1,677 square foot, two story office building on a vacant 4,544 square foot parcel was proposed, along with parking and associated site improvements. This Project was originally considered by the Design Review Committee on December 15, 1997, at which time it was continued for an indeterminate period to allow the Applicant DRC-98-16: Appeal Item No.3, Page No.2 to explore the following issues, as described in the attached letter dated December 19, 1997: A. The use of reflective glass should be reevaluated. B. The site plan should be revised and possibilities for shared circulation and parking in conjunction with the neighboring parcel should be investigated. C. The conceptual landscape plan should be reconsidered. D. There should be more compatibility between this and the adjacent site and buildings. In the subsequent revised submittal for this Project, which was conditionally approved on March 23, 1998, the Applicant complied with these conditions as follows: C0111Pli~nce with Condition A. The Applicant submitted a revised materials board which indicated a less reflective glass. Both boards will be available on May 13, 1998 for review by the members of the Planning Commission. Compliance with Condition B. It is staff's understanding that the respective property owners were unable to come to any agreement on the matter of shared parking and circulation. Although preferable, in staff's opinion, joint access and circulation is not essential for either development to be able to function properly and they can operate independent of each other. Com.pli~nce with Condition C. The conceptual landscape plan was revised and approved by the Design Review Committee on March 23, 1998. Com.pliance with Condition D. The Applicant's architect revised the building's architecture to be more compatible with the adjacent site and buildings. In staff's opinion, the proposed office building offers an architecturally superior design for the Broadway window to that of the industrial-type buildings which occupy the area to the south and east. This can be seen in the elevations, cross sections and materials board. 2. Basis of Appellant's Appeal The Appellant claims that by approving DRC-98-16, several guidelines in the Design Manual related to compatibility, building placement, vehicular access and circulation, and architecture were violated. The specific citations are in the attached statement submitted by the Appellant. DRC-98-16: Appeal Item No.3, Page No.3 3. Staff's Response to Appellant's Appeal In the appeal statement, the Appellant mentions several issues as basses for overturning the approval and either denying the Project or drastically modifying it. These issues are listed below: A. Substandard lot size. B. Building setbacks. C. Building height. D. Lack of landscaping or hardscaping. E. Problematic site access. F. Lack of reasonable relationship to the surrounding Autoplex. G. Blockage of signs. H. Interference with neighboring businesses. I. Insufficient on-site parking for the proposed commercial building. Staff Responses: A. Substandard lot size - This is an issue which falls outside the purview of the Design Review Committee's authority because it is not related to design. However, notwithstanding the fact that the parcel size is nonconforming (4,544 sq.ft. vs. 5,000 sq. ft.), the Project parcel is a legal lot of record and the property owner can not be denied his/her right to develop under these circumstances. The test for development of a parcel relies on whether or not the building and associated parking fit on the parcel and whether or not the other required City standards can be met. This evaluation is done through the Design Review process and is not determined by whether or not the parcel is substandard in size. B. Building setbacks - This is a Zoning Ordinance requirement not related to design. If the building were unable to meet the setbacks, a variance would be required. The Design Review Committee does not have the authority to consider variances. It should be noted, however, that the Project site is located in the CT - Thoroughfare Commercial Zone which allows a 10 foot front setback, a zero side setback and a zero rear when abutting a zero side yard. The building meets these setbacks and a variance is not required. C. Building height - This, too, is Zoning Ordinance requirement over which the Design Review Committee has no authority to vary. Either the project meets the height or the Applicant must apply for a variance. The proposed two story building is to be 23 feet high, which is much less than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance which sets the maximum height at three and one-half stories or 45 feet. DRC-98-16: Appeal Item No.3, Page No.4 D. Lack of landscaping or hardscape - A copy of the approved landscape plan is included in the packet distributed to the members of the Planning Commission. The City's Landscape Manual states that 10% of a parking area should be utilized for landscaping. The 10% is used as a guide to break up large expanses of parking. The subject property, being small by commercial standards, has a very limited parking need and thus a combination of landscape and hardscape has been used. E. Problematic site access - This Project was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer who determined that site access is adequate for a project of this scale. F. Lack of reasonable relationship to the surrounding Autoplex - Because of concerns related to architectural compatibility with surrounding buildings, various aspects of the Project were considered by the Design Review Committee on three different occasions, as indicated in Attachment 2. Through this process, the Committee was convinced that the Project, as approved, would bear a reasonable relationship to the nearby facility. Building colors and style, although obviously for an office building, are nonetheless compatible with the Autoplex structures. G. Blockage of signs - As of the writing of this staff report, there were no signs on the west elevation of the nearest building. In addition, any signs on the adjacent building would be partially blocked by existing trees. H. Interference with neighboring businesses - Attachment 4 indicates the footprint of the approved building and the property lines for the Project, which has a 79 foot frontage on Broadway, and the area of the Autoplex, which has a frontage of approximately 300 feet, also on Broadway. The Autoplex has several entrances off of Broadway, none of which are hindered by the Project. With the exception of the opposition from the Autoplex, staff is not aware of any other opponents to the Project. I. Insufficient on-site parking for the proposed commercial building - As pointed out earlier in this report, certain requirements are addressed in the Zoning Ordinance and the project must meet these or the Applicant must apply for a variance. The Design Review Committee has no authority to vary from these requirements. It should be noted, however, that the approved building is to be 1,677 sq.ft. once built. The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per three hundred square feet (I :300). Based on the building's proposed size, 5.59 parking spaces are required (1,677/300 = 5.59). The Project contains six parking spaces. The Project meets minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking. The Project departs in minor ways from the development to the south and east due to the fact that it is an office building and not an auto repair facility. The Project nevertheless DRC-98-16: Appeal Item No.3, Page No.5 implements the spirit of the Design Manual by adhering to the overall guidance given therein. It should be noted that the opening paragraph of the introduction of the Design Manual sets the tone for the design and decision-making process involved in determining the overall development patterns in Chula Vista. This paragraph states: "The Design Manual provides guidelines to assist the city and the development community to achieve a high quality of aesthetic and functional design. The guidelines are applied in conjunction with development standards in implementing the city's design review process. Although these guidelines are expected to be followed, they are general and may be interpreted with some flexibility in order to encourage creativity on the part of project designers. " Two key words are important in this paragraph: ~uide]ines and flexihility. The Design Manual is intended to act as a guide in development projects, otherwise, the development that comes into Chula Vista would be misdirected and of a substandard quality to the rest of the County. As it now is, the development being attracted to Chula Vista is coming because of a combination of factors including, but not limited to, appropriate and flexible design guidelines, economic development, expediting of processes, quality of life factors, and flexibility in the decision-making process. The Design Manual is meant to be flexible. Without flexibility, the newer projects could turn out to be exact copies of what now exists. In cases where the design is already at very high quality, this is appropriate, but where the surrounding area's buildings are of a mixture of design quality, the decision-making process allows for flexibility, thus ensuring ever advancing architectural quality and design. 4. Conclusion It is staff's opinion that Appellant's basis for appeal and request for denial or significant modification should be denied by the Planning Commission and the original approval by the Design Review Committee upheld, based on the foregoing information. 5. Proposed FindiT\is of Fact If the Commission concurs with the recommendation to uphold the decision of the Design Review Committee, it is recommended that the following findings be included: A. The proposed Project is in overall conformance with the guidelines and standards contained in the Design Manual. B. The proposed Project is consistent with the intent and the guidelines of the "Commercial" section of the Design Manual as follows: DRC-98-16: Appeal Item No.3, Page No.6 i. The Project's scale is proportional to nearby buildings and is appropriate given the parcel size. The Project does not overwhelm facilities to the south and ease by being an out-of-character style. ii. Given the constraints on parcel size, the quality of the site planning and architecture implement the guidelines of the Design manual in that the Project's architecture, landscaping and parking layout promote an attractive, inviting, imaginative and functional arrangement. Ill. The functionality of the site is adequate because the design of the Project recognizes the importance of parking and circulation to the success or failure of this commercial enterprise in terms of ingress and egress and potential conflicts with street traffic, on-site circulation and potential conflicts between cars, pedestrians and service vehicles, and the overall configuration, efficiency and appearance of the parking area and circulation drive. Attachments 1. Appeal of April 3, 1998 2. Staff reports to and minutes of tlte DRC, as follows: Staff Renorts DRC Minutes December 15, 1997 December 15, 1997 February 16, 1998 February 16, 1998 March 16, 1998 March 23, 1998 3. Letter of March 25, 1998 conveying tlte DRC's decision on DRC-98-16 4. Property Site Plan: H&S Building/Autoplex - Broadway/Palomar (m: \bome\planniDg\martin\drc\9816\ \9816app.rpt) RESOLUTION NO. DRC-98-16A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND DENYING AN APPEAL TO DESIGN REVIEW CASE NUMBER DRC-98-16 WHEREAS, a duly verified Appeal, DRC-98-16A, appealing the Design Review Committee's approval of DRC-98-16 was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on April 3, 1998 by Hyun/JVP, Ltd./Autoplex; and WHEREAS, said appeal requested the that the conditional approval of DRC-98- 16 be reversed and denied or drastically modified by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal application 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 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., May 13, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed Project is in conformance with the guidelines and standards contained in the Design Manual. B. The proposed Project is consistent with the intent and the guidelines of the "Commercial" section of the Design Manual as follows: i. The Project's scale is proportional to nearby buildings and is appropriate given the parcel size. The Project does not overwhelm facilities to the south and ease by being an out-of- character style. ii. Given the constraints on parcel size, the quality of the site planning and architecture implement the gUidelines of the Design manual in that the Project's architecture, landscaping and parking h:\home\planning\martin\drc\9816\9816app.res Resolution No. DRC-98-16A Page No.2 layout promote an attractive, inviting, imaginative and functional arrangement. iii. The functionality of the site is adequate because the design of the Project recognizes the importance of parking and circulation to the success or failure of this commercial enterprise in terms of ingress and egress and potential conflicts with street traffic, on-site circulation and potential conflicts between cars, pedestrians and service vehicles, and the overall configuration, efficiency and appearance of the parking area and circulation drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission hereby upholds the decision of the Design Review Committee as related to its approval of DRC-98-16 and denies the Appellant's appeal. And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Appellant and the Applicant of DRC-98-16. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of May 1998 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Patty Davis, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary h:\home\planning\martin\drc\9816\9816app.res UJ/.O/~O IH~ lG:ZO fA! G1i Oil 6171 CIIULA VISTA ENGINEERING ., ~002 .- '-' D.~e ltaceiyed. l./ - 3, - ") g P.. Paid!. ~a~._ Receipt 110. ea.. Ho: 1>((. ~.- t~ -1fr;,]'1 City of Cbula Vilta P18llll1DfJ De~t APPEAL FORM Appeal troa ~ hcidon ot: _zoninq -Planning x l\uil)D Review A4I1in1stra~ ,......i..lem ..........U:t.. .... of Appellaftt: Hyun/ JVP Ltd. / Auto.plex Boa. AdGre.. lhuIinea. ~..@ 1201 North Pacific Avenue, Suite 202, Glendale, CA 91202 Send notices to: J. Michael McDade, Esq. Sullivan Wertz McDade & Wallace, 945 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101 ~j~ ~ 1415 Broadway (DRC-98-16) Projeot Dtuu:r1pt1~ft Design review of construction of 1,677 s~ ft. 2-story office bldg. Clxuple. aeme charlge, variuo., de81p review, ate) Phon- I 818' 246-8<;38 Plea.. use ~a .pace below to provide . ruponse. to the d.-=i.lon you are appulin9. ~ttach adcUtional .....t. if neoe..aary. SEE ATTACHED .-. --..--- ~. .9lt, ~.17~/.Jt:'~ Y~3-1? tur. of Appellant () Date - -- - - -- ... -- Do not 1frit.e In tbia Space The above .attar has Man aohe4uled for pmlic hearing' before the: _ Planning' "-4..1011 _ city CoImcll On 1'1ann1nq ('-i..ion s.cr.-t;ary city Clerk bY. 'I" 1:\_\.-''1\''\....-1..... ATTACHME)\l TO APPEAL FORM DECISION BEING APPEALED: The Appellant, owner of the adjoining Autoplex development hereby appeals the decision of the Design Review Committee on this project. This appeal is based on the fact that the review committee failed to discharge its duties by ignoring numerous sections of the Chula Vista Desi!!I1 Manual, and by approving this project even though it is clearly in violation. of the provisions -;f the Manual and the standards it is designed to support. The project in question seeks to develop a legal, but for all practical purposes, substandard lot. The structure design will literally fill the parcel with little or no setback, virtually no landscaping other than hardscape, and very poor access. It bears no reasonable relationship to the Autoplex which surrounds it. Virtually all adjacent properties are comfortably sited on their parcels, leaving room for adequate setbacks and attractive landscaping. The design manual, in Section 3, page 2, states "Structures should be sited in a manner that VI'ill complement adjacent structures. Sites should be developed in a coordinated manner to pro\'ide orderly diversity and to avoid jumbled confusion." In the same section, it further states "the arrangement of structures, parking and circulation areas, and open spaces, should recognize the particular characteristics of the site and should relate to the surrounding built environment in patt=, function, scale, character and materials. In developed areas, new projects should meet or exceed the sUll1dards of quality which have been set by surrounding development." On page 3 of the same section it states "Building setbacks should be proportionate to the scale of the structures and considerate of existing development. Larger structures should require more setback area for balance of scale and so as not to impose on neighboring uses." This project violates all of the above standards. In addition, the placement of this structure on its lot could not be worse. In its recommended location, it will block signage of the adjoining Autoplex and interfere with business uses there. The recommended parking and access to the building create dangerous conditions, and will lead to overburdening of adjacent parking to which this project is not entitled. The project as designed violates Section 3, pages 3 and 4, of the Manual regarding vehicular access and circulation in that it does not promote safety, efficiency and convenience. Further, the project entry will be so obscure as to encourage encroachment on adjoining properties. The project violates Section 3, page 8, of the Manual by not being architecturally compatible with the surrounding area. The height of the building will be inconsistent with adjoining development. Further, the project is totally out of scale with its surroundings. F or these stated reasons, we believe this project should be denied or drastically modified and urge the Planning Commission to take that action. 37671lDAttApplijl PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 05~13/98 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: DRC-98-16 - Appeal of the Decision made by the Design Review Committee - Hyun/NP, Ltd./Autoplex, Appellant Resolution No. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista Upholding the Decision of the Design Review Committee as related to the Conditional Approval of DRC-98-I6 On April 3, 1998, the Appellant fIled an appeal to the Design Review Committee's conditional approval of DRC-98-I6, based on the attached statement submitted with the appeal form (Attachment 1). The staff report to and minutes of the Design Review Committee of March 23, 1998 are attached (Attachment 2), as well as the letter conveying the DRC's decision dated March 25, 1998 (Attachment 3). RECOMMENDATION: That the P1anninf Commission uphold the decision of the Design Review Committee and deny the appeal. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On March 23, 1998, the Design Review Committee conditionally approved DRC-98-I6 by a vote of 3-1-1. DISCUSSION: 1. PrQject Description/History The Project Applicant's application, aI, 677 square foot, two story office building on a vacant 4,544 square foot parcel was proposed, along with parking and associated site improvements. The Applicant apparently desires to use the building for office work. This Project was originally considered by the Design Review Committee on December 15, 1997, at which time it was continued for an indeterminate period to allow the Applicant to explore the following issues, as described in the attached letter dated December 19, 1997: A. The use of reflective glass should be reevaluated. DRC-98-16: Appeal Item No. _, Page No.2 B. The site plan should be revised and possibilities for shared circulation and parking in conjunction with the neighboring parcel should be investigated. C. The conceptual landscape plan should be reconsidered. D. There should be more compatibility between this and the adjacent site and buildings. In the subsequent revised submittal for this Project, which was conditionally approved on March 23, 1998, the Applicant complied with these conditions as follows: C01T1Pli~nce with Condition A. The Applicant submitted a revised materials board which indicated a less reflective glass. Both boards will be available on May 13, 1998 for review by the members of the Planning Commission. Compliance with Condition B. It is staff's understanding that the respective property owners were unable to come to any agreement on the matter of shared parking and circulation. Although preferable, in staff's opinion, joint access and circulation is not essential for either development to be able to function properly and they can operate independent of each other. C01T1Pli~nce with Condition C. The conceptual landscape plan was revised and approved by the Design Review Committee on March 23, 1998. COTllPliance with Condition D. The Applicant's architect revised the building's architecture to be more compatible with the adjacent site and buildings. To some extent, in fact, the proposed office building is architecturally superior to the industrial-type buildings which occupy the area to the south and east. This can be seen in the elevations, cross sections and materials board. 2. Basis of Appellant's Appeal The Appellant claims that by approving DRC-98-16, several guidelines in the Design Manual related to compatibility, building placement, vehicular access and circulation, and architecture were violated. The specific citations are in the attached statement submitted by the Appellant. 5. Staff's Response to Appellant's Appeal Although it is plain that the Project departs somewhat from the development to the south and east, it, nevertheless, implements the spirit of the Design Manual by adhering to the overall gnidance given therein. Before going into specifics, however, it should be noted that the opening paragraph of the introduction of the Design Manual sets the tone for the DRC-98-16: Appeal Item No. _, Page No.3 design and decision-making process involved in determining the overall development patterns in Chula Vista. This paragraph states: "The Design Manual provides guidelines to assist the city and the development community to achieve a high quality of aesthetic and functional design. The guidelines are applied in conjunction with development standards in implementing the city's design review process. Although these guidelines are expected to be followed, they are general and may be interpreted with some flexibility in order to encourage creativity on the part of project designers. " Two key words are important in this paragraph: ~uidelines and flexibility. The Design Manual is intended to act as a guide in development projects, otherwise, the development that comes into Chula Vista would be misdirected and of a substandard quality to the rest of the County. As it now is, the development being attracted to Chula Vista is coming because of a combination of appropriate, but superior, design guidelines. economic development, quality of life factors, and flexibility in the design and decision-making process. The Design Manual is meant to be flexible. Without flexibility, the newer projects would, at a minimum, be exact copies. of what exists now. In cases where the design is already superior, this is appropriate, but where the surrounding area's buildings are of a lesser design quality than that being proposed, the design and decision-making process allows for flexibility in order to bring the area standard up. This way, when future development is built nearby, it must meet the higher set standard than it would have met in the absence of a flexible design and decision-making process. 6. Conclusion It is staff's opinion that Appellant's basis for appeal and request for denial or drastic modification should be denied by the Planning Commission and the original approval by the Design Review Committee .upheld, based on the foregoing information. Attachments 1. Appeal of April 3, 1998 2. Staff report and minutes oftlte DRC Meeting of March 23,1998 3. Letter of March 25,1998 conveying tlte DRC's decision on DRC-98-16 (m:\home\planning\martin\drt:\9816\ \9816app.:rpt) L. \ j DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. Summary Staff Report CASE NO. DRC-98-16 MEETING DATE: December 15,1997 AGENDA NO. !!-. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a 1,677 SQ. ft. 2-story office building on a vacant 4.544 sq. it. parcel, along with parking and associated site improvements. PROJECT NAME AND WCATION: Hernandez Santia!!o Office Building 1415 Broadway Chula Vista PROJECT APPUCANT: Hernandez Santiago Partnership PROJECT DESIGNER: Jose Martinez A. Environmental The Environmf:ntal Review Coordinator has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class ill exemption from CEQA. B. Recommendation Approve tills project, subject to the following conditions: 1. A proposal for a decorative fence to be incorporated into the landscape sttip along ~ north property line shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to submittal for building permits. 2. The sidewalk on the west side of the building shall be eliminated, with the exception of the area immediately adjacent to the building entrance, and shall be / DRC-98-16 -2- December 15, 1997 ~~pJaced with Jandscaping. 3. A nvised landscape plan shaH be submitted to the City Landscape Planner for review and approval prior to submittal for building permits. 4. The south elevation shall be enhanced, either by incorporation of another contrasting color band or more emphasis by way of color or width being placed on We reveal in we stucco. A proposal for the enhancement of.we south elevation shal1 be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to sUbmittal for buiJding ~rmits. 5. All roof-mounted equipment shall be ful1y concea1ed behind parapets or other architectural elements of the buiJding. 6. A graffiti-resistant or sacrificial coating shall be specified for an wall surfaces. 7. A proposal for any sign contemplated for this site shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to submittal for a sign permit. If a free-standing sign is proposed, it shal1 be a monument sign, located in a landscaped area and shall be subject to design review processing. 8. All requirements of the City Engineering Department shall be met to the sarisfaction of the City Engineer. C. Project Setting The parcel is a very small in-fill parcel on Broadway, south of Palomar Street, adjacent to a mulri-tenant automotive service center, which in fact wraps around the site to the east and south. To the nonh is the S.D.G. & E. utility easement, this portion of which is presently used for RV Storage. To the west, across Broadway, is a multi-tenant retail complex and morel. D. Project Evaluation Criteria This project is subject to the requirements of the Municipal Code, Section 19.40, the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and the City Landscape Manual and the Montgomery Specific Plan. E. Project Description The proposal is for a two-story stucco structure and six parking spaces, with one of the parking spaces (the handicap space) being tucked under the second story. Included in the proposal are other site improvements including landscaping and a trash enclosure. .. \ DRC-98-16 -3- December 15, 1997 F. Staff A.Dalysis L Project Data Assessor's Parcel Number: 622-043-07 General Plan Designation: Thoroughfare Commercial. Current Zoning: C-T-P (Thoroughfare Commercial with Precise Plan Modifier) Site Area: 4,544 sq_ ft. Building Area: 1,677 sq. ft. Required Parking: 1 space/300 sq. ft. Total: 6 spaces Parking Provided: 6 spaces Required Setbacks: Front .............10 ft. Rear ..............0 Side ..............0 2. Site Plan The proposal constitutes an innovative use of a very constrained site. Since it is unlikely that this site could have been used in any way other than the proposal, S".aff feels that a few minor concessions can r::asonably be made in the area of ~rcentage of landscaping. However, the site is surrounded by a parking lot, which presents some unique challenges, some of which have not been completely met. Vehicles parked along the north property line overhang the 2 foot wide "landscape" strip between this and the adjacent parcel. There is no room on the site to widen the strip, so it would remain a rather strange break between the two parking lots. Staff therefore recommends that something such as a decorative fence be incorporated along the north property line to accentuate the separation berween parcels. It is not clear why there is a concrete sidewalk along the front of the building adjacent to the Broadway right-of-way. Because of the shortage of planting area, staff recommends that all but the area of the sidewalk adjacent to the building entrance be eliminated and replaced with landsC3ping. DRC-98-16 -4- December 15,1997 3. Landscaping As already discussed, there is a smaller percentage of this site in landscaping than would normally be expected. Being a smaller area, it is important that. the most variety and interest be incorporated into the 1aDdscaping to gain the maximum 1>::nefit from the small area. The proposed landscape concept plan does Dot make a sufficiently strong statement and staff recommends that a revised landscape plan 1>:: submitted. . Tne revised planting plan should provide for some foundation plantings to act as tranSitional e1ements and soften the base of the building. It should also provide a wider nmge of color and, to maximize the small area, incorporate some boulders or other scu1ptural elements. 4. Architecture The building is simple but effective, using differing stucco textures, reglets and reflective glass to add interest to the building. Notes on the elevations indicate that 1k horizontal reveal (regJet) is 2" while the vertical is only 1/2". This difference does not show on the elevations, and staff feels that, were it to be indicated, the effect would be the same as on the actual building: the vertical reveal would be virtually invisible. It is not c1ear whether the reveal is proposed to be painted in a contrasting color, but doing so would provide an additional enhancement. Tne south elevation, which is probably the most visible elevation, is the plainest. Staff recognizes that building code requirements prevent incorporation of openings (windows or doors) into a wall along a property line, which limits options for enhancing that elevation. While it might not make sense to continue the spandrel ~1~5S from the northwest elevation around the south side of the building, a contrasting stucco band at the level of the spandrel gJass might give the appearance of continuation and might have a positive effect on the south elevation. That, coupled with an increased width in the vertical reveal and the incorporation of a contrnsting color in the reveal, would give more interest to the south elevation. 5. Sims No sign proposal is inc1uded in the submittal, although it is assumed that either a 'wall sign or a combination of wall and monument signs will be requested. A condition is recommended to at least require staff approval of any sign proposal. Should the applicant wish to have a freestanding sign, a condition requiring a monument sign only is recommended, approval of which could be at a staff level unless staff has concerns about the consistency of the sign design with the buiJding, . .\ DRC-98-16 -5- December 15, 1997 in which cas:: it would be rerurned to the D::sjgn Review Committee for nview and approval. G. Other Department Comments 1. En~neering Department The Engineering Department was asked to co=ent on this proposal and a copy of their response is attached. Since that response, which notes an inadequate driveway width, the plans were revised. H: \homo\p1atmiDg1A1m\C::9816.rp1JtI3 :\dn:9816.1]< , , " \ " .., ", .... .' .. , .. . .', . ..:..... .... .... , .. .............- -. ...... .' .. . . ,'" .', " . '. ,., . .:...:.-.:-'-.;..~_.~.~~-,._-- :. ..~.~~~_.~2:.~:_..;--:...:.....-~~-: :~,-.-.'_:':":";.~ .:.c.', . ....;.~_~.__ ............ . r -----...': ?!<!JJMAR Ii!OU::"'Y ~=RER ---- ~ ~,. \ '--- - ',-- S\i'oc€l ?1o\.Q\JIi>!\ ~'" ( , IN1HE '> >--,,----\ BOX ':'-. \ \ ,/'..,". \ KENTUCKY\ r . .........__ \ fRIED '-J " "CHICKEN I !'AlDMAR S~UARE '- \ I SHC?!'ING CENTER \\\1 ~ , \ \ \ \ \ " \ \ \ \ \ SMAU WORlD VlUAGE C:mER . \ ECONOMY\ \11RESi'.\ " BRAKES \ \ I I I ! 1 I ------- \.------ \ \ .. , \ --- .... -~-- '\...------'\ '< --\ '.,....---- \ , , \ i 0....- ~""""" AVENuE --.---.J 1 \ \ '------ \ \ r- I I I I I ! i 5AN DIEGO GAS & :: -" 1 rilC IJT1UTY EASEII'.3iT i ! \ I;L ----------- \~PROJECT ------- \ LOCATION i \ \ , --------------~ .. \, \ .. \ \ .. \ " \ \ , BROADWAY AlITO CENTER " \ \ \ \ .. \ \ \ \ , \ , \ \ \ .... ;",' , . " .... '" . ....... .. .., . ....:::-:.......:....'..: ...... .' -':', ", ~ . '.. , , .~ \ \ -- .J ," ....:..: , ME M C ~,~~Mrg lovember 17,1997 'Uul }) ~':t'Q1~~..J!~dder~Peas~~1.~~g:t~~p.~~ep;~ VIA: Clifford L. Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director/Cit~p7 Engineer . ~ FROM: James A. Hutchison, Acting Senior CiVil. Engineer~. ~ Ralph R. Leyva, Senior civil Enginee~&f;t (; Design Review Application for 1403 B~adway. (your File No. DRC-98-16). SUBJECT: The Public Works Department has reviewed the subj ect proposal. We do not propose the inclusion of any conditions of approval for a Design Review. However, we request that you provide the applicant with the following information: 1. The following fees will be required, based on the final building plans submitted: a. Sewer Connection Fees b. Development Impact Fees c. Traffic Signal Fee 2. The Engineering Division will require the applicant to obtain a construction permit to perform any work in the city's right of way, which may include, but is not limited to: a. One Driveway approach per A.D.A. standards b. Place one R-10 one-way sign on the center island 3. Inadequate space provided in driveway area, the minimum width is twenty-four feet. 4. Driveway approach is to be perpendicular to the curb line. The applicant is to be advised that there may be requirements set at the time his/her development takes place and/or a building permit is applied for, depending upon final plans submitted for building permits. This response is based solely on the plans that were submitted for our review. JP (M:\home\enq1nee:\permits\drazg530.jp cc: Ken Lee, Planning Department Permits I~' Design Review Committee 3 December 15, 1997 4. DRC-98-16 Hernandez Santiago Office Building ]415 Broadwav A 1. 677 SQ. ft. 2-storv office buildine: on a vacant 4.544 sq. ft. parcel, alomi with parking and associated site improvements Staff Presentation Design Review Coordinator, Ms. Ann Pedder Pease, reviewed the proposed project which cOJJSist of a two-story stucco structure and six parking spaces, landscaping, a trash enclosure, and other site improvements. Ms. Pease reviewed the site plan, and explained possible concerns that the adjacent neighbors might have. She stated to the Committee that staff would like to see the elevatioJJS enhanced. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Jose Martinez, project designer. reviewed the proposed project and the parking. He indicated to the Committee that he did not have any concerns with staff's recommendatioJJS. Public Input Two major issues were noted by representatives of the neighboring adjacent property owner: ingress and egress is limited, and the elevation facing south property line is to plain. Committee's Discussion/Concerns During discussioJJS, the Committee concurred that the building was not compatible with the neighboring automotive service center. Other areas of concerns expressed by the Committee were: lack of articulation on the south elevation; fencing; minimal landscaping; signage; and the use of reflective glass. The Committee agreed that the project should be continued to allow the project designer some time to address the issues of concern. They indicated that when the project does come back to them they would like to see; a detailed site plan, detailed landscape plan, a revised architectural design, a driveway/paving plan, and for the applicant to eliminate the use of reflective glass. ~\ Design Review Com=ittec:: 4 December 15, 1997 MSC (Spethman/Araiza) (4-0) to approve the continuance of DRC-98-16. There was no date specific. DESIGN REVIEW COMJ\UIT~E Summary Staff Report CASE NO. DRC-98-16 MEETING DATE: Februarv 16,1998 AGENDA NO. --L BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Con~truct a 1.677 SQ. ft. 2-storv office buiJdiIW on a vacant 4544 sQ, ft. parcel. alonr with parkiIW and ~~socjated site improvements. PROJECT NA..ME AND LOCATION: Hernandez Sanriafo Office BuiJdjn~ 1415 Broadway Cbula Vista PROJECT APPUCANT: Hernandez Sanria~o Partnership PROJECT DESIGNER: Jose Martinez A. Environmental The Emrironmental Review Coordinator has dete~ that the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class ill exemption from CEQA. B. Recommendation Staff r=mmends that the Design Review Committee conditionally approve this subject to the conditions listed below. 1. Staff recommends that the trash enclosure be relocated to its originally proposed location as it is too visible at the new location just off Broadway and that the revised landscape plan show it near the llOrtheast corner with enhanced landscaping.. In addition, staff recommends that elevations of the trash enclosure be submitted for review by the Zoning Admini~trator to ensure that the design, treatment and details match the proposed building. 2. Staff recommends that this addition be architecturally integrated with the proposed 51TUcmre by: a.. Adding the "Flute Detail" (No.9 on the Elevations Plan) to the top of this structure. DRC-98-16 -2- Febnxary 16, 1998 b. Matching the south wall of this strucmre to the "Smcco Plaster Heavy Textured" fInish (No.7 on the Elevations Plan) as it is the same plane as the enhancement. c. The east -wall should also reflect the "Stucco Plaster Heavy Textured" detaiL 3. StaffrecoJDJDends that the buildIDg be narrowed in order to aCcommodate the 19' parking stall and 24' back-up requirements. 4. Staff recommends that the revised landscape plan show this one foot wide step-out and that this be review by the Landscape P1aDner. 5. Staff recommends that the Applicant execute a lot consolidation through the Engineering Department prior to the submittal for building permits. C. Implementation of Previo1L~ Condition~ of Approval On December 15, 1997 the Design Review Committee continued this project until the Applicant could explore the following issues: 1. The use of reflective glass should be reevaluated. Evaluation: The Applicant has submitted a new materials board showing a smoked glass finish to the building's windows. This glass is less reflective than that originally proposed. 2. The site plan should be revised and possibilities for shared circulation and parking in conjunction with the neighboring parcel should be investigated. Evaluation: The eastern access point to the project site has been widened. This will allow easier ingress and egress from and to the adjacent the property. 3. The conceptua1landscape plan should be reconsidered. Evaluation: The revised landscape plan has the lrash enclosure moved from the northeast corner of the property to approximately 10 feet inside the property line Dear the northwest corner. Landscaping surrounds it on three sides, especially along the west side. Staff recommends that the trash enclosure be relocated to its oriVnlllly proposed location as it is too visible at the new location just off Broadway and that the revised landscape plan show it near the northeast comer with enhanced landscaping. In addition, staff recommends that elevations of the 1rash enclosure be submitted for review by the - Zoning DRC-98-16 - 3- February 16, 1998 A. nmini<;trator to ensure that the design, treatment and details match the proposed building. Additional landscaping has been added along the western frontage of the .building in a wider landscaped buffer. Stamped, colored concrete has also been added at the building's front and across the driveway. Llmdscaping near the southeast corner has been reduced due to the introduction of a utility room and SDG&E room. Still, there are two trees, an understory and groundcover. 4. There should be more compatibility between this and the adjacent site and buildings. The glass tent, accent and textured colors are more in keeping with the colors of the existing buildings on the auto service complex to the south and east. In addition to the above, the following items were included ill the staff report and were listed as conditioDS of project approval. How the Applicant has implemented each condition is evalua!ed: I. A proposal for a decorative fence to be incorporated into the landscape strip along the north property line shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to submittal for building permits. Evaluation: .As, mentioned earlier in this report, a decorative, 'Wrought iron and pilaster fence is shown along the most of the length of the northern property line. There appears to be a gap immediately behind the trash enclosure, however, and this gap should be :filled to ensure complete screening. 2. The sidewalk on the west side of the bUilding shall be e~ated, with the exceprion of the area immediately adjacent to the building entrance, and shall be replaced with . landscaping. Evaluation: The Applicant has revised the landscape plan and included landscaping in this area. 3, Arevised landscape plan sha1l be submitted to the City Landscape Planner for review and approval prior to submittal for building permits. This condition will be implemented prior to submittal for building permits. DRC-98-16 -4- February ]6, 1998 4, Tne south eJevation shall be enhanced, either by incorporation of another contrasting color band Dr more emphasis by way of color or width being placed on the reveal in the stucco. A proposal for the enhancement of the south 'elevation shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to submittal for building permits. . Evaluation: The Applicant's architect has added enhancements on the south elevation by framing two panels of ~ building in stucco plasteF that will be heavy textured and contrasts with the proposed light textured stu= .color of the primary wall. The framed portions of the primary wall is recessed about one foot from the surrounding enhancement and has reveals aligned with the windows on the other elevations. 5. All roof-mounted equipment shall be fully concealed behind parapets or other architectural elements of the building. Evaluation: This will be enforced at the building' permit application phase. 6. A graffiti-resistant or sacrificial coating shall be specified for all wall surfaces. Evaluation: This will be enforced at the building permit application phase. 7. A proposal for any sign contemplated for this site shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to submittal for a sign permit. If a free-standing sign is proposed, it shall be a monument sign, located in a landscaped area and shall be subject to design review processing. Evaluation: This will be implemented at such time as the Applicant submits an application for a plarmed sign program. 8. All requirements of the City Eng}neering Department shal1 be met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Evaluation: This will be enforced at the building permit application phase. D. Issues Related to the Revised Plans Staff has evaluated the Applicant's revised plans and recommends that the following conditions be added to those above, subject to approval by the Zoning Arlministrator: 1. The revised plans include a utility room and SDG&E electric room. Stafr recommends that this addition be architecturally integrated with the proposed structure by: DRC-98-16 -5- February 16, 1998 a. Adding the "flute Detail" (No.9 on the Elevations Plan) to the top of this sirncture. b. Matrhing the south wall of this structure to the "Stucco Plaster Heavy Textured" finish (No.7 on the Elevations Plan) as it is the same plane as the enhancement. . c. The east wall should also reflect the "Stucco Plaster Heavy Textured" detail. 2. With the addition of the decorative wall, the parking stalls are too short at 18'. The back-up area is the 24' standard width, but the building :fills the Tem~in;ng space to the property line. Staff recommends that the building be narrowed in order to accommodate the 19' parking stall and 24 ' back-up requirements. 3. .t>u any point where a parking stall is next to a landscaped area on either the driver or passenger side, a one foot wide step-out strip needs to be added in the planter. Staff recommends that the revised landscape plan show this one foot wide step-ont and that this be review by the Landscape Planner. 4. Upon reView of the Comer Record submitted by the Applicant, the Engineering Department has determined that a lot consolidation map must be executed prior to submittal for building permits. The recordation of this document will secure owner rights to construct on the portion of Lot 7, Map 729 that is shown as part of the overall project. ., MTh'UTES OF A REGULAR MEETNG OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMJVl.lllt.;E Mondav. Februarv 16. 1998 4:30 p.m. Conference Rooms, 2 and 3 A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rodriguez, M=bers. Spethman, Araiza, Mor10n MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Aguilar (4-0) to approve absence STAFF PRESENT: Martin Miller, Acting Senior Plarmer Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Rodriguez made an opening statement explaining the Design Review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themseJves verbally for the tape. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None D. PRESE.'\'TATION OF PROJECTS 4. DRC-98-16 .Hernandez Santiago Office Building 1415 Broadwav A 1. 677 SQ. ft. 2-storv office building on a vacant 4.544 sq. ft. Darcel. along with parking and associated site improvements Staff Presentation Acting Senior Planner, Mr. Martin Miller, reviewed the proposed project which consists of a two-story stucco sn-ucture and six parking spaces, landscaping, a trash enclosure, and other site improvements. Mr. Miller reviewed staff recommendations which included moving the trash enclosure to the southwest corner of the project site. He also D~sign Revi~w Commit! 2 February 16, 1998 indicar::d that staff would like to see details on the utility room with the same "flute detail" and heavy srucco plaster texrure shown on the main buiJding. Mr. MiIJer reviewed the remaining staff recommendations listed in the staff repon. Mr. Ken Lee reviewed the concerns that were brought up by representati,:es of the neighboring property at the December 15, 1997 meeting, which focused on the ingress/egress, and the lack of anicularion on the south elevation. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Jose Maninez, project designer, reviewed the proposed project and stated that he had no concerns with moving the trash enclosure. He indicated to the Co=ittee thai he did not oppose to the remaining staff reco=endarions. Mr. Hernandez reviewed the proposed fencing for the project. Comminee's Discussion/Concerns During discussions, th~ Committee concluded that th~ "fluting" at th~ top of the building was not necessary, and that comparibiliry with the neighboring automorive service center could b~ accomplished with the building colors. Other areas of concerns expressed by the Committee were: the trash enclosure - the Committee would like to see this moved to the rear of the sir::; elevations - should reflect a continuous scheme on all sides of the building; fencing - details integrated with the building elevarions; the utility room should be architecrurally integrated with the proposed structure. It was noted that Committe~ would like to see a detailed landscape plan, and samples of the tile materials. The Committee agreed that the project should be continued to allow the project designer some rim~ to address the issues of concern. Public Innut The property owner, and a representative of the neighboring adjacent property owner spoke in opposirion to the project as proposed. They expressed concerns with the ingress and egress, and still felt that the project was not architecturaIJy compatible with the existing automotive service center, noting: the proposed building was taller than the existing auto center buildings and was not proposed split face block to match the center. MSUC (Rodriguez/Araiza) (5-0) to approve the continuance of DRC-98-16. There was no date specific. Design Review Commit. E. STAFF COMME]\TS None F. MEMBERS COMME!\'TS None G. .~JOUJl~~NT Meeting adjourned at 6:26 p.m. e-p;1tk-tH~ a~ 1- ' Maur~~n Casper, Recorder H: ihomo \planning Imo ',] -16-98 .min 3 February 16, 1998 " DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Summary Staff Report CASE NO. DRC-98-] 6 MEETING DATE: March] 6. ] 998 AGENDA NO. ...L BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: COI1struct a 1.677 SQ. ft, 2-storv office bui]din~ on a vacant 4.544 sQ, ft, parcel. alo~ with parki~ and pssociated site improvements. PROJECT KAME A.'ND LOCATION: Hernandez Santja~o Office BuiJdin2 1415 Broadwav Cbula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: Hern~ndez Santi~o PartJ1ership PROJECT DESIGNER: Jose Martinez A. ~ack:round At its meering of February 16, 1998, the Design Review Committee directed that this project be returned for Committee review and consideration for approval. The specific conditions to be addressed by the Applicant and Project Designer are as follows: 1. Staff recommends that the trasb enclosure be relocated to its originally proposed location (NEC) as it is too visible at the new location just off Broadway (NWC) and that the revised landscape plan sbow it near the northeast corner with enhanced landscaping. In addition, staff recommends that elevations of the trash enclosure be submitted for review by the Zoning Administrator to ensure that the design, trea1:nient and details match the proposed building. Compliance with Condition: The revised plans show the trash' enclosure in from of the utility/SDG&E rooms, rather than at the northeast comer. This still allows an appropriately sized handicapped parking stall to be placed as has always been proposed and allows adequate space for the trash trUck. In addi1ion, an enhanced londscaped area is now shown a1 the northeast comer. The proposed location is acceptable to staff. 2. Staff recommends that the utility and SDG&E room addition be architecturally integrated with the proposed structUre by: ) DRC-98-16 -2- March 16, 1998 a. Matching the south wall of this strucrure to the "Srucco Plaster Heavy Textured" fInish (No. 7 on the ElevatioDS Plan) as it is the same plane as the enhancement. Compliance with Condition: The Applicant he:; complied with this condition. b. The east wall should also reflect the "Srucco Plaster,Heavy Textured" detail. Comvliance with Condition: The Applicant has complied with this condition. c. Submitting samples of the srucco texture and color. Compliance with Condition: The Applicant he:; complied with this condition. 3. S:a:ff recommends that the building be narrowed in order to accommodate the 19' parking stall and 24' back-up requirements, or tha1 the planting strip be deleted and tree wells & grates be installed. Compliance with Condition: The Applicant he:; complied with this condition l:Jy deleting the plmIIer along the northern wall and replacing it with four half diamond tree spots. This he:; increased the size of the parking stalls to 19 feet in length and allaws a 24 feet back-up area with no reduction in building size. 4. S:a:ff recommends that the revised landscape plan show a one foot wide st.ep-out for the parking spaces adjacent to landscape planters and that this be reviewed by the Landscape Planner. Compliance with Condition: The revised landscape plan does not show this element for parking stalls 1 and 5. Staff confinues to recommend this element which can be incorporated into the landscape plans at the construction &tage of the Project. 5. Staff recommends that the Applicant execute a lot consolidation through the Engineering Department prior to the submittal for building permits. Compliance with Condition: The Applicant has agreed to do this. 6. A detailed landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect shall be submitted. Compliance with Condition: The Applicant has complied with this condition. Please see the enclosed detailed landscape plan. DRC-98-16 -3- March 16, 1998 7. Submit sampl~s of the quarry ston~ and ceramic tiJ~s that will b~ placed across th~ driveway and at the enrrance of the building. Compliance with Condition: The Applica711 has complied with this condition. Samples will be presemed a1 the Committee meeting on March ]6, ]998. 8. Carry the architectural treatment (heavy stucco plaster) aroupd the eastern and northern elevations and architecturally integrate these faces into the rest of th~ building. Compliance with Condition: The Architect has done this on the eastern elevation bllt has not carried the treatmem all the way lITound on the northern elevation. Staff recommends that the northern elevation be revised to indicate treatment completely along the top of the building to 11li1tch the other elevations. 9. Bring this Project back to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. Compliance with Condition: This Project is scheduled for the DRC meeting of March 16, 1998. B. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee conditionally approve DRC-98-16 with th~ following conditions: 1. Revis~ the landscape plan to show a one foot wid~ step-out for the parkiDg spaces adjacent to landscap~ planters. This shall be submitted to the Zoning Adminisrrator prior to submittal for building p~rmits for revi~w and approval. 2. Submit revised elevations to the Zoning Adminiotrator prior to the submittal for building permits to show the heavy stucco plaster treatment around the top of northern elevation of the building to match the other elevations. MINL'TES OF A SPECL-U. MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMIITEE Mondav. Mar::h 23. 1998 4:30 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 and 3 A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESR'/\,"T: Members Spethman. Aguilar, Araiza. Morlon MEMBERS ABSE..1\,'T: Chairman Rodriguez (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Martin Miller, Acting Senior Planner Ken Lee Assistant PI~nnin" Director , ~ B. Th'TRODUCTORY REMARKS Acrin~ Chair, Michael Spethman, made an opening statement explaining the Design Review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sigu in and identifY themselves verbally for the tape. C. APPROV.-U. OF MINUTES MSC (Aguilar/Morlon) (4-0) to approve the minutes for March 2, 1998, with a change in the Introductory Remarks section to reflect Michael Spethman, as acting Chair, making the opening statement. MSC (Spethm~n/Araiza) (3-0-1) to approve the minutes for February 16, 1998. Memrer A!!Uilar .abstained, she did not attend the meeting. - . MSC (Spethm~n/Araiza) (4-0) to continue the minutes for January 19, 1998, to the next scbeduled meeting due to lack of quorum. MSC (Spethman/Aguilar) (3-0-1) to approve the minutes for October 6, 1997, with a change IO page 5, second to the last paragrapb, third line; change the word 'but' to 'that'. Morlon abstained since he was not on the Committee at this time. D~sign Revi~w Committe~ 2 March 23, 1998 D. PRESTh'TATlON OF PROJECTS 1. DRC-98-16 Hernandez Santia!!o Office Building l4l5 Broadwav A 1.677 so. ft, 2-storv office builclin!i on a vacant 4_544 so. ft. parcel. alolli! with parkin!! and associated site improvements Staff Presentation Acri11~ Senior Planner, Mr. Manin Miller, noted that this item was continued from a previous meeting and explained the changes made to the site plan which include the new lo::ation of the trash enc:losure. He continued his presentation referring to the staff report on the remaining staff reco=endations, and pointed out that the applicant has complied with or agrees to implemem Conditions 2-6. Mr. Miller presented to the Committee, the samples of the quan)' stone and ceramic tile that were reing proposed for the driveway and the entrance of the building. He also pointed out 10 the Committee that the applicant is willing 10 carry the architecmral treaun::nt on the eastern elevation around to the northern elevation. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Jose Maninez, project designer, briefly reviewed the proposed project confrrming that h~ has made changes to the north eievation, carrying the architecmral theme around the building. Members and Applicant reviewed/discussed the issue Tegarding the changes made to the north elevation. Public Inpm Mr. McDade, an anorney representing the neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the project as proposed. He stated that the building design was not good, the proposed building hides the neighboring signage, and the project is in violation of the City's design guidelines. Design Review Committee 3 March 23, 1998 Comminee's Discussion/Concerns Memb::r Aguilar asked Mr. McDade, what specific guidelines he felt were being vioIared. He mentioned landscape requirements, compatibility 10 surrounding neighborhood, vehicular access, and site entry. . Memb::r Spethman asked staff if they felt the project was in any ,:iolation of the design guidelines. Mr. Ken Lee, Assistant PI~nn;n,g Director, responded stating that in staff s view, they are no violations and they are comfortable with the proposed pro]e::l. During discussions, the Committee concluded that it was not necessary to cany the archit::...'"IIJIal treattnent on the eastern elevation around 10 the northern elevation. It was noted by member Spethman 1:hat he would like the slate maxerial and stamped concrere professionally sealed. MSC (Spethm~nlMorlon) (3-1-1) (Spethman opposed) to approve DRC-98-16 subject to the conditions listed in the staffrepon with the following changes and/or additions: condo 1 as is; condo 2a, b c as is; condition 3-6 as is; condo 7 to include - the approach shall be compatible to the proposed stare, the narrow band on the site plan sball be elimin~ted, and replaced with stamped concrete, and the stamped concrete and slar:: quany stone sball be professionally sealed; delete condo 8, condo 9 has been met; delete recommendations B 1 & 2. Irem 3 was Iaken out of order because the applicant's for hem 2 were not present at the time. 2. DRC-97-13 Bur!!er King Mex Insurance Bid!!. 99 Bonita Road Monument Silm Staff Presentation Acting Senior Planner Mr, Martin Miller reviewed the sign location and proposal, poiDTin~ out that the previous sign is being replaced by a combination monument sign for Burger King and Mex Insurance. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Roger Swift reviewed the monument sign proposal and stated that they tied it in with the buildings all ready under construction. Design Review Committee 4 March 23, 1998 Committee Discussion/Concerns The Committee and the applicant discussed the sign treatment, mau:ria1s, an~ .the size. Members Araiza and Aguilar expressM strong concerns with the size of the monument sign. Assistant Director Lee clarified tbe City sign standards, and stated that the applicant is well within the limits. Mem~ Araiza stated that he would like to see the sign reduced in size, including the can. Because of one member being absent, and the possibility of the vote being split on the approval, it was mentioned to the applicant that they could either appeal the decision to the Planning Commission, or request the item to be continued to the next meeting in hopes of having a quorom for an approval vote. The applicant stated that if they could not get this resolved tonight with the DRC m..'"D1bers that are present, that they would prefer to have the item continued. Acting Chair moved to have the item continued. The motion was delayed due to further discussion on the matter. Member AguiliIr srated that she would be able to support the sign proposal with a reduction in the size. The motion was amended. MSC (SpetbmanlMorlon) (3-1-1) (Araiza opposed) 10 approve DRC-97-13 with the condition that there be an overall reduction of the sign, maint~inin~ a reasonable proportion between the sign cabinet and the can. Thf: review and approval shall be handled at sraff level. 3. DRC-98-28 South Bav Familv YMCA N""EC Paseo Ranchero & Paseo Ma~da Si!!I1 Packa~e Staff Presentation Assistant Pl~nning Director Lee, reviewed the total sign proposal which consists of two additional signs on the trellis canopy structure at the main entrance, the facilities name near the southeast corner of the building on the east elevation, and the YMCA logo and the words "South Bay Family YMCA" on the west/rear elevation. Applicant's Presentation There were no representatives at the meeting. Design Review Comminee 5 March 23, 1998 Co=inee Discussion/Concerns There were no concerns noted by the Committee m..'"II1bers, with the exception of the necessity of having 3 YMCA signs on the canopy stmc:ture at the main entrance. MSC (Spethman/Morlon) (4-0-1) to approve DRC-97-28 with the .condition that the two additional signs being proposed on the canopy structure be e1iminated. E. STAFF COMME1I."TS No~ F. MEMBERS COMMEJ\"TS None ~. C\-( G. ADJOURNME1\'T Meerin~ adjourned at 6:15 p.m. L ;%/7 /7 A,.. /.( ~1' (;2/../-'" ,~...,...,. ; ~-, A<'--1' / / ~ MauTI:t:n Casper, RecCmler H: Ihomelplanninglmo \3- 23-98.min . - ~~~ =--..,.~ '=--'~~~ - - -- - - ~ 01Y OF CHUlA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 25, 1998 Mr. Jose Martinez 10525 Vista Sorrento Parkway Suire 120 San Diego, CA 92121 SUBJECT: DRC-98-16 - Proposal to construct a 1,677 sq. ft. 2-story office buildingJlt 1415 Broadway, ChuJa Vista. Dear Mr. Martinez: On March 23, 1998, the Design Review Qunmittf'P. considered the site plan and design for the proposal to construct a 1,677 sq. ft. 2-story office building at 1415 Broadway, Chula Vista. The Committee, after hearing staff's presentation and receiving comments from neighboring businesses and property owners, nn:mimously voted 3 to 1 to conditionally approve the project, subject to the following conditions: 1. Develop the project as shown on the BJ>proved plans unless otherwise modiI1ed herein, including locating the trash enclosure at the northeast or southeast corners of the Project Site. Approved plans include page A-O, Site Plan dated 3/16/98, with changes; page A-I, Floor Plan dated 3/16/98;-Jlage A-2, Roof Plan dated 3/16/98; page A-3, Elevations dated' 3/16/98, with changes; page A-4, Sections dated 3/16/98; page P-l, Planting Plan (undated); page 1-1, Irrigation Plan (undated); page D-l, SpriDkJer Schedule & Legend (undated); page D-2, Planting Details (undated); and Page D-3, Irrigation Details (n1)cj,.t..~). - 2. Architecturally integrate the utility and SDG&E rooms into the proposed structure by: a. Jvf ~tr;hi11g the south wall of this structure to the . Stucco Plaster Heavy Textured" finish (No. 7 on the Elevations Plan) JIS it is the same plane as the enhancement. b. The east wall should also reflect the "Stucco Plaster Heavy Textured" detail. c. Submitting samples of the stucco texture and color. 3. The revised plans as listed in Condition No.1 above allow for appropriately sized parking spaces and back-upllTea, thus not requiring a reduction in the bllililing size. 276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 9191011619\ 69'-0'01 DRC-98-16 -2- March 25, 1998 4. IncorpOrate the one foot wide step-Qut in the landscape planters next to parking spaces into the landscape/planting plan. The revised site plan shows this one foot wide step-out for the parking spaces adjacent to landscape planters. 5. Execute a lot consolidation through the Engineering Department prior to the submittal for building permits. 6. Implement the detailed landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape approved by the Design Review Committee. 7. The approach at the front eIllTanCe shall be covered by the slate quarry stone approved by the Design Review Committee and shall be professionally sealed. The narrow band shown on the site plan around the quarry tile shall be eliminated. The three foot wide stamped concrete area shown on the site plan across the driveway entrance shall be eliminated and replaced with an enlarged area ten foot wide stamped concrete area that begins at the western property line and covers the entire driveway width. This stamped concrete shall march the color and texture of the slate quarry stone. Both the stamped concrete and slate quarry stone shall be professionally sealed. 8. This condition was deleted by the Design Review Committee. You have the right to appeal this decision to the .planning Commission. A completed appeal form, along with a deposit amount of $2,000 must be received by this offIce within 10 days of the date of this letter. Forms are available from the Planning Department. In the absence of said appeal, the decision of the Design Review Committee is final. If you have any questions.regarding the above, please call me at (619)476-5335 at your convenience. Sincerely, I ._ 1f~~ ~---- ~ Miller Senior Planner (Acting) cc: Jorge Hernandez, Property Owner Tahn Hyun, Property Owner, Auto Plex Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director City Clerk h:___"""""6\IIIIl00ppJo' I"",TV n~ ("'1-11 I! II "1C"TII --.>----- Prop~Hy sHe PitHI AmopJex - nroadwlytPatontlr The Propert).: 1403 - 1421 Broadway . Chula Vista. Cillibrnla . - ct CJ S ! 106 - E .. co 0 103 0 109 - .... .... .... .. .. j, = ~U I " I " I II = , ) = 11427 105 - ~ - nHOAIJWAY '----.,- 108/1 09 " c:::::> 101 , 10T ;-- Olllllllllllt=:J , ,- , 109 ;-- >- ~< 105 . ~ : . ~ 103 L-O L-~ L- ~ L- VI L-- 101 L--~ ~" <:::7 -~ 1403 BROAbw A Y /l'tot Ii!!L_ '0' L ~tol ;~;t~- 111 (II IIIIIIII11 0 IIII ) II I 0 IIIIIII I'D 1409 UIlOAlJW A Y .r- .~~ = - I ~ . I i. . , 1-- . ::p.~~~ ' , - 'PItOJH.T ~'1-r E) 1) Rt.-98-lbA Agenda -2- April 8, 1998 3. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC 98.16; Appeal of the decision made by the Design Review Committee - Hyun/JVP, Ltd./Autoplex, Appellant. DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to the Workshop Meeting of May 20,1998 COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 585-5647, California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired, H:\HOME\PLANNING\DIANA\PCAGENDA.DV AGENDA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Chula Vista, California 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 13, 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. I. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 98-15; An amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan to add additional lands in the Proctor Valley Parcel to the area currently designated as the first conveyance. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-21; Consideration of an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) to allow reduction in Village Core densities. PCM 98-16; Consideration of an amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan on property generally located on 1,110 acres south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future SR-125 alignment. PCS 98-04; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map for 101.4 acres of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 98-04, generally located off the southern extension of Otay Lakes Road, south of Telegraph Canyon Road, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 4 Meeting Date: 04/13/98 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: SUPS-98-04 - Request to Operate a Public/Quasi-Public Institutional Use at 691 Oxford Street in the COop (Office Commercial - Precise Plan) Zone - Palomar Station, LLC BACKGROUND: The Applicant, Palomar Station, LLC, is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit in order to lease their property to the County of San Diego who proposes to operate the Family Resources Center at 691 Oxford Street in the COop (Office Commercial - Precise Plan) Zone. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the Project is generally exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act. At its meeting of April 7, 1998, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Rezone for the subject property. The GPA involved amending the General Plan Land Use Diagram for the subject property to change the designation from Open Space/Research & Limited Manufacturing to Professional & Administrative Commercial, while the Rewne involved changing the property's wning from R-I (Res. Single Family) and IL-P (Industrial Limited - Precise Plan overlay) to COop (Office Commercial- Precise Plan). RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department and Community Development Department staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. SUPS-98-04 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. approving the request for a Special Use Permit to operate a Public/Quasi-Public land use in the COop Zone. DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics The seven acre project site is located on the north side and at the westerly terminus of Oxford Street. To the north of the Project site is Harborside Elementary School. To the east is Costco, while to the south are industrial and commercial land uses. To the west is the San Diego Trolley and Industrial Boulevard. There is no direct access to either the trolley line or to Industrial Boulevard. Across Industrial Boulevard are multi-family dwellings and a mobile home park. Page No.2, Item: Meeting Date: 04/13/98 2. General Plan .Zoni~ and Land Use: Site: North: South: East: West: GENERAL PLAN Prof & Admin. Comm. ResLM/P-QP OS/R&LM Retail Commercial ResM ZONING COop R-3P9/Rl CC-P/IL-P CC R-3/MHP CURRENT I AND USE Vacant Residential/School Commercial & Industrial Commercial Multi-family/MobileHome Park OS = Open Space R&LM = Research & Limited Manufacturing ResLM = Residential Low Medium (3-6 du/ac) ResMF = Residential Medium (6-11 du/ac) P-QP = Public/Quasi-Public CC = Central Commercial 3. PrQposa] At this time the Applicant is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit for a public/quasi-public land use. If the Special Use Permit is approved, the Applicant will move forward with a Design Review proposal, DRC-98-37, which will eventually come before the Redevelopment Agency for final approval. Briefly, the Design Review is for a 74,000 square foot, two story, 45 foot high office building that will house the Family Resources Center. In the mean time, certain land use decisions must be made in order to allow further contractual negotiations to move forward between the Applicant and the County of San Diego. The Applicant wishes to lease his property to the County of San Diego who proposes to operate the Family Resources Center at this location. Typical daily activity will involve members of the public visiting the premises to meet with County of San Diego employees representing various County departments such as Health Services, IHSS (In Home Supportive Services), GAIN (Greater Avenues for Independence) and Income Maintenance. The approximate number of County employees is 400. 4. Public Forum A public forum on this Project was held on April 16, 1998 at Harborside Elementary School. Approximately five people from the neighborhood attended. After presentations on the project and the public hearing processes involved, those in attendance asked questions related to access, traffic, and security. It was explained that all access would be from Oxford Street, that no access, either vehicular or pedestrian, would be from Naples Page No.3, Item: Meeting Date: 04/13/98 Street. A security fIrm would ensure security through on-site personnel and closed circuit video. At the end of the forum, it was staff's impression that none of the area residents were opposed to the Project. 5. Analysis The primary issues identified by staff are as follows: a. Public/Quasi-Public Nature of the Land Use - The proposed land use will, as mentioned, generate approximately 400 jobs at this location. These jobs will, in some cases, be transfers from existing County facilities in Chula Vista, while others will come from outside Chula Vista. The intent is to centralize what are now several different services scattered around the South Bay in one location in order to better serve the public. By its nature, the facility will provide services to families who are in need of certain types of assistance from the County. It is estimated that approximately 1,500 people will visit the facility on a normal day. However, this number is expected to diminish over time due to changes in welfare laws. b. Parking - The site plan indicates a parking capacity of 536 spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires one space per 300 square feet of area for office uses. The proposed 74,000 square foot building would normally need a minimum of about 250 spaces. c. Access to the Trolley - As part of the development of this Project, the Applicant is negotiating with MTDB to develop a parcel that extends south from the Oxford Street cul-de-sac to Palomar Street near the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. This parcel is also part of the SDG&E easement that cuts across portions of Chula Vista. Across from this parcel at the southeast corner of Palomar and Industrial Boulevard is the Palomar Trolley Station. The intent is to develop this parcel as a small pedestrian park with direct access from the Family Resources Center to the Palomar Trolley Station. d. Vehicular Access - All vehicular access will be from Oxford Street at two points: one at the easterly property line and the second near the cul-de-sac bulb. No access is planned nor will be allowed as part of this approval from Naples Street next to Harborside Elementary School. Page No.4, Item: Meeting Date: 04/13/98 6. Conclusion Staff has concluded that the subject site is an appropriate location for the proposed Public/Quasi-Public land use. The conclusion is based on the facts presented in the foregoing sections of this staff report. Attachments 1. Locator Map, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations (h: \home\planning\martin\palomar\9804pc.rpt) RESOLUTION NO. SUPS-98-04 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY GRANT SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPS-98-04 FOR A PUBLlC/QUASI-PULlC USE OPEN TO BE LOCATED AT THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF OXFORD STREET WHEREAS, a duly verified application, SUPS-98-04, for a Special Use Permit was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on April 13, 1998 by Mr. Bennet Greenwald on behalf of Palomar Station, LLC; and WHEREAS, said application requested the approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a public/quasi-public land use, to wit, the San Diego County Family Resources Center; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator recommends the adoption of the Negative Declaration for IS-97-24; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Special Use Permit application 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 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m. December 10, 1997 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-97-24. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval of a Special Use Permit is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice support the approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Special Use Permit SUPS-98-04 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached City Council Resolution No. h :\home\planning\martin\palomar\9804pc.res Resolution No. SUPS-98-04 Page No.2 And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of May 1998 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Patty Davis, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary h :\home\planning\martin\palomar\9804pc.res D R AFT RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SOUTH BAY HEALTH & IRJMAN SERVICES AGENCY FAMILY RESOURCES CENTER AT 675 OXFORD STREET RECITALS WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as 675 Oxford Street; and WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Special Use Permit SUPS-98-04 ( Permit) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April 13, 1998 by Palomar Station, LLC (Applicant): and WHEREAS, said application requests approval of subject Special Use Permit to establish, operate and mainttin the San Diego County South Bay Health & Human Services Agency Family Resource Center at 675 Oxford Street located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the request for the subject Special Use Permit and determined that said Permit is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on May 13, 1998 and voted to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to the Redevelopment Agency approval of the Permit; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on said Permit application 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 May 19, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Redevelopment Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed. (H:\shared\commdev\resos\9804ra.res) Resolution No. _ Page #2 PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Permit held on May 13, 1998 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY hereby approves the special use permit based on the following findings and all other reports, evidence and testimony presented with respect to the proposed use, and subject to the following terms and conditions. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The following findings are required by the Southwest Redevelopment Plan which governs the issuance of special use permits. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby sets forth the following evidentiary basis for approval of the proposed Project: A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribnte to the general well being of the neighborhood or the commnnity. The proposed San Diego County South Bay Health & Human Services Agency Family Resource Center is desirable in that it will provide needed County services to residents of Chula Vista at a One-Stop Center by consolidating several agencies currently located throughout the City. B. That such use will not under the circmnstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The operation of the San Diego County South Bay Health & Human Services Agency Family Resources Center will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity in that it will be conducted in a manner as to avoid any potential impacts to the vicinity. C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Special Use Permit SUPS-98-04 is conditioned to require the Applicants owner to fulfill conditions and to comply with all the applicable regulations and standards specified in the Municipal Code for such use. (H: \shared\conundev\resos\9804ra. res) Resolution No. Page #3 D. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The granting of SUPS-98-04 will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General Plan in that the County facility and programs will be located in new building customized to meet the requirements of the operation of County programs and built pursuant to the General Plan, the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. GRANT OF PERMIT The Redevelopment Agency hereby conditionally grants the Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions, whereby the Applicant shall: I. Operate the Project as submitted to and approved by the Agency, except as modified herein and/or as required by the Municipal Code, and as detailed in the project description. 2. Comply with and implement all provisions and conditions of DRC-98-36, as approved by the Chula Vista Design Review Committee. 3. Comply with all City ordinances, standards, and policies except as otherwise provided in this Resolution. Any violation of City ordinances, standards, and policies, or of any condition of approval of this Special Use Permit, or of any provision of the Municipal Code, as determined by the Director of Planning, shall be grounds for revocation or modification of this Special Use Permit by the City of Chula Vista. 4. Execute the attached Agreement indicating that you have read, understand and agreed to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will implement same. 5. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 6. This Special Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. (H:\shared\commdev\resos\9804ra.res) Resolution No. Page #4 7. Pay all costs associated with implementing any of the above conditions of approval. 8. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, the Redevelopment Agency members, the City Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Special Use Permit, (b) Agency's or City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and <I:> Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ah initio. THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY 1998. Presented by Approved as to form by Chris Salomone Community Development Director John M. Kaheny City Attorney (H:\shared\cooundev\re8os\9804ra.res) AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND PALOMAR STATION, LLC PROPERTY OWNER OF 675 OXFORD STREET RELATED TO CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPS-98-04 The property owner/Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and Applicants have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained in Resolution No. , and will implement same to the satisfaction of the City. Upon execution, this document and a copy of Resolution No. shall he recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirty days of recordation to the Planning Department shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owner/Applicant 675 Oxford Street Date Resolution No. ..,' ~, PAlDMAR COMMERCE CENTER IT Jr ~ '---..r- ~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT 675 Oxford Street ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SPECIAL USE PERMIT I DESIGN REVIEW Request: Publlc-Ouasl-Publlc proposal for a 74,000 sq. II. ofIIce bulking. C5 PROJECT Palomar Station LLC APPUCANT: SCALE: I ALE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale SUPS-98-04! DRC-98-37 h:\home\planning\carlos~ocators\sups9804.cdr 4/23/98 ~ 5-07-1998 8,07AM )---JI(-. - · i~.I:. nl~ ~U I ----.....-.....J ----- 'i " ... 'Ii~ ~i!~ ------- .,----- 1Nw -. .. !.,~~. I -----......,:\ ------" ,::r--....._ ~i' 11 t I r I...... " . 1! ! I~~ - . t 1@5 E- I' (~--t+-i+.[---------...../~-O~~-;:-..... ~ ~ < L' .-...... ""'._ ..:>Tkr"':--.. ~ "i. I'( JI I -.-......... ..................[r ~ ~ '/11 -_ ......... __ e i, : : --'. ..__......... '___ j ii, i i I i~. ------..... ----__ ---_:::::--....... I l' II !!~I ---_ --". -0_ ,: ~: ---.... -.-.... -..-.- CIJ ::j m -0 r; Z ~ :;u :::! ,> C "--'~ .":>1.1ilii I I I I I I il ;1 il I I I I I I I I i FROM SILLMAN/WYMAN 6195521563 ~ ~11~~IIIII~lljl;IIIII';;::-! ~fll~11111 ~i 1111111~lllii i ii i I " I I II I : J ~ : : :: i i :i : . " , " : Ii ,,1 \ , \1 I , " I , I, I I II I : :: : I 1\ 1 -~" i ii fA- I"'~ : II: -", III! - 'III _.' . " , . I II" : :J:: .. '''I' _ I III' ,",, - I ",I I Iii' ] II" ,...' - : 1::1f1= ''',1 t IIII I IIL1 ...... 1:::\ - IIIII _ i.~ifii ____ i~i:~: y iSiil!i -" !,..!:!:'- i~ii::&= 19.1111~ iviil I: '.~ I "I' IIIII : :::: 11111 I II" I} I "I' I "I' J 1',1 J "'! I II" , ",\ , "" , "II , II" ",,'- c:JiI. ! ii ii..)::N :JI~ H III II II IfTTTTTTTG_,,-e:} , 11,1 __. 111\1 I II,. , II" j "" I III' , ",' , "II 1'1" , '1,1 : ili: : :::i I "I' I :::i I I!:: , "I' 11111 , I." ,,,,, , "1' , II" , "II I III' ___on 1 II" , : J::I -:-- ....,-_.._-.........._.,,_._.~..__.-.-._._...........-_._.,_ i 1j !i. r-~-';,-- ~~OR~. 3r~~~~-- ---.- 11,,1 I : ;!1! L""'-' -.----- , , " liili&'.. ~ I I'''''' 1 Hi: . iil:i. : I '"11 . . , 1\,1 "'" . "I . "" '.:\ : ::11.\\. j.~ i :~i \ ! =- ~111~f1 ~III~_UI~ -~ i-g =- =~. I I (J ~~ =0 -= (-- ~~ ;:;::-- :--'. - ~8 - ~~ . .", .--- -= :::D ~ flllll~IIII~llftttt8 ~ -~~~~~~- ~. F.... .:n....:::,CEIImI I~I! I 1I1n= ....... ~tiil1 P_2 ~I.;r~ ~,,~-;-: :i.'E=' il~Jb II~if~~~ I !ji~~_ . !!! '~IIIIIItJ!!.lIIm. 'il~ I.~ :~'''.,\r.~ Ij~'-'---~- !i~ li~~ ~!~t~ ~~ -~~ I ~~! -/~L\ ..r..~ ~- -'- ~~i"! I L".~I ~m'l. "nG I !"!.. !! Ii ~i~ . .1 I ~ I 'il"/ I . h I'i! .a .1'1 ' i. s,<J,'. J 1-" i C ~~~:~~ I !I~~~ Ii!';' 6 i,J~i alii 21" , 'BILLMAN I WYMAN. INC.H1-... H-:- I ".ROK'UCTun . ....'IIIEERI..ITI-rrT-;:j 5-07-1998 8,08AM FROM SILLMAN/WYMAN 6195521563 P.3 r---' - - - r ,= , .............- ~ 0 n 0 z ., 0 : m = "'II -I ::!] t~!.__. ~ I = -I 5 ~ "'II i I Ie r.---o"..- -,---.-""../ ~""- r=-"~ I'N~,.tiilil F__y IIEII_ CBtIBR ~~ -.nt .ay "',' ;.. FLOOR Pl6111 ISILLMAN I WYMAN, INC. H-t::. H-I- I ",.C"'T~CTU." . E..,.Ii!!.... R=J=::=,::-rn- ~ 5-07-1998 8,08AM t='~ I. ",:.I,.tiJll ! ~ i m q ~ en ~ o z 1:;1 "TI .... o g " > Z e FROM SILLMAN/WYMAN 6195521563 .- - - r-- + , , I I I I , , , .---lI1<jl--i. t. ...::. : -- +. -- +--- I ! ! I ; t = - 'r- j I .... - !..L.___+.. 1 ' I ------.--t-.- ! ' , I I ------+---.-+ ~ " -----J~- I _____ - I " I I j ~--'--~':-- _. ------+--". -+----" ! ' . "l <- .-- - --- -J '-- -1- -- ,;F==;-" ~ " I I , , i-!.I-~ r I I , I . I I I I I I . I I I T ' I ' I , 'I I , I . l ' ".__-.., > I V : I , I ._______~_.J ~ I 1- .,. ~. - - P.4 I U I P--Y __ Q1I'I1!II .wIN ." FLOOR PLAN I~I- . ISILLMAN / WYMAN, INC.H~I--:_ H-I~ .NDHIYEDYUN. . .N.'NEEN'." rrr -rr-r- -;--: 5-07-1998 8,09AM ,..-,-:,.....1 -....~. .....1.1:111 FROM SILLMAN/WYMAN 6195521563 P.5 t; . t, " .... I I ..... ! is I I ~ IS ... ~ , ~ Jt-... m ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ gCl tI' C a 0 ~ !:fD 0 Q 2: Z - - Z ~ ~ ~ - - - - 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ c IJ 00 r:I CI C EJ - , 1;1 0 gO DC 0 Q -, ~ ~ !f - I ~ cp g g .. . 0 ~ O~ d (J f I t :t~.. , , -I -I P-., ____' IlClUTllIlAY ElEVAllOIIIS 'SILLMAN I WYMAN, INC.N..,-:- H"i- __ .'O=,'IIYUTIIU . n.,....,..[JJ""" ---,r--r-.,-